Opinion: Do You Like This Coin?

You can add me to that list, too.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Really??? The TPGs grade the amount of luster rather than the amount of wear??? I'd like to see a citation for that comment.

The Sheldon Scale (I assume that's the basis of your grading statement) says this:

XF-45 (Choice Extremely Fine) - Legends and devices are clear and sharp, with slight wear on the high points, and great eye appeal.

AU-50 (About Uncirculated) - Sharp legends and devices show only a trace of wear on the highest points. There must be some remaining mint luster.

AU-55 (Good About Uncirculated) - Sharp legends and devices show only a hint of wear on the high points. Remaining mint luster must be at least half; great eye appeal.

AU-58 (Choice About Uncirculated) - Virtually uncirculated, except for minor wear marks on high points. Nearly all mint luster must be present, and must have outstanding eye appeal.


I think the coin shows more than a trace of wear and has far less than half mint luster remaining.


​

 

kanga, I do like this coin, but if it were mine, I would actively seek to replace it. Why? If I'm going to have just one representative coin from a series, then I would like it to be one of the scarcer/key dates. The 75'S is by far the most common of the 20 Cent series.......At some of the shows I've been too in the US I have seen several dealers with up to 8 examples of the 75 S (even I have two). The other dates are much more difficult to find. Personally I would chose the '75CC. This is just my humble opinion, but that is what I would do.

 

Yes, really, and no, I was not reference Sheldon grading, but I was referring to my understanding of TPG grading.

That said, I have no citations, although I've bolded your descriptions above in reference to luster, and could probably dig up the PCGS grading guide and do the same. Regardless, I stand by my assessment of TPG grading and how they grade coins in this range, based on my conversations with other collectors, dealers, and graders. That's not to say that wear and luster aren't related -- they are -- but remaining luster rather than wear (or weak strike, as in your talon comment) is the overriding factor in XF/AU grades.

 

'
Thumbs down. In a type set I would want an example that shows better. Different story in a series set if I need to fill a hole at reasonable cost.

 

It could just be the pictures, but it looks slightly darker than I like. Now depending on how it looks in hand I might very well like the coin. But in the pictures it is slightly to dark for me. Just my opinion.

 

Where can I reference any of the TPG's written standards?

 

So, pretty much all grading is bogus, except what you, yourself do. I don't mean in assigning number or letter grades, but if you want an Uncirculated coin, you find one on which you can see no evidence of circulation. If you want Almost Uncirculated, you find one on which you can see just a little evidence of wear. And so on. Why bother paying for someone (or some company) to make an assignment that you may or may not agree with? I've always felt that grading is for bragging rights more than for obtaining a coin worthy of including in a collection. If I see a coin I need or want, and it looks nice, I'll get it, regardless of what grade someone has put on it. I've seen (and own) plenty of so-called EF or AU coins that are far more attractive than some so-called MS examples of the same coin. In my collecting and collection, MY grading standards trump those of PCGS, ANACS, Photograde, dealers or anyone else.

 

It's nice, but it's a little dark.

 

In my eyes that coin is so ugly so I do not intent to keep it...period..