1892 Columbian Commem - You vs. PCGS

[thabeast]

I just got done photographing a Columbian Commem that arrived in the mail yesterday. Although I already have a few in my collection, ... this one's a keeper!

 

Curious to see how you guys would grade it.

 

[Afterword]

MS 65.

[Danye West]

A very beautiful MS64

[physics-fan3.14]

Those are some colors...

[coinman1794]

This type of toning make it tough to tell from pictures if the high points might be worn. It could be an AU58 or an MS65.

[thabeast]

This type of toning make it tough to tell from pictures if the high points might be worn. It could be an AU58 or an MS65.

 

Yep, I was just asking for fun. I don't think anyone is holding your feet to the fire on your guess... I know I'm not anyways.

[Walkerfan]

I love the gold rim toning but the speckled purple tone on the devices is strange----fingerprint?? Anyway, assuming no rub, which I can't tell for sure from the images, I'd go with 65. It's colorful but lacks luster a bit. Beautiful coin nonetheless.

[Coindude]

63 due to lack of luster. As others have stated though it's almost impossible to tell unless you have it in hand.

[coinman_23885]

58 or 64 - It could be rub or just effects from the toning on the high points. If the luster is not disturbed on the high points, then I would have no problems with a MS grade.

[BillJones]

These coins are always a bear to grade, especially from photos. The toning makes it harder. Some of these coins are weakly struck and there is always a debate as to whether it's the strike or a rub.

 

I'm going to say MS-62 on this one because of the weakness in Columbus' face and the sales on the reverse.

 

I have one with very attractive toning that is sharper than this that PCGS only graded MS-63, despite the fact that the dealer who owned it sent it in three times. I think that my coin is under graded by 1 point. It is in a green label holder, which was often a sign of conservative grading ... although you can't assume that.

[thabeast]

 

I agree, it's stuff to interpret the luster on heavily toned silver. This is something I personally use to help distinguish between rub or a weak strike. This one has strong underlying luster when looked at in hand and is struck slightly on the weak side. Although a weak strike, it's fairly common for Columbian's and it doesn't distract from it's extremely clean surface and eye appeal. I actually paid a tad extra for this one, but didn't mind at all since it's staying with me for a good long while.

 

Thanks to everyone that put their guess up... Danye West nailed it

[johnny9434]

thats ones different.

[coinman_23885]

These coins are always a bear to grade, especially from photos. The toning makes it harder. Some of these coins are weakly struck and there is always a debate as to whether it's the strike or a rub.

 

I'm going to say MS-62 on this one because of the weakness in Columbus' face and the sales on the reverse.

 

The TPGs are bizarre in grading these. I have seen coins in MS66 holders with weakness in those locations and it appears to plague this issue for some reason. For me, I don't think the coin has the luster to make it into a gem holder based on what I see.

[bsshog40]

Here's my MS64.

 

[thabeast]

That's a beautiful 64 bsshog40

[bsshog40]

That's a beautiful 64 bsshog40

Thanks beast. I bought this 1892 also for a matching set. This one is also CAC'd.

 

 

[BillJones]

Here is my piece which PCGS refused to grade any higher than MS-63 in the mid 1990s.

 

[thabeast]

Bill, I think by today's standards that is not a 63 any longer. If you want to keep it in that older PCGS holder then I would think your coin should be CAC bound sometime in the future. Beautiful example and I especially like the frosty luster in the toning!

[Afterword]

Regardless of the comparisons, I still think the OP's coin is a good candidate for MS 65. Unless the images are hiding something.

 

My MS 64.