1917 slq this can't be ms

Discussion in 'US Coins Forum' started by rzage, Mar 8, 2009.

Page 2 of 2
  1. cncman

    cncman Senior Member

    Very interesting, so what draws the line to where they would call something AU-58? Wouldnt that really be the same as the MS grade standards you were talking about? Or would it have more to do with the luster then too?

     
    cncman, Mar 11, 2009
    #21 + Quote Reply
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. Lehigh96

    Lehigh96 Toning Enthusiast

    After this coin which is graded NGC AU58, I don't know how they draw the line. Mike thinks this was overdipped and they just bumped it down, but I have seen dipped coins with much more luster impairment end up in MS slabs so I really don't know anymore.

    [​IMG]

    :D
     
    Lehigh96, Mar 11, 2009
    #22 + Quote Reply
  4. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    It is always about the luster, or rather breaks in the luster, regardless of where it is. Mike is correct to a point, but the TPG's are far from consistent on this score. In many cases they will allow luster breaks on the high points and call the coin MS because they rationalize that the luster breaks in those locations are due to roll or cabinet friction.

    In plenty of other cases, and it depends quite often on the type of coin it is, luster breaks on the high points will result in the coin being graded AU by the TPG's. There really is no rhyme or reason to it.

    But more times than not if a coin has luster breaks in the fields, regardless of type, then the TPG's will grade it AU. But there are exceptions to even this rule. What they (the TPG's) base those exceptions on I have no idea for I have seen examples in virtually all types.
     
    GDJMSP, Mar 11, 2009
    #23 + Quote Reply
  5. Leadfoot

    Leadfoot there is no spoon

    Although I might argue that there is some rhyme or reason to the way the TPGs do it, for the most part, I agree with GDJMSP's perspective above, and have bolded a few points that bear repeating. Well said, sir.....Mike
     
    Leadfoot, Mar 11, 2009
    #24 + Quote Reply
  6. Leadfoot

    Leadfoot there is no spoon

    Yup, that's what I think. Understand (and I'm sure you do), that I'm trying to rationalize NGC's grade with only a picture....

    FWIW, the SLQ is another one of those coins that the "rule" of luster imparement doesn't always apply -- particularly on the obverse as there is really no open areas of the fields to get wear. The Buff nickel is another, but for another reason -- the scalloped high-relief design.

    Again, the AU/MS "rule" described above isn't a hard and fast rule, but it works for the majority of types of coins, IMO, and I know it has really helped me in guessing how a TPG will grade a coin (particularly if it has open fields and/or a relatively low-relief design).

    Respectfully...Mike
     
    Leadfoot, Mar 11, 2009
    #25 + Quote Reply
  7. rzage

    rzage What Goes Around Comes Around .

    Mike , Who are the EAC .
    Rusty:D
     
    rzage, Mar 11, 2009
    #26 + Quote Reply
  8. Leadfoot

    Leadfoot there is no spoon

    Leadfoot, Mar 11, 2009
    #27 + Quote Reply
  9. rzage

    rzage What Goes Around Comes Around .


    Thanks , and for the link too .:D
    Rusty:):hatch::hammer:
     
    rzage, Mar 11, 2009
    #28 + Quote Reply
Page 2 of 2
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page