MarkFeld

Thanks.

That would be by far, the most likely reason I could think of, though the coin doesn’t look it in the picture. Bobby, does the coin look close to ultra cameo, in hand?

I have a hard time believing that I wouldn’t be able to determine that one was more appealing to me than the other.

Here are some additional characteristics that appear to earn stars: One sided PL coins, cameos that just miss deep cameo, coins that are semi-PL on each side, but which miss the PL designation, exceptionally lustrous/flashy examples.

I’d definitely decide which I’d prefer on a coin by coin basis. There are plenty of star coins and plus coins that I don’t like, as well as plenty of both that I think are great.

I’ll take your word for it. Good luck.

Jason, I’m under the impression that you’re extremely well versed on PL coins. That said, based just upon the video, I wouldn’t expect the coin to receive a PL designation. Do you feel that the video accurately conveys the degree of reflectiveness?

No need for a picture - it’s a circulated common date wheat cent with an asking price of $500.

I hear that a lot and it appears to be true. I want to stress that the following are merely my opinions... While it’s counterintuitive to me, I believe that the ultra rarities are graded more liberally than coins of lesser value and importance. The major grading companies want the numismatic prizes in their holders and play a game of who’s willing to grade them higher in order to achieve that. If I remember correctly, one particularly conspicuous and important example is the King of Siam 1834 Proof set. I believe that over the years, a number of the coins in the set have migrated between PCGS and NGC and have received grade increases of one or more points. Never mind, that it’s not like they started out with conservative grades, either. There are other examples of significant grade increases for1804 Dollars,1913 Liberty Nickels and so on. Regarding ranking of the ultra rarities - that’s a lot easier to do (with grades) when there are only between 5 and15 known examples of a particular coin, than when there are dozens, hundreds or thousands. After all, in a perfect world, wouldn’t all coins be ranked correctly by accurate grades?

But their values don’t necessarily increase. Where have you been the past several years?

With respect to such coins, it appears that the main motive on the part of the grading companies is to get them into their holders, and keep them out of the competition’s holders.

Best of luck to you in your search. And I think that a person need not have wealth in order to live with dignity.

I think in the vast majority of cases, the explanation is merely the allure of money - the pot of gold. It causes people to see what they want to see.

What’s your theory on that?

That is not the DDO, which is very distinctive - see here: https://www.ngccoin.com/coin-explorer/lincoln-cents-memorial-reverse-1959-2008-pscid-100/1969-s-doubled-die-obv-1c-ms-ucid-22GJ

I don't know whether you're trying to be funny or if you're being serious. Regardless, first, AU58 is a grade, not a designation. And second, my guess is that you're not expert at grading colonials and have no business mocking the coin or its graders. But even if I'm wrong and you are expert, there are more civil ways to make your point. I think perhaps, you just covet attention, and I'm done responding to any of your posts.

Shipwreck coins aren’t anymore objectively graded than any other coins. Some of your comments are baffling.

The 1794 dollar coming up for auction isn’t a similar piece to the one that brought $10 million - it’s the same coin.

Mark “Felt“ has not posted here, but I have. There are a number of YouTube videos that put out incorrect “information”. I receive inquiries about 1964 SMS coins, just about every week.

I don’t think you’ll get an answer. The coins were produced more than 50 years ago and if (as many believe) they were experimental, there are likely no records of them.

Excellent!

If you look at on-line images of a number of 1965-1967 SMS coins you should be able to see how they differ from business strike examples.

I have a hard time believing that there wasn't a more formal way of distinguishing Proof coins from business strikes/circulation strikes, than using the term "change".

I don’t think you’ll get noticeably different feedback about the coin here, from what you got on the PCGS forum.

With respect to the lack of the term “business strike” in 1964, what were non-proof coins/non-mint set coins that were made for commerce, called at that time?