1892 CC - GTG

[Colorado68]

 

The obverse has violet toning going on.

 

What do you guess?

 

[Raisethis2]

Boy, that's a tough coin. The reverse is sorta, kinda, PL and exhibits unc characteristics. The obverse has field chatter left, right and obviously to the right of the date. The cheek, neck, sideburn area and nose seem to show some contact with other coins perhaps. The severity of that contact is everything with this coin IMO. I'm guessing it's way more superficial than I'm interpreting.

MS 63 ish? Perhaps a touch less?

[wdrob]

There are some that will insist that the value of a coin does not enter into the grading equation and that all grades are given based solely on sound grading practices with only a minor amount of subjectivity in the mix.

 

This coin, I think, could have the makings for a poster child; a prime example of next level value of the coin dictating the grade and not the coin its self.

 

I see MS65 and I will guess that coin was given a MS64+

 

Either that or I am full of you know what and it has a rub that put it into a AU58.

 

 

[coinman_23885]

63 shot 64 given the leniency that Carson City coins seem to be given by the grading services

[SWNGC]

63

 

[Hack]

The contact on the coin looks to me at MS 62, but I am going to go with the rub on cheek, bun, breast and guess AU58.

[jpcienkus]

Lovely coin. Reverse is very clean. It might be the lighting, but I think there's some circulation wear on the obverse. AU58 is my guess.

 

In hand it might look completely different.

[coinman_23885]

Lovely coin. Reverse is very clean. It might be the lighting, but I think there's some circulation wear on the obverse. AU58 is my guess.

 

In hand it might look completely different.

 

I interpreted it as the result of the lighting, but you are absolutely right that it could be marks from circulation. So nothing in the AU58 to MS63 range would really be a surprise.

[Colorado68]

You guys are really good at this.

The toning is nice but it makes the coin dull unless in bright light.

There are some heavy bag marks on the obverse and light rub on the cheek while the reverse appears to be 65.

There also appear to be diagonal lines in the obverse field on the bottom right from about the number "2" up to the "M" and then continued through at the top left from the "P" to the "B"

I cracked this out of a MS64 holder (Not PCGS, NGC, ISC or ANACS) and submitted raw.

Fortunately I paid less than half of what the guide shows for this coin at the NGC grade. I thought it might get a 63 but I think what most of you pointed out on the obverse really brought it down.

I'm guessing the graders saw AU 55/58 obverse and 65 reverse to end up with this

 

 

 

[coinman_23885]

I think a lot of the variation in grading was the way that we interpreted the photos. The photos didn't show all of the marks that are now apparent in the new photo, and considering the two photographs together, I don't think you would have guesses in the MS63-MS64 range if you had.

 

Edited: An if there is wear/rub not the cheek, then it should be in an AU58 holder not MS61.

[Colorado68]

I thought the first photos showed the bad more than the second. What do you see in the second that stands out?

Don't worry, I take criticism as constructive and know it's not "me" it's the coin

I'm really trying to get better at coin photography so invite ideas/pointers on how to take better pictures.

[coinman_23885]

Maybe it is my screen settings, but there appears to be more chatter on the cheek than I thought.