Is this coin really a "6"?

[Prethen]

Ebay Link

[MarkFeld]

No, it's not really a 6, it's a 66.

 

 

The scratches on the lower neck bother me a lot. And even if someone wants to maintain that the coin is accurately graded, it's not one that I would want to buy.

[BillJones]

I don't think that there is any way that coin could grade MS-66 with significant marks like that on the neck. The stardards for some of these gold coins are loser than you might think, however.

 

Our hosts graded this one MS-65, and it is equal to the PCGS coins, with a CAC sticker, I've seen with the same grade.

 

 

This one which I view as very much a Premium Quality "PQ" coin for the grade which is an MS-64.

 

[KeyMan64]

It would not be for me, in that holder, at that price, even if I did collect them!

[Conder101]

In addition to the scratches on the neck did you note the gouges in the rim above the ST and the second T in STATES. The one over the ST is almost hidden by the edge of the prong.

[RWB]

I agree with the others. No coin with prominent scratches can ever be MS66 (or even MS65 in my opinion).

[CaptHenway]

In addition to the scratches on the neck did you note the gouges in the rim above the ST and the second T in STATES. The one over the ST is almost hidden by the edge of the prong.

 

That too, but the neck is the main problem.

[BillJones]

In addition to the scratches on the neck did you note the gouges in the rim above the ST and the second T in STATES. The one over the ST is almost hidden by the edge of the prong.

 

That too, but the neck is the main problem.

 

In my view, the problem on the neck knocks that coin down to MS-64. For me it would not be a pleasant MS-64 because marks that big would "bug" me.

[CaptHenway]

In addition to the scratches on the neck did you note the gouges in the rim above the ST and the second T in STATES. The one over the ST is almost hidden by the edge of the prong.

 

That too, but the neck is the main problem.

 

In my view, the problem on the neck knocks that coin down to MS-64. For me it would not be a pleasant MS-64 because marks that big would "bug" me.

 

+1

[Prethen]

In addition to the scratches on the neck did you note the gouges in the rim above the ST and the second T in STATES. The one over the ST is almost hidden by the edge of the prong.

 

That too, but the neck is the main problem.

 

In my view, the problem on the neck knocks that coin down to MS-64. For me it would not be a pleasant MS-64 because marks that big would "bug" me.

 

I was actually going to add a reply with a very similar comment. Perhaps I could see this in a 64/64+/CAC holder. I still would have a hard time with those obvious marks. The scratch on the lower reverse doesn't help it either.

[BillJones]

The scratch on the lower reverse doesn't help it either.

 

There is also a nasty rim nick above the "T" in "STATES" on the reverse too. Overall I don't know how this got past all of the graders at PCGS, including the "finalizer."

[physics-fan3.14]

In addition to the scratches on the neck did you note the gouges in the rim above the ST and the second T in STATES. The one over the ST is almost hidden by the edge of the prong.

 

That too, but the neck is the main problem.

 

In my view, the problem on the neck knocks that coin down to MS-64. For me it would not be a pleasant MS-64 because marks that big would "bug" me.

 

I agree completely.

 

Aside from the sizeable problems though, the rest of the coin is really nice.

[wheat'swheats]

I have absolutely no interest in gold, but those marks would make my interest even less. If that coin were a copper or a dime, quarter etc. I think those injuries would have put it in a body bag environmental damage.

[Walkerfan]

I would never be happy with that coin, esp. at the MS 66 grade level, b/c of those marks at the base of the neck. It is market graded IMHO. I'd rather have a MS 64 or 65 w/o the marks.

[bsshog40]

I agree with every comment made!!

[michael]

my opinion----- it didn't get past the graders or finalizer

 

it is in my opinion a mechanical error

 

and pcgs should be informed of this to correct this error

 

as with any process grading coins, recording data after the fact from the grading room etc. by the thousands mechanical errors do happen

 

someone made a mistake either in recording the grade on the computer/misread the grade, computer glitch etc. and/or in the dept. that records the data from the grading computer records to form the tags and quality control??.................................................... etc. but somewhere along the way a mechanical error was made

 

it does happen folks

 

could it be all the graders and finalizer(s) AND quality control missed these huge hits?? highly unlikely! but within the realm of possibility

 

but I think a SAFER bet is mechanical error

 

could it be that 2 of the same demon. date and mintmark combo one damaged unc details and one ms 66 accidently somehow got switched in holdering?? I think this is highly unlikely again A MUCHO++++++ SAFER BET IS A MECHANICAL ERROR

 

again please read my signature line as below

[MarkVIIIMarc]

That is a very attractive reverse. Too bad on the rim dings.

