Large Cent Questions

How would you grade a coin like this? I keep changing my mind (15/6 to 25/10) so other opinions are sought. I went with detail/net (which should approximate value). Both are HIGHLY subjective to begin with, but especially for this particular coin.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

VF details. Skudzy (planchet defect, cleaned, and corroded). Net G-6.

 

It seems to be suffering a flesh wound.

 

Don't know about the grade, but I'm curious if this was a metal detector find? Looks like it was nailed with a shovel when getting dug up.

 

Marshall, To answer your question: how to grade a coin like this? I first look at the obverse detail left -- that's the base details grade. It looked like a low end VF coin to me from the amount of detail left and I didn't really need to look at the reverse except to confirm. Next, I assess the problems and subtract a grade or two for each of them. I noted three problems, corrosion, cleaning and a planchet defect. The net of that is the coin went from 25 (low end VF) details to 6 (high end-good) net. That's how I do it. How do you do it?

 

Same basic process, but I do not see the cleaning (almost never do) and the sufaces are nicer than pictured; however, the damage looks worse in 3D than pictured so it comes down to how much to deduct for the damage to me.

I also started off by using the lowest grade with most of the detail from photograde. I determined that I can't really see much difference between F15 through VF30 using their examples. The eye is strong on some lower grade and weak on higher grade as is the hair. Mu coin shows better eye detail and more wear in the hair. The reverse is even more inconsistent. The leaf detail is often weak, even on MS examples, yet appears unusually strong on this coin, even though worn. This why I'm having problems with this particular coin.

 

I purchased it on EBay so I don't know. But it wouldn't surprise me. It's the best explanation for the damage I can come up with. It's a shame too. That shovel probably reduced the coin's value by over $2,000.

 

VF-20 details, Damaged net G-4

The damage is three fold. Coin has corrosion, has been cleaned, and has massive trauma that makes it appear it got crushed by something. The damage is quite distracting. As a result, I had to net grade this thing down to a GOOD. On a positive note, at least the damage doesn't enter into the primary fields (Liberty is intact).

 

i would grade it VF-20 NET G-4. corrosion, defective planchet, cleaned and rim ding.

 

Excellent question, Marshall. The discussion will be instructive to us all.

Personally, I feel the Sharpness grade is easy on 99.9% of coins. We consult the ANA Grading Standards book. IMO, your sharpness grade of 25 is reasonable.

The second easy part is making an inventory of problems. Big gash, reverse rim bump at K6, surfaces, maybe some scratches north of ONE.

Up to this point, we tend to see widespread agreement from most people. The data is "tightly grouped".

Now comes the hard part... how much to deduct for problems ? Here, we tend find widespread disagreement; a given problem bothers some people greatly, but bothers other folks much less.

For me personally, I suppose I would give it net 3 scudzy for CQR purposes.

Finally, the notion "assign it a $ value and move on" is not a bad idea. Many major players in copper do just that. They never ever argue grade; they negotiate price. They get to a certain point and "take it or leave it".

 

I think I agree with the net 3 scudzy; in fact, that may be too high.

As for the idea of net-grading -- it's an EAC thing. They net grade everything. Otherwise I'd agree with just assigning a value.

 

It would be nice if I could see the coin in hand, but I think I agree with Mike - my guess is that is a planchet flaw.

 

I suppose it's possible it's a planchet flaw, but I tend to think it's post-Mint damage. Blunt force trauma.

Planchet flaws like that usually resulted from problems in the rolling presses; the resulting strip had problems, so flans made from the strip had problems. Those problems tended to be on one side only, not both sides as we're seeing here. I'm sure there were exceptions, and this might be one of them.

All that is useful and interesting, and there is merit in discussing whether it's "as made" or post-Mint damage... but there's another, bigger issue. How does the gash affect you personally ? If you can appreciate the coin as it is, that's cool. Some can, some can't, and that's true of all problems with coins.

Rim bumps. Some folks just can't stand early copper with rim bumps. For me, they're not too bad. That personal, subjective difference is why there is such drastic Net Grade difference in opinion for coins with problems. With problem-free coins, we tend to see more agreement in grade.

 

I'll go with PMD . Instead of trying to configure a formula to grade this coin, do as suggested and move on.

 

There is no way I would call that a planchet flaw...more like a shovel flaw.

 

Yes, I do. Do you know what it looked like when it was minted? I agree that there was not a hole there, but there are a lot of other materials that could have been there.

 

Since I and 900fine have seen the coin in hand, I am comfortable with a post mint damage assumption. There is evidence of pink copper along the cut mark which leads me to believe it was a recent trauma rather than an old trauma. It does not show up well in photos but is apparent in hand.

 

You have it in hand. I will have to defer to your opinion, but someone sure spent some time trying to reassemble that thing.