Grading esoterica - two w same grade & CAC, but not the "same"?

So... here are two quarter eagles, same mint, same year, same grade w CAC, same TPG (PCGS). Also happen to be the only two of this grade, year, and mint w CAC. To me, being probably more familiar with the specific year and issue than I should be (i.e., I should probably be doing something more useful with my time, but hey, I'm having fun), these should not be the same grade. I think they should be a grade different - at least. One is probably a much earlier die state than the other (what I read is the the entire mintage of about 12,000 were struck with one die pair) - and to my eye there is much more circulation wear on the coin from the earlier die state (example #1, which has better definition in the stars, letters and numbers). The later die state coin (#2) has poor, mushed letters and numbers but considerably stronger devices, i.e, what seems like less wear on both sides.

So I ask you folks with far more experience than I, what am I missing? Does PCGS grade down for strike? Is there something I'm not getting about the coin that to me looks like it has better definition and when you really look at it, substantially less wear (especially on the hair "knots", beads, leaves and wings).

So, what can I/we learn from this?

Example #1:


Example #2:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Die state is only one consideration.
Another factor is striking pressure.
Less pressure results in a more weakly struck coin.
Whether that's a factor with your coins, I don't know.

 

Both southern branch mints were well known for strike inconsistency I think surface preservation has a lot to do with their grades too. Both are nice and I’d be happy to own either as they’re nice crusty originals but the second my favorite

 

Nice looking coins for the grade. VF25/30?

 

35

 

#2 looks like more wear

 

I've encountered similar issues with capped bust quarter varieties. I saw PCGS slab what to me was an XF/AU as a VF35 because I knew that the variety was always found very weakly struck. In those cases you have to look elsewhere on the coin to grade it. Is everyone as knowledgeable about this coin as you are at the TPGs? No. They see wear on a weak strike, look at it for a few seconds and grade it like equivalent wear.

Personally, I found I agreed with PCGS' grading for capped busts a little better than NGC in general, but that NGC was on the money with grading varieties that had strike peculiarities, while PCGS was not.

 

I've come to the opposite conclusion based on the remaining detail in the higher devices - the leaves, the hair buns, the eagle's neck - things like that. #2 to me seems to have more strike issues. How did you come to that perspective?

 

One of the main reason people buy slabbed coins is that they do not want to overpay. They don't want to pay XF price for a VF coin, for example. So if PCGS and CAC are saying those two coins have about the same value, they are probably right, even if the second coin would "technically" grade batter.

 

Yes, that seems to make sense in terms of value. I think they should be valued similarly. However, in my opinion, since they are both graded vf35, either #1 should be fv30 or #2 should be xf40. #2 was in an older NGC holder at one time - at xf40, which I agree with since I don't think strike should be a factor in circulated grades - but as Doug says, my opinion and $2.50 might buy me a cup of coffee

 

This mirrors my post above regarding the capped busts. NGC grading tends to align with your thinking. PCGS does not though. It is a shame it was crossed.

 

Well, your opinion and either of those $2.50's would get you quite a few cups, I think...

 

I’d like them at VF30, but not higher. Do you think they would have been graded 35 or higher if they had a common date and mm (or no mm)?

 

They would have been made a lot better if they were Philly or SF issues.

Really weak strikes are kind of a no win for them. If they grade them high than everyone but series experts claim they don't know what they're doing and how overgraded it is ect. Then if they grade it how it appears to most people the series experts are unhappy. I can understand why they're less forgiving on some of them.

That said those halfs really can be a pain to grade, you really almost need to have the Overton book out when doing it on some of them.

 

Well, the strikes on the New Orleans and Charlotte coins from this year (and other years) are often very weak. To me the grade, other than MS grades, should be based on wear - i.e., how it come out of the mint and what happened to is since - rather than grading on the strike for circulated coins.

Here's a Quarter Eagle from New Orleans -same year - with an extraordinarily good strike for the issue and year. It's grade 55 despite the ding on the reverse, which with some other issues might have cost it a grade. The strike quality of this coin is very rare for 1840.

 

Based on the photograde pics and the wear on the high points I said VF30, but I am sure you know these better.

 

personally I don't think the TPG's pay a whole lot of attention to strike until MS grades. On a circ coin, I think they just look at the amount of detail and call it as they see it. A specialist/connoisseur may pay attention to die states and strike vs. wear and that is fine and interesting to us (me included!) but I just don't believe the graders get too far into the weeds with these issues. I'm no close student of Charlotte gold, but understand that many of the issues come sort of mushy. To me, those coins look about the same grade. I prefer #1 because of sharper details.

 

I feel 35 is the right grade for both. The obverse of the first has stronger details the reverse of the second. Neither quite sharp enough for xf in my opinion. Regardless I like both and love the originality and crusty surfaces