Grades are in from submission ATS

[Dwaine]

Line # Item # Cert # PCGS No. CoinDate Denomination Variety Country Grade

1 1 13578043 7202 1890-S $1 US Scratch or Rim Nick

2 1 13578044 7300 1921-S $1 US MS64

3 1 13578045 7270 1900-S $1 US MS64

4 1 13578046 7081 1878-CC $1 US MS64PL

5 1 13578047 7173 1887 $1 US MS63PL

6 1 13578048 7163 1885-O $1 US MS64PL

7 1 13578049 7182 1888 $1 US MS65

8 1 13578050 9291 1936 50C Columbia US MS66

 

[robec1347]

Looks pretty good to me Dwaine. How do you feel you came out? I would be very happy with those results, especially knowing how tight grading has been.

[jtryka]

Ditto, 3 PLs seems pretty good, thought I haven't seen the coins.

[jgrinz]

1878-CC $1 US MS64PL

[michael]

a good submission with great results

 

you might have to resubmit the 90-s again

[Dwaine]

Somewhat happy but yet disappointed. Here is what I was expecting:

 

1890-S MS-65

1921-S MS-65

1900-S MS-65

1878-CC MS-64 PL

1887-P MS-64 DPL

1885-O MS-63 DPL

1888-P MS-65

Columbia, SC MS-66

 

[michael]

pcgs is for the most part being irrationally tight

 

 

within the last year or so

 

due to CAC and mucho liability already in holders

 

 

 

 

[Dwaine]

Photos are in:

 

[physics-fan3.14]

I really like that 1900. If the PCGS picture is anything like what it looks like in hand, that is a sweet coin.

[James_OldeTowne]

Based on the images, the grades seem fair, although it's tough to capture PL characteristics.

[coinman1794]

Somewhat happy but yet disappointed. Here is what I was expecting:

 

1890-S MS-65

1921-S MS-65

1900-S MS-65

1878-CC MS-64 PL

1887-P MS-64 DPL

1885-O MS-63 DPL

1888-P MS-65

Columbia, SC MS-66

 

NGC has been very hard on PL and especially DPL over the past 12 months or so. I have had a number of dissapointments over that period, trying to get DPLs. However, I have also found them very willing to doungrade DPLs (down to PL) that don't quite meet the current standards. I would designation review the coins if you feel strongly, or send them to PCGS (though I'm not sure how they are on DMPL right now).

 

[Oldtrader3]

IMHO, the 1900-S and the 1921-S should be graded MS65. I think that Michael is correct that the liability and CAC is making PCGS overly conservative in their grading.

[MarkFeld]

IMHO, the 1900-S and the 1921-S should be graded MS65. I think that Michael is correct that the liability and CAC is making PCGS overly conservative in their grading.

Many of the PCGS images make the coins appear lighter/brighter than they are in person AND mask flaws. Also, for coins like those, at least, I doubt that PCGS would be the least bit concerned about what CAC or anyone else thought of them.

[EZ_E]

The 1900 S looks like a slam-dunk 65 to me and the 1888 is a 66!

[MarkFeld]

The 1900 S looks like a slam-dunk 65 to me and the 1888 is a 66!

Agreed, but that is based on images, which I bet are flattering to the apparent technical condition/grade of the coins.

[MikeKing]

very; nice coins, Dwaine!