FA: Superb Gem 1909-S VDB PCGS MS-66 RD revised

Ira wrote:
BigDog wrote:
Ira-

about your "why bother" don't you find that you get more $ for pcgs
coins than ngc at the same grade? I am still saving to get one of your
Ira's best and am still learning. what are your thoughts about the
comparison question?

Thanks
Rick


Rick, it depends.

If the coin is a cent MS-64 Rd or better, certainly a PCGS graded coin
will bring a premium in most cases, and the higher the grade above
MS-65, the diffrerences in value can be dramatic. However, with an
AU-58 coin that's properly graded, there is usually no significant
difference. Ditto for for high end circ Type coins EXCEPT for early
coins, 1790's and early 1800's. Then, PCGS graded coins will generally
bring more.That's becaus ethe are far stricter, in general, than NGC in
grading early material.

You'll notice I said PROPERLY graded. If the coin in question had been
a lackluster 1955/55 with irregualr, spotchy toning yet still resided
in a NGC holder, certainly it would be worth less $$. But in the case
of Dave's coin, the grade is accurate. I should know.

Ira

Ira-

Thanks for all the info-like i said i am still learnin and you just
cast some pearls out!
Your last comment makes me hope that I did not give the impression that
I had any doubt about the grade cause new as I am I know you are the
MAN especially when it comes to coppers!!!! I hope that you in no way
took anything I said as any kind of a 'dis!

Again thanks for the knowledge and one of these days i will have a "Ira
coin"!

Rick

BigDog wrote:


Thanks for all the info-like i said i am still learnin and you just
cast some pearls out!
Your last comment makes me hope that I did not give the impression that
I had any doubt about the grade cause new as I am I know you are the
MAN especially when it comes to coppers!!!! I hope that you in no way
took anything I said as any kind of a 'dis!

Again thanks for the knowledge and one of these days i will have a "Ira
coin"!

Rick

No offense taken. I saw some awful AUs in NGC & PCGS holders at the St.
Charles, MO show, but this one was clearly all there, so I bought it
for Dave. In fact, I bought a MS-62 BN also in NGC holder that was all
there too. I have that one on eBay now.

Ira

On 25 Oct 2006 17:13:52 -0700, Ira wrote:

No offense taken. I saw some awful AUs in NGC & PCGS holders at the St.
Charles, MO show, but this one was clearly all there, so I bought it
for Dave. In fact, I bought a MS-62 BN also in NGC holder that was all
there too. I have that one on eBay now.

OK, I've got the coin I've bought up on my screen, next to the PGCS
AU-58 you had on eBay a week or two ago. To me, the one I got is nicer
if for no other reason that it doesn't have those huge impacts on the
reverse.

If nothing else I'm gaining an understanding of the different AU grades.
But - about the PCGS 58 you had, the details on the obverse seem less
defined than mine - the lapel lines for instance. But with the impacts
and more wear (or weaker strike? I don't know, you've seen them, I
haven't) how are they both 58?

About the MS-62, are the surface impacts what make it less than a 63?
What makes it a 62?

Always trying to learn...

Dave

Dave Hinz wrote:


If nothing else I'm gaining an understanding of the different AU grades.
But - about the PCGS 58 you had, the details on the obverse seem less
defined than mine - the lapel lines for instance. But with the impacts
and more wear (or weaker strike? I don't know, you've seen them, I
haven't) how are they both 58?

About the MS-62, are the surface impacts what make it less than a 63?
What makes it a 62?

Always trying to learn...

Dave

The NGC Ms-62 BN I have on ebay has no trace of wear, visible on
Lincoln's checkbone..look carefully with a glass, you'll se it...and
has full unbroken underlying luster. Yours has much of the underlying
luster, byr not all, as circulation wear removed it. As to the PCGS
AU-58, I belive it's the lighting on the coin that makes it appear less
worn. The strikes on all 1955 DDOs are the same,at least to the naked
eye. Not all coins of the same grade will look alike as you have
learned, even from the same grading company. One can be high-end for
the grade, one a just made it for the grade, and one solid for the
grade. In fact, if yiu had 5 AU-58s of that date or any date in hand,
you could rank them in order of desirability quite easily.

Ira

On 26 Oct 2006 03:20:31 -0700, Ira wrote:

Dave Hinz wrote:

If nothing else I'm gaining an understanding of the different AU grades.
Always trying to learn...

The NGC Ms-62 BN I have on ebay has no trace of wear, visible on
Lincoln's checkbone..look carefully with a glass, you'll se it...and
has full unbroken underlying luster. Yours has much of the underlying
luster, byr not all, as circulation wear removed it.

Ah, so that's the actual evidence of circulation taking it to AU then.

As to the PCGS
AU-58, I belive it's the lighting on the coin that makes it appear less
worn. The strikes on all 1955 DDOs are the same,at least to the naked
eye.

And I guess we know they all came from the same die. Was this a "end of
the year" screwup or what's the story on these? I've searched the web
for a narrative of how this happened but they're all very vague, more
about the techncal obvious causes than the who/when it happened kind of
details.

Not all coins of the same grade will look alike as you have
learned, even from the same grading company. One can be high-end for
the grade, one a just made it for the grade, and one solid for the
grade. In fact, if yiu had 5 AU-58s of that date or any date in hand,
you could rank them in order of desirability quite easily.

I guess that shows the value of having a trusted dealer with experience
and exposure to lots of coins pick one out with not just a good technical
grade but also nice eye appeal.

Dave Hinz wrote:
On 26 Oct 2006 03:20:31 -0700, Ira wrote:

Dave Hinz wrote:



And I guess we know they all came from the same die. Was this a "end of
the year" screwup or what's the story on these? I've searched the web
for a narrative of how this happened but they're all very vague, more
about the techncal obvious causes than the who/when it happened kind of
details.


It was Christmas Eve in 1955 and this error was struck on the last
shift. The supervisor was called over and the obverse die was removed
and shown to him, but all of the last batch of coins had mixed with
normal strikes, so the supervisor was stuck with having the entire run
of about one million coins scapped for melting and then new ones
restruck or letting them go out. He just mixed the coins thoroughly and
out they went for bagging as everyone was anxious to go home that
night.

Ira