James_OldeTowne

Mark, that's correct. My point was that within only the mint-state grades for Morgan dollars, a simple designation could explode the number of grades to 180, which all by itself is much worse than the (already-exaggerated) 70 points previously referenced.

I hate to say it, and of course, this is going by photos only (the coin not in-hand), but that's a pretty decent fake. I own some recent counterfeits as well and need to dig them out for comparison.

That does look strike-related, rather than post-mint. A counting wheel can cause the same effect and you would see the surrounding area also well abraded, but I am not seeing that in your photos.

That dime is pretty awesome!

It does not look like a doubled-die to me.

Seventy?? It's MUCH worse than that. Let's take an imaginary trip three years into the future when Morgan dollars now qualify for a new strike designation called: Full Ear Wax, or "FEW" for short. For JUST ONE NUMERIC GRADE, you might have at least the following permutations: MS-63 MS-63 PL MS-63 DMPL MS-63+ MS-63+ PL MS-63+ DMPL MS-63 FEW MS-63 PL FEW MS-63 DMPL FEW MS-63+ FEW MS-63+ PL FEW MS-63+ DMPL FEW That's TWELVE different columns of bid/ask values on your greysheet, and not only that - the non-plus grades qualify for CAC stickers, bringing you now to EIGHTEEN VALUE points. FOR JUST ONE NUMERIC GRADE! And THIS now gets multiplied by ten for the ten possible grade levels (I'm skipping MS-70) which brings us to grand total of one-hundred-eighty grade stratums .... JUST within the mint-state range for Morgan dollars. The day is coming when it'll be impossible to even print a greysheet or view one on a screen - you'll have to download an app, input all the numbers and tacked on designations, and let it ping a supercomputer to spit out the results of a mystery formula to tell you what your 1881-S MS-63 prooflike FEW Morgan dollar retails for exactly $147.28 .... at least for the next three minutes.

This thread overall seems to have dissolved into something weird and a little sad, but if I understand the underlying purpose, then my answer is: Yes.

I doubt it would ever happen, but I think a separate third-party "registry broker" would work - a corporate entity independent of both PCGS and NGC. That way, it could permit coins from all services to be entered (or possibly even non-certified coins). That would make the whole process fair and square - heck, I might even participate in something like that.

I have never put anyone on any sort of "ignore" list. The closest analogy I can think of is, when I was in charge of auctions at a former company, over time I had to ban three people from consigning due to their shill-bidding practices. But I remained friends with two of them. So take that for what it's worth.

Please please please... NO MORE DESIGNATIONS. Trying to refine something that is SUBJECTIVE to an infinite degree only worsens the hobby with useless noise.

To me, the photos appear to depict a counterfeit.

The photos appear to depict an intentionally-damaged, but otherwise normal cent.

Generally it's referred to as "counting machine damage".

Not sure what you mean by "proven", but I've had some of my slabs for around 30 years just sitting in normal NGC boxes, with no additional protection (other than a normal environment, not an attic or basement) and they all look just fine.

I looked at the reverse to determine my opinion of "not genuine".

Oh wow, I had completely forgotten about these! Thanks for the memory!

Coincidentally, I just cataloged one in an old ANACS MS-65 5-steps holder - one of the few "modern" coins I really covet.

Going only by your photos, I would not certify any of those.

Those are quite common, but for some reason, that holed design has always appealed to me. I once saw a fairly large group of UNC examples strung together with a leather (?) cord for sale at a coin show, and have often wished I'd bought them and put them away.

I'm posting this in the Newbie section in hopes of getting some interesting discussion that might be helpful to Newbies (or, heck I'll admit it - to me!) Traditionally, for U.S. coins, I've always considered "select unc" to mean, MS-60 to MS-62, "choice unc" to mean MS-63, and "gem unc" to indicate MS-65. For myself, I've invented "very choice unc" to mean MS-64, and "very gem" to mean MS-66, and it seems like "superb unc" is used by some to indicate MS-67. I have no idea what to call MS-68 and MS-69, but obviously, MS-70 is "perfect uncirculated". What are your thoughts? And on the same topic, I have found myself falling into the habit of calling "plus" coins "strong", i.e. MS-64+ could be referred to as "strong very choice". For some reason, I really don't like stating "plus" as part of the grade, perhaps because back in the old days, the ANA grading guide explicitly prohibited using a "+" as part of a coin's grade. What say you?

I wonder if it might make more sense (and of course, if the opportunity arises) to purchase these in larger volume? Sorry to hear that those evil "customs" things drive up prices so much!

Good idea - nice to know that Sarah is an important part of the VAMily ...

Even though I've seen many of these, they are certainly not my specialty area (as if I would even have one....). However, it look suspicious to me and I would not pay $6 for it. It's a much better risk for something like 25-cents. Sorry.

Well, you must remember that it's in "Great shape".

Definitely not genuine. I am glad you posted the weight, but even without it, I suspect most everyone here would have recognized that as a fake silver dollar.