Does this MS61 have wear?

Doug gave the best info on this coin I will only add this:

Where's the luster? It could be the photos but I just do not see any luster at all which tells me.
As said it's a slider and a tricky one to boot. I see an AU-50,55 coin here and only AU because it's wear is so little. My bet would be it has roll rub or cabnet friction rub combined with a weak strike, plus it's been dipped.
That is the only thing that would account for the lack of luster.
A grade of MS-61 IMO is a gift and not a nice one at that. When you get into the MS-60, 61, 62 grades on most coins whether it be market grading or technical grading your in a hazy area for most coins. If not a key date coin that is rare across the board in all grades what have you got? In most cases you have a coin that is an AU-55 or 58 that somebody gifted you with an MS grade. In other words the TPG could not positively determine that the coin had geniune wear from circulation and the wear was from another cause plus they overlooked the luster. I mean gold has luster at times in VF-30.
Big gold coins, peace dollars, barber halves and even walking liberty halves have this type wear often.
If this coin has as little luster as it appears to have it's been dipped or should I say over dipped. I'd give it an AU-58 if it had luster.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Examples of "Top Tier" Liberty Double Eagle Certification

The lack-luster appearance is reality on many of these coins. The "green label" MS63 comes complete with lack-luster appearance, "bag rub", rim nicks, field chatter, gouges, scratches, and copper spots. I could post hundreds of similar examples from all of the "top tier" certifiers to show the accepted standards for this coin type.

 

Comparison of "Bottom Tier" Liberty Double Eagle Certification

Sometimes certified coins probably should be placed side by side, to appreciate respective standards rather than individual specimen scrutiny, or standards recalled from memory. :smile

 

Since the three posts that followed this were exclamations of how great Doug's post was, I am sure my opinion will be unpopular.

Doug, are you claiming that the TPG's establish their current grading policy based on the economic trends of the numismatic market? If so, I must vehemently disagree with you. The TPG's are in a constant balancing act. If they grade to conservatively, their customers will choose another TPG in hopes of getting a higher grade. If they grade to loosely, they risk losing the consumer confidence that is essential to their success. Once the consumer confidence in the assigned grade is gone, the TPG will drop in tier.

The introduction of the CAC had an immediate effect on the grading standards of both NGC & PCGS. Both companies were aware that there was nothing they could do about coins already graded, but both were also cognizant that they did not want to fall behind the other in terms of % of their coins that would end up with a CAC sticker. The only way for either company to ensure a high % of CAC stickers and maintain consumer confidence in their grading was for both to tighten their grading standards back up. We all recognize that the TPG's did overgrade coins during the time periods you mentioned.

The drop in prices was completely independent from anything happening in the grading process and was a result of the overall economy which crashed in late 2008. Your theory is that grading tightened because prices dropped. Therefore, if the economy had stayed strong and coin prices continued to rise or remain flat, is it your position that the TPG's would not have tightened their standards even with the advent of the CAC?

I think all of the major players in both PCGS & NGC know John Albanese, know his grading expertise and standards, and knew that the CAC was not going to fail miserably as many so called numismatic forum pundits predicted. They prepared for the arrival of the CAC and took responsible measures to ensure that the introduction of the CAC did not adversely affect their business. The fact that those measures coincided with the decline in market prices is mere coincidence.

 

"In hopes of a higher grade" to what end? Numismatic worth, investment appreciation and worth, or any other intrinsic value?

And if that happens is it so bad? If we believe that there are no strict ANA standards being applied by all TPG then competition among the corporate TPG should drive the market! And when the market, the consumer, decides that the end product is not worth the cost, the TPG has to adjust or go away!
just my questions . . .

 

Anyone submitting a coin for grading is hoping for the highest grade. Higher grades equal more money for the submitter. Not only must the TPG perform a balancing act, the submitters must engage in a balancing act of their own. After all, they could just submit their coins to ICG and get higher grades than PCGS or NGC. The problem is that ICG does not have the reputation for grading accuracy that both PCGS & NGC do and the consumers will not pay the price for the grade that is on the label. When choosing between PCGS & NGC, they still play the same game. It is believed that NGC gives higher grades, but it is fact that PCGS holdered coins drive higher prices across many different series.

The TPG's must adjust to the market and I submit they do. If they relax their standards, it is due to pressure to increase submission revenues. If they tighten their standards it is usually to build consumer confidence in the accuracy and consistency of their assigned grades. If they never tighten their standards, both PCGS & NGC risk falling out of the top tier and joining ICG & ANACS in the second tier.

 

eventually even the top tier will go by the wayside.

As with everything in life, change is inevitable. But when you change the measurements, the credibility of the yardstick starts to come into question.

The TPG grades are the yardstick and in the 15 or so short years of their existence they have changed the standards. Several times. You can only believe someone who changes their story for so long before you stop paying attention.

just my 2¢

 

I would agreee with that premise but the changes/shifts have been pretty subtle and both NGC & PCGS are still much more accurate than everybody else.

 

With all this, Isnt a B/U coin considered Mint state??

 

oh, agreed, Lehigh, however over time the more ridiculous the shifts become, the less credible they will be and eventually they will fall by the wayside. It just isn't anywhere near time for that to happen yet.

 

B/U and Mint State mean exactly the same thing. Uncirculated.

 

Brilliant is a puffery word with little meaning. Any coin over F-15 is Brilliant to some people. Uncirculated USED to have some meaning, but it has expanded to cover practically all AU coins with luster.

MS to me is a technical term, though it's my understanding that many MS60 - MS 62 would have been AU in the 60s before the market grading took hold. There have always been high grade circulated coins with more value than the poorest MS due to condition, rather than wear. It just didn't used to get rolled into the Grade until you reached full MS.

 

From the PCGS lingo;

 

The coin was examined by a known and respected member of this forum who said it was "very original". I took some new pics which hopefully show some better luster.

 

Finding The "Truth"

I'm glad to hear that you've sought/located credible counsel to evaluate your treasure, and if you'd further investigated, I believe , it would've been established that "roll/cabinet rub" is highly improbable with this coin type. Additional images aren't necessary to establish the quality of this specimen, for one knowledgeable about the Liberty double eagle. Generally, what you received is the tripe espoused by dealers when acquiring these coins, where they quote past A.N.A. technical specifications for "mint state" coins. These standards, I believe, are generally disregarded by certifiers. I've evidenced same by my 3 previously posted higher grade "mint state" specimens, graded by the "Creme De La Creme" of "top tier" numismatic certification. These imaged coins were purchased as "investment grade" material, stated to always appreciate, because of their accreditation pedigree. The posted coins have a stated retail value of >$7500, ~$3000 greater than their purchase price, which is ~$1200 more than dealers offering. A disparity of <100% between dealer offering and suggested market value. Beware of individuals stating investment performance based generally on certification, while demeaning a prominent specimen of quality pedigree. Please, just enjoy your beautiful mature "art piece", while disregarding some without credible basis or credentials, advancing their unsupported statements.