[johnny9434]

No, it's not really a 6, it's a 66.

 

 

The scratches on the lower neck bother me a lot. And even if someone wants to maintain that the coin is accurately graded, it's not one that I would want to buy.

+1

[BillJones]

That is a very attractive reverse. Too bad on the rim dings.

 

There are many coins that a reverse that is more attractive that the obverse, especially on the early U.S. pieces. The obverse is more often than not the weaker side, and it is the side that has more to do with the overall grade of the piece. Usually the obverse grades the coin. The reverse comes along for the ride UNLESS it has problems, and then there is an issue.

[RWB]

The Mint has always considered the portrait more important than other features. It commonly ends up with a disproportionate share of available planchet metal trying to fill large smooth areas...often with limited success.

[coinman_23885]

Overall I don't know how this got past all of the graders at PCGS, including the "finalizer."

 

The graders and finalizers probably had too much eggnog at the PCGS Christmas party!

 

On a more serious note, I agree with the others that the photos make the marks on the neck look like post mint defects and that it looks grossly overgraded. With that said, is it possible that these marks could be something other than a post mint defect? I cannot think of anything else, but it does make me wonder given that the marks are very obvious and in a prime focal area. I find it hard to believe that any professional grader would not see them.

 

For instance, our host is very forgiving on hits on the jaw of Jefferson Nickels because the marks are purportedly left over from the unstuck planchet and (due to the striking deficiencies) were not removed during striking. As a result, these are not considered post mint damage/defects and are weighed less heavily in the grading. I have seen this called "planchet roughness" but didn't believe it until I talked to a specialist collector (and one whose opinion that I respect and consider an expert in the series) that it is well known and acknowledged among those in the series. Is there something analogous for this series? And to be clear, either way I don't like the coin regardless. I find the gimmicky marketing of similar terms for other series/defects such as "planchet roughness," "cabinet friction," "album friction," and "shipwreck effect" off putting too to say the least.

[BillJones]

There are instances were what appear to be marks on a coin were on the planchet before the coin was struck. In that case, those marks would have less of an effect upon the grade. They come into play when one is considering very high grades like MS-65 and above.

 

Here is an example. A number of the marks that are on Washington's cheek on this 1926 Sesquicentennial half dollar were on the planchet before the coin was struck. The dies that were used to strike this coin were very shallow, and they did not remove the planchets marks durint the striking process.

 

 

The 1902-S half eagle that started this thread has post strike damage. The marks from the reeding of one or two half ealges that came in contact with the piece, probably when it was in the mint bag.

[MarkFeld]

Overall I don't know how this got past all of the graders at PCGS, including the "finalizer."

 

The graders and finalizers probably had too much eggnog at the PCGS Christmas party!

 

On a more serious note, I agree with the others that the photos make the marks on the neck look like post mint defects and that it looks grossly overgraded. With that said, is it possible that these marks could be something other than a post mint defect? I cannot think of anything else, but it does make me wonder given that the marks are very obvious and in a prime focal area. I find it hard to believe that any professional grader would not see them.

 

For instance, our host is very forgiving on hits on the jaw of Jefferson Nickels because the marks are purportedly left over from the unstuck planchet and (due to the striking deficiencies) were not removed during striking. As a result, these are not considered post mint damage/defects and are weighed less heavily in the grading. I have seen this called "planchet roughness" but didn't believe it until I talked to a specialist collector (and one whose opinion that I respect and consider an expert in the series) that it is well known and acknowledged among those in the series. Is there something analogous for this series? And to be clear, either way I don't like the coin regardless. I find the gimmicky marketing of similar terms for other series/defects such as "planchet roughness," "cabinet friction," "album friction," and "shipwreck effect" off putting too to say the least.

 

I am extremely confident that we are seeing post strike flaws (scratches) on the coin.

[Lucky One]

I don't think that there is any way that coin could grade MS-66 with significant marks like that on the neck. The stardards for some of these gold coins are loser than you might think, however.

 

Our hosts graded this one MS-65, and it is equal to the PCGS coins, with a CAC sticker, I've seen with the same grade.

 

 

This one which I view as very much a Premium Quality "PQ" coin for the grade which is an MS-64.

