What skills/tools does a TPG grader use to grade coins like this?

SO deeply toned and spotty and complex... not to mention tiny. So how do they come to a conclusion on grade? (It's a proof, btw). Personally, I think I'm a decent grader, but I would be stumped and clueless on coins like this one.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Well, I'm sure the coin looks completely different in hand than those pics! Those pictures are dark, underlit, and don't show the coin well. I'll bet in hand, the fields are nicely reflective and the toning is attractive and multicolored. There are some obvious hairlines, but no different than any other proof of this era. I'll bet that coin is actually quite attractive, and we'd all be ogling it with a proper photographer at the helm.

Proofs are impossible to grade from pictures - tiny toned proofs are even more impossible!

In answer to your question - they use a strong light, a low power magnifier, and years of experience. These are no different than any other coin... just a little bit smaller.

 

A 10x loupe tilting the coin at various angles to a single light source. Then it's a mix of what you do see, in this case the centers and any dings or scuffs that might show up under the toning at the right angle, and extrapolating what you can't see by assumption from what you can. You can forget about any semblance of accurately grading these types of coins by photo though.

 

Actually, this is pretty close to the right color. Rotated in direct light, however, it shows as more "purple." That is a little strike thru at the base of the lowest star point, btw.

 

I do find it much more difficult to grade heavily toned coins. Seeing luster/flash breaks and even handling marks is tougher. And I'll say this: if the near terminal toning were dipped off if this coin, it would likely grade lower in my opinion. Because this type of toning IMO, is natural and an indicator that no one fooled around with it.

 

Probably a (nice) 5x Loupe. I used a 10x loupe that I have on hand on my 3-cent silver piece, graded it as "low AU", and it came back from NGC as AU-50. Though it wasn't as deeply toned as yours, but still tarnished a bit with die clashes abound.

 

There were a bunch of those pop up just a few years ago.

 

Good Lord........

 

I'd have given it a 'black Bart'.......

 

You need deep knowledge of the standards and key wear points, weak strike points, etc. of the specific coin.

For example:

On the obverse, look at the sharpness of the shield outline and the lines within the shield. The edges of the star show wear first, but the shield is one of the strike diagnostics.

On the reverse, look at the outline of the C (those fins get knocked off first) and then at the objects within the C. On a truly high grade, solid strike, the edges of the diamond at 9 o'clock are RAZOR sharp and there is a point at the top. Never seen one like that, have you. I have, one, that Dr. Bruder showed me in Portland that came back MS67.

On a weaker strike - like this one - the diamond doesn't fill. The striations on the planchet aren't quite erased by the strike and the other more central items will show clearly - the veins on the leaves, the fletchings on the arrows, etc.

I personally can't accurately differentiate between 65, 66, 67, 68 - and have only looked at a few proofs (my interest is circulated XFs). But PF67 doesn't surprise me.

 

I think they pretty much gave us the coin's technical grade, here, without regard to the toning. I like that, leaving that subjective component up to us.

 

Quite a lovely piece in my estimation. And to the devil with anyone who doesn't agree with me....... That's the scotch talkin' folks........

 

A hamburger walked into a bar and ordered a Scotch. The bartender said, "Sorry, we don't serve food here."

 

I just got it........

 

I think I'd better have something to eat.

 

Good Nite all.

 

One could make the case that the terminal toning on this coin is already damage, and that the coin should not grade due to environmental damage.

You accused me a few days ago of always agreeing with and defending the TPGs. Well, I won't defend this coin. And if you were to say that the coin is a problem coin, I would agree with you. That said, I don't feel comfortable grading a proof 3CS from a photograph. But for the life of me, I can't imagine how toning that deep would not affect the reflectivity of the fields and am stunned at the assigned grade.