hone your grading skills -- type 2 gold dollar

Ouch.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Au 50 at most, at i have a question. how did you get such nice pics of it?

 

A lot of practice (several years worth), good camera gear (Nikon D300, Nikkor 200mm Macro lens, and a steady tripod), and good post-processing (Nikon Capture NX and Photoshop Elements)...Mike

 

OK, PCGS graded the coin AU 58.

My personal observations and opinions:

I do not agree with the grade. I grade it a high-end XF, or low-end AU coin. There is both clear high-point wear and field-luster disturbance consistent with this grade. However, if judging by the current coins that NGC and PCGS slab, it seems to fit well in 55 or 58, as a quick parusal of the Heritage link above should tell you. So in the end I can't really argue much about the coin being fairly graded/valued, and it certainly has greater eye appeal as compared with the average example of this type.

I love the coin, regardless of the above, and couldn't be happier with it (except if it were raw or in XF plastic and offered for 1/3 of the price ). It has the yellow gold coloration I really like on gold, and it fits well with my other gold pieces that have a similar skin. In hand, it is an attractive and appealing coin with more luster than the photos suggest (they were shot to accentuate the color).

I've been looking for this type for a few years now, and the series is known for terrible strikes and poor eye appeal. While you might look at this coin and think that it is not very strongly struck, take a look at a few other examples, and you'll likely agree with me that this coin has a pretty darn nice strike for the type. In addition, this series, like most gold, is known for being dipped and stripped in hopes of increasing eye-appeal and grade, and while I can't say for sure that the coin is original, it does have a skin like original gold often has.

Anyway, I thank you all for the guesses and comments, I appreciate them...Mike

 

i agree the coin is overgraded
its a bad call by PCGS
Sorry man

 

ikes4ever, No need to be sorry. If I didn't want honest answers, I wouldn't have asked for your opinion. ...Mike

 

On your first question, I'd say it sounds more like the XF grade than the VF grade. I don't see "considerable" wear anywhere on the coin, but I do see too much high-point and luster-imparing wear to grade it one step below MS (i.e. 58).

On your second point, I agree, and in particular with the following comment:

I think that all of the grading companies vastly over-grade these coins.

Although they do seem to be fairly consistent (say plus or minus one grade) if overly-optimistic...Mike

 

Here's another point to consider. What it PCGS took the "look" (strike, color, eye appeal) into account and market graded it upwards from AU 50/53/55 to AU 58 as a result? If you saw the coin in-hand I suspect you would agree that this coin is more appealing than the run-of-the mill AU example, but then again, owernship does add a point (or two). ....Mike

 

Well - I personally think PCGS was accurate. You have a combined weak strike with little wear on the high points only. The only real breaks in the luster I see are on the high points. I seem to recall I had a discussion once with GDJMSP about weak strikes and eye appeal. I actually applied what he told me when looking at this coin and knowing about the weak strikes. It almost seems like you are reversing what you said in the other post(here is the other thread). I do not see enough wear to knock it down to XF(remember this is my own opinion) and if there is even more luster with the coin in hand, I say it makes it AU58. Not saying I am right or wrong - just trying to learn more, especially since I like gold - yet I have not purchased any of the older coins since they seem so hard to grade.

 

Just so we're clear....My main problem with the 58 grade, at least technically, is the amount of wear on the obverse field and on the high points. Just too much wear for me to grade it 58, from a sharpness or technical grade perspective. I can understand, and agree with, market grading the coin upwards based on its relative look to those in the market.

This is a good example of buying the coin, not the slab (although the slab likely cost me a bit of money, I'm OK with that)...Mike

 

But wouldn't a weak strike result fewer details on the high points? And thus the slight run just breaks the luster, but not really create true wear? So then if your coin had luster(same details) on the high points it could then be a MS coin. I am not trying to be argumentative but I am trying to understand weak strike versus wear and luster.

 

That is one heck of a nice coin man. :thumb: I have no clue (or had no clue how to grade them till GD posted the info ), how to grade this series of coins, but just doesn't look AU to me, I think of AU as a coin that has slight wear or friction, sometimes not apparent without magnification, but that one just seems to have to much on it. Sorry man, and please don't take me as copying what everyone else has said, that's my opinion on it. Still, I don't think that is a half bad coin, very nice! :thumb: Thanks for sharing with us. :thumb:

Phoenix

 

Okay - I understand where you are saying about the coin. Still a really nice coin!

 

GD, ever consider working for PCGS or NGC? Man. :thumb:

Phoenix

 

I don't take your question as argumentative at all. I enjoy these discussions! :thumb:

You bring up a good point, and I suspect the one that GDJMSP and I disagree with relative to how much wear is in fact on this coin and how much what you are seeing is light wear on a flat strike. To answer your question, yes a weak strike would result in fewer details, and less luster on those weakly struck areas as well, so even the lightest of friction would make the coin appear more worn than it is. In my opinion, that's one of the achilles heel in the "details" way of grading (i.e. ANA grading, EAC details sharpness grading), as it doesn't take into account weak strikes very well.

Quite candidly I've not studied this series as much as I have others, but I wll tell you this -- any coin with VF details would not have the remaining amount of luster this coin has, or at least I've never seen a piece of gold ever graded that way in the past 10 years. It might be the literal interpretation of the ANA grading standard, but it doesn't apply to grades you will see in the market today. I commend and admire GDJMSP for holding the line on these issues (as gradeflation is a serious concern), but the market just speaks a different language (i.e. grading standard).

I've talked about this before, but I don't grade the same way that many standards are written. I'm more of a visual thinker, as a result I tend to to judge the luster on a coin as the distinguising factor in low MS to VF grades. I have found this to be the best way to quickly assess just about any coin type and has allowed me to be a fairly good judge of grade without having to memorize every series. Some might argue it is overly simplistic, and they would probably be right, but it works for me.

Anyway, back to the question on how you distinguish an MS from an AU and an AU from an XF. To me it is simple, just look at the luster. In a MS coin, you generally won't have serious imparement of the luster on the fields of most coins (gold included). You may have some "stacking friction" (i.e. light high-point rub), but you won't have serious imparement of the fields that impair the cartwheel -- the coin will cartwheel like it is supposed to. On an AU coin, there's some imparement, some slight rub, in the fields and on the high points of the coin, not just limited to the highest details, but also some of the areas of lower relief. On an XF coin, this process continues, to my eye it means 50% or less of the mint luster remaining, mostly in the protected areas of around the devices and inside them. Fields will show serious luster imparement and devices will begin to be worn down as a result of wear. And so on, until at Fine, the coin has practically no mint luster left.

On this coin, there is clear high point wear, and some imparement of the luster in the open areas of the fields. The coin doesn't cartwheel in these areas like a true mint-state coin would, and it more closely resembles my vision of an XF 45 to AU 55 coin with respect to this feature, which is the primary reason I disagreed with the grade. However, I would submit that market grading "ranks" and "prices" coins rather than grades them, and in my opinion, this coin deserves to be bumped up to a level above those coins that have the same amount of detail because of the look and eye appeal, so therefore I understand and am comfortable paying the price on this coin, but that doesn't change my mind about how I grade the coin, just how to value it -- and there's a difference.

But that's just the way I do it, and your mileage may vary, but I submit that it is also a pretty good predictor of the way that NGC and PCGS do it too. But please take a look at the Heritage Auction Archives or auction catalogs and decide for yourself.

I would be very interested in your and other's opinons on this topic.

Respectfully submitted as my opinion only...Mike