 

 

 

this is pretty much what I have been preaching for decades it seems- the lines between MS63, 64, 65 & 66 get blurred due to some graders being very strict and some being very loose when grading higher grade gold. Gold is such a soft metal that it is very difficult to discern real wear from the rub that gold coins would have gotten from rubbing against each other in transport, and that is how god was largely used, with the exception of the wild west, back in te day- a wealthy buyer would dispatch a courrier with several bags of his gold to be taken to the seller's bank for safekeeping, so if the trip was a hundred miles by horse or carriage the coins would rub against each other every bump of the way. Many gold coins that I have viewed showed signs of heavy abrasion with no signs of real circulation wear.

 

I have no MS65 half eagles in my set, and for good reason- if you are patient, one in fifty MS64's will look like true gems. I have a lot of those in my set, the beauty without the cost. Same goes with 63's- there are a lot of MS64 coins in MS63 slabs, just have to search for them, then grab the good deals. Who needs a CAC sticker when your coins look better than the grade assigned? Search those MS61 & 62 slabs too- I have some pretty coins in lower grade mint state slabs that are every bit as nice as slabbed MS63's without the extra premium...

[Lucky One]

There are instances were what appear to be marks on a coin were on the planchet before the coin was struck. In that case, those marks would have less of an effect upon the grade. They come into play when one is considering very high grades like MS-65 and above.

 

Here is an example. A number of the marks that are on Washington's cheek on this 1926 Sesquicentennial half dollar were on the planchet before the coin was struck. The dies that were used to strike this coin were very shallow, and they did not remove the planchets marks durint the striking process.

 

 

The 1902-S half eagle that started this thread has post strike damage. The marks from the reeding of one or two half ealges that came in contact with the piece, probably when it was in the mint bag.

 

I would like to point out that the missing element on slab labels is the 'condition'. This coin may have been perfectly pristine otherwise, but the marks that were on the planchet are now on a piece of art, and as such still mar it's beauty to a certain degree. The grade could be MS67, condition noted as 'not fully struck, planchet marks show' and everyone would understand, but we have been hearded into believing we can describe a coin with a mere number and that just isn't realistic or possible when you consider what I've said. Before details graded slabs I was a strong advocate for adding condition to a slab so that problem coins could be graded. It is silly to think that a coin is 'ungradeable' as some slabs actually say- I submit that EVERY coin has a grade AND a condition and both should be stated on every slab. Not enough room? Make more fields in the program that prints the labels and you'll have all the room you need...

[CSdot]

Maybe it was submitted by a VIP? I wouldn't be happy paying 66 money for that coin.

[coinman1794]

The coin does appear to be exceptionally clean, other than the deep and numerous cuts and bumps on Liberty's neck and shoulder. These marks, however, should have limited the grade to MS64 or MS64+, in my mind.

[Conder101]

These marks, however, should have limited the grade to MS64 or MS64+, in my mind.

OK the scratches take it down to MS-64, how more do the two rim gouges on the rev reduce it?

[coinman1794]

You are on to something there. I think a straight MS64 is correct, with no +. Keep in mind that despite the marks, the coin is about as clean as they come, otherwise.

[Lucky One]

this is how silly grading has become. When I was a boy starting out in the hobby, there were no numerical designations and the Sheldon system was NOT a system of grading but a system of valuation! Mr. Sheldon must be spinning in his grave, and I personally think the 70 point system should have been a 100 point system, or maybe not invented in the first place since all it did was cause people to split the hairs that they were already splitting.

 

I want ta ask you all one thing- can we just enjoy the hobby? I love beautiful coins and I personally dont care what grade you or a tpg puts on a coin, it is insignificant to a true numismatist or true lover of coins. When I buy a coin, I buy it because it is BEAUTIFUL or extremely rare, in either case someone else's opinion doesn't matter unless they're buying it for me. When I spend money, I evaluate it and pay what I think it is worth, damn the grade assigned.

 

This coin IS beautiful, has a decent strike, great luster and nice surfaces. That is the way this coin would have been described fifty years ago, and the grade would be BU, period. The value is what someone will pay for it regardless of the grade assigned, and if that was the way we still bought and sold coins nothing would be different than it is today except we wouldn't be splitting hairs like I see in this thread. No disrespect guys, and you are well within your rights to split hairs and state your opinions, but what is gained? This is why I would rather buy a raw coin. I get tired of hearing ignorant dealers and coins sellers say 'but the pros said...". Pros are pros but they aren't the final word, the buyer gets the final word, and if a dealer split as many hairs on a coin as I see here, I'd respectfully decline to deal with him. A coin is what it is, and a mere opinion on a slab will never change that...