EAC people, critique please

Curious - how do you scuff the areas above and below CENT without leaving a mark on the raised lettering?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

My theory is it's the places of hardest scuffing, where the artificial darkener did not fully take.

The first question I had for the coin is, how did such an otherwise-clean (in the good sense) coin crud up in a few tiny areas - E in UNITED & STATES, between ME and inside the second A in AMERICA, around a couple buds on the wreath - without showing any dirt/crud anywhere else? The answer, to me, is it didn't. Those are just the spots the cleaning didn't reach.

I'm also struck by the radical difference in hue between the two faces, but I've no clue about how the camera may have processed the JPG's so I can't trust that enough to consider it "evidence."

 

That is an excellent question. Go to the head of the class!

If you and I were sitting here with the coin under my scope set at 7X, you would see (once the coin is in the correct orientation to the light - usually happens twice in a 360 degree rotation when the hairlines from cleaning are all going in the same direction as appears w/this coin.) that the hairlines DO go over the letters. Where we would NOT SEE THEM is in the tiny spaces between the letters - that's why the color difference.

Color is extremely important for both grading and authentication. You learn about color "clues" by examining genuine coins in both detail and straight graded slabs.

 

Learning more and more! Thanks!

 

Well, don't forget we only have one relatively-small set of images to work from, albeit shot with a good camera. By no means can we be certain about anything.

 

Every image of that coin in this thread shows enough evidence to state w/o question that the coin is attractive; yet NOT original so let's quit blowing smoke and move on.

 

I agree that it's been cleaned, most apparent on rev as pointed out before. uneven coloring is also a tip off. Otherwise looks like a nice coin.

 

I could be wrong, but don't most EAC fellows tend to not worry about a light 'dusting'?

 

Not only that, but don't most want their coins free and roaming in the wild?

 

I will agree the surfaces don't look original I'm not a copper specialist but I do know coins and have had enough to have a pretty good idea

 

Pretty much correct on both points. Given that EAC is primarily about very_old_coins (from a US perspective), they encounter a far greater percentage of coins which have been cleaned at some point or another in the last two centuries, and don't panic about that as readily as most of us do. And they are the least slab-centric of any US issue specialists, with the possible exception of old-school gold guys/girls.

 

This is exactly why I asked for critique from EAC copper people. Everyone else is mucking it up. I've studied EAC net grading and that's what I tried to describe in my thought process; I'm just inexperienced at it.

EACers only, please.

 

Do you want their membership numbers in the post?

 

You know what I mean.

 

See, this is what I'm talking about. Neither of you understand EAC net grading.

 

I refuse to debate cleaned/original and the difference between au/ms from bad photographs. If it were my coin, i would give it a bath and a brushing and then take better photos. I suspect doing so would end the debate one way or the other.

Two points to consider. I have never seen a TPG MS62 that was EAC mint state sharpness, literally never. Second, if the seller understood EAC grading he sold you a 55 net 45 coin due to cleaning, based on the price. You have to understand, a 60 net 58 variety is worth double what you paid, and I could literally sell it in three days for that price...

 

Their posts were calling the story into question that it was ever in a 62 slab which they weren't the only ones thinking that, not way to draw any conclusions about their familiarity of the system from those posts. If it isn't in the slab just look at it as if it never was slabbed and form your own opinion not start off with what it supposedly was.

As far as the EAC grade from the grading book and Pennywise articles I am sure you have read there is no such thing as an official EAC grade. They have their own system but they all grade a little differently within that system which is why you often see big auction houses print the name of what member assigned it the EAC grade to give people perspective on how they generally grade.

As far as the grade on that one if you look on page 139 of your book your are probably looking at a 53 range imo, their 58s/60s basically have to have full mint luster. To give you an idea how some of them grade Bill Noyes graded the PCGS MS 69 1793 Wreath Cent as a 63+. Del Bland apparently gave it an MS 60. http://old.stacksbowers.com/archivedetail.aspx?productid=1363381. 58s seem to me to have to be beyond reproach with a number of the hardcore EAC guys.

 

That's right I don't. But I understand coin dealers want to make money selling coins. PCGS price guide says $375 for an MS62. Apparently you paid less than half of that!?
Sorry, I am not buying his story as it simply doesn't make any sense. Did he keep the label or do you have it? ;-)

 

I would be carful about judging the qualifications of the posters in this thread. IMO, net grading is absolutely stupid and useless UNLESS you have the coin to examine. Nevertheless, EAC is made up of very competent numismatists who have developed grading standards for their use. Many EAC numismatists will tell you that TPGS grades are stupid!

That said, I for one understand/study/and have the recently published EAC Grading guide. Nevertheless, it does not take an EAC or TPGS professional to evaluate a coin. I've been in grading classes where many of the YN's would tell you the same thing about your coin that's been posted here.

You want a net grade? AU. Never mind, I dropped my EAC membership decades ago.

 

Personally I like your thought process. And I will say good pickup. And don't be surprised if your tastes(or eye appeal) change going forward with large cents and copper. I now have a look I want for my middle and late dates. Not so much color or grade, but the surfaces. One of the reason I am updating some of them.

The TPG probably saw no wear, muted luster and gave it a 62. When I first started the EAC'ers really did not like slabs, but now more of them are carrying slabbed coins. The hard core EAC'er's don't need them, but I personally think the slabs alone will expand their market. Some people want the comfort of the slab.

Now if the coin was on sale on ebay with those pictures - I would say MS Details and move on. No matter what the holder or the dealer said. To me the pictures alone make me think something is off for the reverse - buffing or not, it just seems a little off in the pictures. Can't stress "in the pictures enough".

You have it in hand. Now if I went down to the local shop I might very well pick the coin up to look at it. If the coin is as you say and the dealer said 145 - I might very well say sold. Probably one of the reasons I do not buy many coins off ebay and I use dealers more than anything. Just my opinion and while I love copper I am not an EAC'er.