REDFIELD's and their MS65 designation accuracy.

[JOBESSI]

I just sent a bunch of Redfield's in to get graded. They are all designated MS65 on the red leather encasing. Out of 10, only one came back MS65(1897P Morgan), the rest were 3 MS64, 4 MS63, 2 MS62. What would you say are the actual percentages of Redfield's grading accuracy, and have you ever heard of any grading higher than MS65. (In a 65 designated holder not the green ones).

[Arizonadesertrat]

The grading was not done by Redfield---he was an eccentric multimillionaire who distrusted the federal government, and habitually bought bags of silver dollars (and threw them down a coal chute into his basement). As I recall, Paramount did the grading and marketing (and obtained the coins after his death). And yes, by today's standards, few of those coins would grade 65.

[James_OldeTowne]

Out of 10, only one came back MS65(1897P Morgan), the rest were 3 MS64, 4 MS63, 2 MS62.

Actually, you beat the odds! In my experience, Redfield Morgans almost never warrant MS-65. The majority that I've seen are MS-61/2.

 

MOST of the time, Redfield toning is plain ugly, but there are exceptions.

[BillJones]

James is right. I've almost never seen a Redfield dollar that graded MS-65.

 

The red slab inserts with "MS-65" on them were all about marketing. At the time those coins were sold, most dealers and collectors would not have graded the coins MS-65 even though the standards for MS-65 in those pre-NGC and PCGS days were lower. In general, in the 1970s, if a Morgan dollar had a clean cheek, the coin was graded MS-65 even with marks in the fields.

[Frank Provasek]

The grading was correct for the time period (late 1970s). Silver dollars were commonly adertised as MS60 (Uncirculated) MS65 (Choice) and MS70 (Gem)

 

An MS65 from that era would be equivalent to around MS62-64 today.

[coinman_23885]

The grading was correct for the time period (late 1970s). Silver dollars were commonly adertised as MS60 (Uncirculated) MS65 (Choice) and MS70 (Gem)

 

An MS65 from that era would be equivalent to around MS62-64 today.

 

Wasn't MS63 also an original MS designation in the 1970s?

[e1cnr]

I think when those were originally sold the entire uncirculated realm consisted of

 

MS60, MS63, MS65

[Conder101]

When those were graded Paramount was about the only firm that used MS grading and there were NO standards for the MS grades. The MS grades did not come into widespread use until the ANA published the first edition of their official grading guide in 1978, more than six years after the Redfields were graded and disbursed. And the only "official" MS grades in the first guide were MS-60, MS-65, and MS-70 with 70 being considered a more or less theoretical grade that would never actually be used. MS-63 didn't come into use until 1980.

 

So at the time of the Redfield gradings there were really only two grades 60 and 65. If a coin was better than a 60, say by today's standards a 62 or 63, it would be graded as a 65. Therefor by the standards in use at the time, the Redfields were correctly graded. (Towards the end of the Redfield grading period they did start using MS-63 by using red label making tape to put a 63 over the 65 on the red insert holders. The tape was applied to the insert before it was sealed in the slab. These are fairly scarce to rare.)

[ianrussell]

I think that's why NGC doesn't grade Redfields in the holder (like they do with GSA dollars). The grades are all over the place, and as a previous poster said, MS-65s are rare in MS-65 Redfield holders.

 

- Ian

[Old Pueblo]

Could someone post a Redfield holder (casing) for me?

 

Thanks

 

OP

[James_OldeTowne]

When those were graded Paramount was about the only firm that used MS grading and there were NO standards for the MS grades. The MS grades did not come into widespread use until the ANA published the first edition of their official grading guide in 1978

That's what I was thinking, as well. It's easy to see from numismatic advertisments through the mid-1970s that UNC dollar were simply described as UNC, BU, and sometimes "GEM".

 

"Prooflike" or "proof quality" was badly overused back then, by today's notion of the term.

 

It is no surprise that MS-65 covers a vast range of Redfield dollars, from coins we would call MS-60 up through MS-67.

 

The best Redfield coin I've ever seen MIGHT grade MS-66 on a good day, and I've seen maybe three or four that could have been gems.

[JOBESSI]

In that case, do you think the 1897p redfield that was graded ms65 by NGC would carry any additional premium?

 

[JOBESSI]

BTW, thanks for all the great history behind the redfield! That's why I am so glad to frequent these message boards!

[James_OldeTowne]

In that case, do you think the 1897p redfield that was graded ms65 by NGC would carry any additional premium?

If the coin is nice, a very small premium might apply. But my experience is that most collectors do not look for the Redfield pedigree.

[JOBESSI]

That sounds like a good type registry set. TRUE MS65+ Redfield Dollars.

[Arizonadesertrat]

That sounds like a good type registry set. TRUE MS65+ Redfield Dollars.

 

Good luck with that---you could spend a decade looking and only wind up with a handful.

[JOBESSI]

That sounds like a good type registry set. TRUE MS65+ Redfield Dollars.

 

Good luck with that---you could spend a decade looking and only wind up with a handful.

 

Which only solidifies the validity of such a type set. I bet it took just as long for the #1 ranks in any major set just as long to amass their sets. This should be fun!

[mtnstyne]

Could someone post a Redfield holder (casing) for me?

 

Thanks

 

OP

 

Redfield Auction on eBay

 

The third line on the packaging says "Mint State 65"