The Good, The Bad and The Ugly

[rbrown4]

There has likely been some reference at least one of these coins in previous threads, but please bear with me. I now have these in hand, back from NGC and am hoping that these better images will provide for some more clear cut opinions or ideas in regards to my questions on them. (Realizing of course that seeing a coin in person is better than evaluating a picture.

 

The GOOD - 1935 S Peace MS 64 - (No question here, just sharing)

 

 

 

THE BAD - Here is the 1921 Peace that came back as "Reverse Damage". This image clearly shows what I believe they were looking at. Is this enough to warrant "reverse damage" There are three areas, left and right fields and the letters at top.

 

 

Is it any worse than the marks on this 1928 that was graded MS 63?

 

 

And lastly, THE UGLY - The 1934 S that came back as "cleaned". There are most definitely marks all over this coin, but do they really show an attempt at cleaning?

 

 

[TomB]

The 1921 shows damage that is not consistent with routine commerce or coin-to-coin contact, whereas the 1928 looks to have at least one milling mark (coin-to-coin contact) amongst the three major marks on the reverse. In my opinion, the 1921 deserved to be bagged whereas the 1928 deserved to get holdered. The image of the 1934-S makes it appear to be an AU coin that is too shiny for the grade and thus was likely cleaned.

[rbrown4]

That is exactly the kind of feedback I was looking for just to be sure. Previous images did not really show these areas well. The explanation of the contact difference is great and I will most definitely keep in mind for future reference. I guess I had blinders on with the 34 looking only at the marks and scratches, didn't even consider the shine.

 

Thanks Tom

 

Rey

[MarkFeld]

The no-grade due to cleaning on the 1934-S has nothing to do with the marks on the coin - don't focus on them. Both the obverse and the reverse surfaces look unnatural and have the wrong sheen to them - the coin looks to have been heavily cleaned.

 

Take a few minutes to compare it to the other two pieces, tilting and rotating each one slowly under a good light. Look at them from a distance, without magnification and I bet you will see that the 1934-S looks wrong/off.

[SkyMan]

I certainly bow to Tom and Mark's superior understanding about coin versus non-coin created damage. I would disagree with Tom regarding the grade. To me that looks more like a VF-35, and just the way it looks says cleaned/dipped to me.

[Mozin]

I don't do dollars, but I am a big Clint Eastwood fan, so I opened this thread.

 

The 1921 has damage that is not consistent with normal bag marks, as has been stated above.

 

The 1928 has no damage, only bag marks, and deserved to be graded, as has been stated above.

 

The 1934 is one ugly cleaned coin, and it does not deserve to be encapsulated.

 

The 1935 is a nice looker. JMHO

[TomB]

I actually agree with SkyMan that my grade on the Peace dollar was off, I was simply using the term to denote a circulated coin with an odd look. Next time I should be more precise.

[carson city]

I agree--the shine is off the Apple, Steve Jobs.

[James_OldeTowne]

NGC should have graded the 1921. It has more damage than the 1928, but that is the reason for the MS-60, which both NGC and PCGS seem to have an aversion to that borders on paranoia! MS-60 is basically an UNC that's just plain ugly in one way or another, and that coin qualifies.

 

I'm sorry to disagree with a couple of my esteemed fellow board members, but it just isn't right for NGC to take your money and then not encapsulate a coin like that which very obviously has significant market value. There are MANY collectors who would gladly buy that 1921 as MS-60 (assuming the obverse is consistently uncirculated and problem-free).