GTG: 1858 Liberty Seated Half

Its nice.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Just wait for the reveal. Gonna be quite interesting.

 

55

 

MS60, Very nice coin, I like it.

 

It’s not atypical for AUs to have far cleaner surfaces than low grade MSs. That’s one big reason many people collect AUs over low grade MSs. They trade the slight wear for the better looking surface and all around coin.

 

I know. My 1921 and 1928 Peace Dollars are much better looking than MS coins as AU 58s.

 

The echoes from the rim shot are fading, the audience is getting restless.

 

AU 55 is my guess ...I considered details for an old cleaning but gave it the benefit of doubt .....nice coin overall (especially compared to the PCGS MS 61 example)

 

Very nice coin! Not a lot of expertise with this series. I will stick my neck out. If the scratches are on the holder, MS60.

 

Ok, the reveal. It is straight graded. Obviously, it was dipped. However, I am kind of baffled by this grade. I will continue my comments below the reveal image:



The AU 50 seems, to me, like an off the wall grade. We acknowledge it was dipped. However, PCGS would not have straight-graded the coin if they thought it was cleaned, or buffed. The coin definitely has MS level detail to it—when compared to the MS 61 photograde, this coin comes off much sharper in surfaces, and has as much luster as a low grade MS coin. I can definitely see it as a high grade AU coin—I would personally have gone AU 58 with it. I agree with the majority, putting it as AU 55-58. But AU 50??? That grade makes absolutely no sense to me. The only thing I can think is PCGS felt it necessary to punish the coin for an excessively heavy dip? Makes no sense. This coin takes a big value jump from low AU to high AU. Totally, an illogical grade.

 

All I have to say is wow and not in a good way.

 

I kind of figured, based on your comments, that the coin was going to be in a "lower than expected" holder.

To me, the coin looks like a piece that was stored in a PVC flip for a while, but was conserved well enough for it to straight grade. I say this due to the "generally less than lustrous fields that sort of look like they were cleaned a bit but not too badly" look of the coin in general.

I still feel like AU50 is a bit harsh, though. And yes, I do like the coin. Nicer than any Seated Halves in my collection.

Thanks for sharing!

 

To my eye, this coin is begging for a submission to NGC for “Cross at minimum AU 58.”

 

AU-50 does a disservice to this coin. Sharpness is clearly mid to high AU. If they wanted to ding it for lower luster than a 55 should have, then 53 is always available to them. Same thought if you think it's 58 sharpness but should be bumped down, then take it to 55. But to drop it either 2 or three grades due to luster loss from dipping while still straight-grading it defies common sense.

I think a resubmission is in order, maybe to the other guys?

I would love to hear what @physics-fan3.14 thinks about this.

 

Before the reveal I was going with AU55. They gave it AU 50 probably because it was dipped out. Based on the last image I would even add in cleaned. It's not a coin for me it doesn't have a natural look to it. You can see where the coin was messed with around the stars and date. I'm surprised it wasn't given a details grade. The picture lighting could be affecting how it looks to me.

 

If they did I know 13-year-olds who can grade better than they can. Circulation wear—that’s it! Strike, luster, scratches, those don’t go to wear. Dipped, cleaned, those go to whether market acceptable, turning on the degree of same. If they know how to grade circulated coins as well as any 13-year-old collector, their AU50 means one thing, and one thing only, they’re seeing AU50 wear on it. Throw out the book on the two basic classifications of coins, Circulated and Uncirculated, as differentiated by one thing, circulation wear, if they don’t at the bare minimum know that much.

 

WRONG. You are seeing what you want to see. Had it been “messed with,” it would have gotten a details grade. Geez!

 

Your next to last sentence was the most likely illogical logic used. It is not at all unheard of by PCGS and NGC as a grade opinion. Business is business.

 

"Silently net grading" actually is something the grading services do. I think it happened here. AU58 by wear, but it doesn't look 58.