So wait.. AU58 > Ms 60/62?

It certainly seems like the best value grade for some series'. Many have very nice luster remaining.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

There's a lot of value in that.

Yes, sweeping generalizations are dangerous. I agree with others that AU58s are commonly superior to MS60s, 61s, etc.

But as Mike said, it's still "buy the coin, not the holder". To say "AU58s are better than MS61s" violates that rule, since it implies "always"... and that's not so.

It's best to evaluate a coin on its merits. You might find MS61s with strong eye appeal superior to AU58s. It's frequent with $2.5 Indians IMO.

 

nice AU?

Here's a half dollar that I bought 3-years ago in an NGC AU58 holder. It immediately went into my Capital plastic 20th century type set. I hope the photo posts well & hope you like it as much as I do.

Very best regards,
collect89

 

I remember I owned two very nice AU quarter eagles, one a 1912 AU55 PCGS, and the other a 1911 AU58 PCGS. (I sold both of those, to get a 1909 MS62 PCGS.)
Anyway, I would say, judging from other AU58's in the marketplace, and even considering the fact that these are hard to grade, I would say MS AU58 was a pretty outstanding, PQ, if not, close to it, kinda coin.
Now, you put my MS62 and my old AU58 side by side, you can tell of some obvious differences. (In other words, the MS62 is a better coin)
So an AU being as nice as a MS coin isn't always the case, but it can be sometimes... Just gotta look at the coin sometimes, and forget about what that holder says... (KNOW YOUR SERIES!)

 

I guess the number one factor if it is a AU58 or an MS 60 is just plain eye appeal.

 

If by eye appeal, you are including wear, and luster?

 

IMHO the number one factor should be: "do you like the coin?" then comes everything else

 

Hey Mark Field, what did you sell that au58 1853 for just out of curiosity.

 

Here is my AU58 that I used to own. A very nice coin, if I might add, and it was hard to see why it got an AU58, my best guess would have had to be breaks in the luster.




Here is my MS62 that I own now. Not a complete, glowing, make you go blind, luster, but getting there. Less breaks if any, and you can see be the pictures how it is brighter, and has more color, and the only problem area of the coin is the black spot that you can clearly see on of the stars near the bottom of the coin. Some people say that this should have been an AU58, some people think it is spot on. I would say, that for MS62's, I could have done better, but this is still a nice coin, I would agree with the grade

 

.......grading is subjective, we know that. but wouldn't it be great to have a little note with the coin explaining WHY the said coin was graded the grade assigned? sort of a CAC extra? of course this idea would apply to slabbed coins better compared to raw. savvy?

 

something like they do with sport cards? like individual scoring for wear, luster, etc.

 

I agree entirely.
Sure would help in learning how to grade.
Make things a LOT easier.

 

I like the idea of the grading companies explaining the reasons for the grade. You pay for a service to grade your coins, but they just give you a grade with no explanation. It doesn't seem right to me. It is kind of like your credit score.

 

Explanation of grade

I think the most common explanation of the grade would probably be "Because it just is!"

 

Wouldn't it possibly depend on who's grading it? A PCGS AU58 might look better than an NGC MS60. I would hope a PCGS MS60 would look better than a PCGS AU58 but the grades being so close it really comes down to the grader himself and they may grade a coin AU58 one day and MS60 the next. JMO

 

I've always liked most AU55-58s better than MS 60-63s because of the distracting marks that cause the low MS grade. My recent purchase of a 1928 P Peace $ as an AU coin made me happy to get it and I save some $$s by not buying a more expensive low graded MS example.

Bruce

 

A great man once said "All generalities are bad"

Exercise great caution when invoking the "AU58 > MS61" thinking. While I agree it is often true, it is often untrue.

There is some good thinking on this thread, but Leadfoot put it best when he re-played the "buy the coin, not the number" card. Blindly saying "AU58 is better than MS61" violates that rule.

I can think of two areas where "AU58 > MS61" is false more often than not - incuse Indian gold $2.5s and $5s and early Federal (pre-1838), particularly silver and gold. In those areas, I feel low MS tends to be better than high AU.

I think "AU58 > MS61" is most often true in some very high profile areas - Morgans, Peace, and low gold (particularly $10s and $20s).

 

Wouldn't a beat up MS 60 defeat the purpose of calling it MS? I mean wouldn't an uncirculated coin in effect be a coin that had not been circulated and then not had a chance to garner a lot of wear, nicks, etc? I guess my concluding question of naivete should be; how does one know if a coin that has been beat up (only phrase that came to mind) is actually uncirculated if in fact it looks circulated?

 

A good example of an MS60 coin that truly is uncirculated is a heavily bag-marked Morgan Dollar or $20 gold piece. Such coins typically exhibit no wear, but are heavily abraded due to contact with other coins in the same bag.