Net Grading a ''Problem" large Cent

This is not an unattractive coin. On the contrary, it has hard surfaces and nice tan color, as desired by many large cent collectors.

HOWEVER, QUITE CLEARLY this IS a problem coin. It is severely pitted on both obverse and reverse as can be seen.
(The pitting is stable - at least it has not deteriorated for the last 22+ years).

What i am interested in hearing is how you would net grade this coin. If possible, going through the EAC methodology. Otherwise, use any approach which makes sense to you in arriving at a final NET grade.

Looking forward to you comments.

PS- this is an S-9, R-2 coin.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

First, it doesn't look like pitting to me. It looks more like gravel damage. :kewl:

Second, I'd give it a VF Details, with a Net of Fine. :thumb: It might even go as high as XF Details, with a Net of VF.

I likes! :eat:

Ribbit

 

Thank H.T!
Please explain gravel damage. I've never heard about that?

So you would net grade this coin as high as Fine, maybe higher?
I would have thought the EAC/CQR, or even the TPG's would be way more severe on this coin.

The way I interpret CQR for example is:

- assign a grade (let us say VF30)
- deduct for defects (pitting/gravel damage on both obverse and reverse): 20-25 points?
- arrive at net grade: VG10-G5?

But that is how I would go about it. Opinions will differ.........

 

What I meant by gravel damage is the "pits" don't look to be from corrosion but rather "hits" and little rocks are most likely the culprits.

Ribbit

Ps: I suck at grading so I have no clue how to net-grade a problem coin. :goofer: I guessed!

 

I don't think it would net grade that low. Looks like vf30 details, net f15. 20-25 points seems like a lot.

 

This omits one vital step : assignment of Choice, Average, or Scudzy.

Consider two coins, both EAC 40.

One has 40 details and no problems - net grade EAC 40. The coin qualifies as "choice".

The other has AU58 details but several problems - lightly cleaned, recolored, a few minor rim bumps. Not too bad. Net EAC 40, designated average.

Both coins are 40, but the choice coin with less detail usually commands a higher price than the problem coin with more meat.

And CQR shows the all three categories, and sometimes adds Average+ and Average-. In all cases, meatier problem coins show less value in CQR.

In fact, CQR gives rarity ratings R.1 through R.8 for the designations Choice, Average, and Scudzy ! IOW, a given die variety might be an R.3 on the whole, but is R.6 in choice !

 

You are absolutely correct and thanks 900.
I knew when I was writing that I was omitting that step of the final grade determination: Choice, Average, Scudzy. But the truth is, I don't think I fully understand how CQR applies those criteria to arrive at a final grade. You examples clear that up a bit.
So, using CQR criteria, how would this coin net grade?

 

It doesn't change the number, but rather adds to it as an additional descriptor*.

In the example above, the two coins would NOT be referred to as simply "EAC 40". Rather, they would be "40 Choice" and "40 average".

When you use CQR, first find the date, then die variety, then look down the column 40. Look for the price on the row marked Choice, Average, or Scudzy. In many cases, there is a huge difference twixt the three - though they are all 40s !



* almost like Red, Red/Brown, and Brown

 

Sorry it took so long to respond; I wanted to get home and verify some diagnostics. Yes, it's Sheldon-9 R.2. I was concerned the reverse beads looked too much like denticles, but I think they're OK.

My grade - sharpness 20, serious pits, net 8.

 

EAC grade: VF details, AVG-, Net VG-8.

IMO

 

I think you are assigning the details level too low. These coins were engraved too deeply into the die and the high details didn't strike up fully so the weakness is from strike not wear. Note the lack of wear on the cheek, eyebrow, beading etc I would say at least XF40 details (I'd like to see a little more detail on the reverse to go higher than that.) I think the pitting is from corrosion but I don't believe it will continue and frankly to me it isn't that distracting. Still they are there, I would net it as at least F-15 Average. If the pitting was more distracting it might rate a scudzy but I just can't justify calling it that.

 

I totally agree! :thumb: You rarely see that much detail on these :kewl: and the damage isn't that distracting. encil:

I think she is gorgeous! :hug:

Ribbit

 

I do not know eac grading and netting, but been following this thread. I would have started the coin XF and netted it to VF money - as mentioned I don't find the pitting too distracting. Large cents can be very tough at times to get the right price range.

 

This thread beautifully illustrates why there can never be a universal net grade agreement - people disagree on the impact of imperfections.

For some folks, the pits are no big deal. For others, they're a deal-breaker. Some folks drop the coin several levels, others not so much.

Here, we have several knowledgeable, experienced, highly respected folks. One rates it "no better than G at best" - CQR says that's a $1750 coin.

Another calls it F15 average. CQR doesn't give a price for that, but interpolation gives a coin in the $8,000 - $11,000 range.

Which one is "right" ?

 

I would give the coin a VG 8. The "pitting" on the reverse is more obtrusive than on the obverse.

 

I would put my money on Conder's opinion, even though I disagreed with him.

 

thats an understatement GD. Well Struck!

 

Owned, at one time, by a certain Mr. Husak, I presume ? :bow: