Coin grading acronym PRAG
2 2

14 posts in this topic

Can someone please explain more of this "PrAg" for me?  I recently purchased this 21 Peace dollar  (cert #4275968009), and it is STUNNING. I have quite a few high qualtity 21s, and this is by FAR the best one.  Side by side with my MS66, the 66 looks doesn't look nearly as nice.  The pix do it little to no justice.  Using a crappy phone for a camera

 

20210212_184626.jpg

20210212_184608.jpg

20210212_184349.jpg

20210212_184328.jpg

Edited by sbrac
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, sbrac said:

Can someone please explain more of this "PrAg" for me?  I recently purchased this 21 Peace dollar  (cert #4275968009), and it is STUNNING. I have quite a few high qualtity 21s, and this is by FAR the best one.  Side by side with my MS66, the 66 looks doesn't look nearly as nice.  The pix do it little to no justice.  Using a crappy phone for a camera

 

Welcome to the forum.

The grades of Poor to About Good, which is what "PrAg" means in this thread, have nothing to do with your coin. Those grades describe a coin that is worn almost smooth, and your coin is obviously not in that kind of shape. I have to say, though, that your pictures definitely do not make your coin look anywhere as nice as the MS66 coin that you also posted. In fact, your coin does not look uncirculated at all. Enlarging your pictures shows numerous tics and hits, and what  appears to be wear. There is also very little luster showing, especially compared to your other coin. Sorry to be such a downer on your first thread, but I am just calling it like I see it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, sbrac said:

  I recently purchased this 21 Peace dollar  (cert #4275968009), and it is STUNNING. I have quite a few high qualtity 21s, and this is by FAR the best one.  Side by side with my MS66, the 66 looks doesn't look nearly as nice.  The pix do it little to no justice.  Using a crappy phone for a camera.

Compare your 1921s to the one posted on the US & Foreign forum. The best one you show looks well above average in detail, but a better photo is needed. The NGC photo shows considerable cleaning which would explain the lack of a "grade."

Edited by RWB
Link to post
Share on other sites

JustBob, thanks for the welcome.  I just noticed that it said that was my first post.  Strange, I wonder what happened to my post history.  Been a posting member on here for 8 years.  But back to the bear in the corner.

Like you, I also think that the grade PrAg should have nothing to do with my coin.  Yet there it is when I look up my cert on the NGC registry.  Been doin this for a while now, but until last night, I had never seen that designation.  Somehow that one slipped past me.  As for ya being a downer, no need to worry about that.  I'm way too old and been doin this far too long too be sensitive, and you gave your honest opinion.  I respect that.  I agree that the photos show all the tics, hits, chatter, and wrinkles that a 100 year old broad would have on her face.  I'm sure it will be a while before I get to it, but I WILL get some better pix of her and circled back to this post.  Definitely.  One day.  Probably.  In the meantime I am just scratching my bald spot trying to figure out HOW this one got a "POOR almost GOOD" certification.  She has HIGH amount of detail, and is not worn

 I have to say, though, that your pictures definitely do not make your coin look anywhere as nice as the MS66 coin that you also posted. In fact, your coin does not look uncirculated at all. Enlarging your pictures shows numerous tics and hits, and what  appears to be wear. There is also very little luster showing, especially compared to your other coin. Sorry to be such a downer on your first thread, but I am just calling it like I see it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, sbrac said:

There is also very little luster showing, especially compared to your other coin. Sorry to be such a downer on your first thread, but I am just calling it like I see it.

What collectors call luster is the visual result of metal movement on the surface of a die. A new die had little or no luster, but this develops quickly during use. 1921 Peace dollars were made in two batches. Many coins from the first batch of about 100,000 pieces have limited or no luster - the dies broke too frequently for it to develop. The remaining 900,000 were made at lower pressure to better preserve dies, and many of these have excellent luster.

1921 Peace dollar with the best detail likely were made the first day and will have little or no luster.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/13/2021 at 9:38 AM, RWB said:

What collectors call luster is the visual result of metal movement on the surface of a die. A new die had little or no luster, but this develops quickly during use. 1921 Peace dollars were made in two batches. Many coins from the first batch of about 100,000 pieces have limited or no luster - the dies broke too frequently for it to develop. The remaining 900,000 were made at lower pressure to better preserve dies, and many of these have excellent luster.

1921 Peace dollar with the best detail likely were made the first day and will have little or no luster.

This is absolutely correct, but you’ll never convince that charlatan who is the Chief Moderator over at CT. He has his own “unshakable things he believes that are frequently absolute BS” with which he repeatedly and regularly misinforms his members over at CT. Luster comes from flow lines, but he has his own different views, and insists upon them despite the fact that only he holds them.

Edited by VKurtB
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
2 2