The Good and the Bad

[physics-fan3.14]

Well, first the good: I sent in 5 coins under Economy Crossover, and they got to Florida, graded, slabbed, and returned in less than 2 weeks. Lightning fast service from NGC!

 

Now, the bad: My coins generally didn't do as well as I hoped.

 

1882 5C MS 61 --> formerly ANACS MS-61PL

1940 D 10C MS 64 FB --> formerly ANACS MS-63 FB PL

1940 S 50C MS 63* --> formerly ACG MS-65 PL

1980 S $1 NOT PL --> still ANACS MS-64 PL

1994 D WORLD CUP S$1 MS 69 PL --> formerly PCGS MS-69

 

I'm pleased with the * on the Walker (although I still think it should be a PL), and I'm not surprised by the shield nickel. What I'm most surprised at though, is that the Merc didn't get even a star - its quite reflective in hand! Anyways, pictures of the coins are below:

 

[TomB]

The four coins that did not receive the PL designation all appear to be toned to one extent or another. Do you think that NGC generally withholds the PL designation from coins with appreciable amounts of toning?

[physics-fan3.14]

It is well known that they are more hesitant to grant PL's to thickly toned coins, but none of the ones here should have prevented that.

[Walkerfan]

Personally, I would have been very satisfied with the NGC 1940 S 50C MS 63*. I had some real doubts about that coin.

 

The 1882 5C MS 61 --> formerly ANACS MS-61PL & the 1980 S SBA $1 NOT PL --> still ANACS MS-64 PL may have been a let down.

 

But the 1940 D 10C MS 64 FB --> formerly ANACS MS-63 FB PL & the 1994 D WORLD CUP S$1 MS 69 PL --> formerly PCGS MS-69 both upgraded, which is also good,

 

Even though you didn't get a PL designation on your 1940 D 10C. NGC is much more conservative than ANACS when awarding a PL designation. The star, well, that could have gone either way. I'd have to see this coin in hand....It may be better than the picture.

 

 

 

[SkyMan]

Win some, lose some. The coins are still attractive no matter what the label says... (thumbs u

[WoodenJefferson]

Those "S" minted Walkers are tough to grade...ACG had that one beyond belief. I know you did not pay 65PL money for that coin, at least NGC saw it's merits and gave her a *staring* role.

[Schatzy]

WOW....that 1980-S still didn't make make PL at NGC......I guess it never will.

I think that the 10C had too much toning for ngc. I have a world cup that is totally pl but it didn't get it do to rim toning on the obverse.

[physics-fan3.14]

Just to clarify: the dime looks dark in the pictures due to the prooflike fields, not because of toning. In hand, it is bright and flashy, except for the golden rim toning. And here is an example of a well toned coin that they still called PL:

 

[Walkerfan]

That's interesting to note and a good example that shows what to look for. It's an awesome Morgan with great color on the right side! That is the same side that the fields appear to be more PL to me. :thumbsup:

[dimefreak]

Out of curiosity have you ever owned a PL merc? I only ask because I have seen a couple handfuls but they were given a star opposed to the PL designation.

[physics-fan3.14]

Out of curiosity have you ever owned a PL merc? I only ask because I have seen a couple handfuls but they were given a star opposed to the PL designation.

 

Yes, two. I previously owned a 65 FB PL which I sold when I upgraded to my current 67 FB PL. Both of them were 1941S. I have posted pics of both below. The 40D in question above is every bit as reflective as the 67 FB PL I currently own.

 

65 FB PL:

 

67 FB PL:

[James_OldeTowne]

I can only say that you have some gorgeous coins of prooflike or semi-prooflike character, and that ANACS was more prone to handing out "PL" designations than NGC.

[eggbone]

Nice group. I do, especially do like the half.