This 1851 proof silver medal of The Declaration of Independence was recently auctioned by Daniel Sedwick LLC for $4.27 million dollars. It is unique and was given a grade by NGC of MS62. First, because it is unique how does a TPG develop a grade for this with no other pieces to compare it with, Second, it is proof, so why an MS62 label? I'm confused but maybe someone can answer these questions and enlighten me. Thanks very much.
I’m speculating here, so take this with a grain of salt. I imagine that NGC is already familiar with other medals produced by the same engraver, and presumes the initial quality of this medal (strike, luster, surface quality) to be comparable with same for others. This would provide a baseline from which to establish a grading standard, not unlike grading the one-off 1870-S half dime, based on the attributes of half dimes of other dates. As for the MS designation, I can’t help with that.
Sounds positively reasonable. On the MS, maybe it should have been an SP designation which some have speculated it should be. It seems a coin of such value would have been treated a bit better.
Contrary to popular belief, if you understand the principles of grading a coin, you can grade literally any coin without having seen it before. It might even be unique! Let's walk through the key areas: Strike: The strike of a coin is self-evident. Are the features flattened? Are the faces full? Do all of the details present crisply, or are they weak? Strike is a fairly minor component of grading these days. Luster: Again, just look at the coin. Eye appeal: Good toning is good toning, and it doesn't matter what coin it's on. An attractive patina will have the same general feel. Contact marks: The severity of contact marks is often weighted based on the focal areas. A mark on Morgan's cheek is more imporant than one in her hair. If you are familiar with art composition, and aware of the item you're looking at, you can identify pretty easily where your eyes are first drawn. This particular example is challenging because it is such a busy design, and the reverse is literally just a large block of text... but you can still notice contact marks, and this is often a primary grade driver. Now, a lot of modern grading is comparative, as you allude to. This VF is slightly better than that VF, so it must be a 25? But, really, grading is just appraising the surfaces of any coin by a set of judgments... strike, luster, eye appeal, and contact marks. If you understand those criteria, you can grade any coin.
I'm not sure I completely agree. If only one 1921 Peace Dollar had been minted, and the high spots were lacking luster, would you grade it as AU, or would you more likely grade it XF? So much of the intended design is evident, despite being absent from the coin, simply because one can see the flattening of the design where metal ceased flowing into the recesses of the dies. A mint state coin will possess luster even on the flat high points, but a barely circulated coin will lack luster in those areas. Technically, one should then look to the fields for signs of wear, but some do not grade this way. We've seen that before. Forgetting to use the fields to determine if the coin has been circulated, one then might very reasonably deduce that the lack of luster on the high spots and the amount of flattening of the design in those areas points to an XF grade . . . certainly the wrong conclusion for such a coin. Admittedly, the 1921 Peace Dollar is an extreme example, but suitably illustrative for this thread.
I think we agree more thank you think. The 1921 Peace is a perfect example of this - because it is so very rarely found perfectly struck. We can imagine what a fully struck piece would look like. The details would be full, and bold, and rounded. But don't usually find them that way. If Uncirculated, the unstuck areas will have a *very* different texture than circulated flattened areas. The difference is extreme enough that you don't really need to know what a fully struck Peace dollar should look like... the texture of the metal will tell you. This piece was not fully struck... but this piece was not fully struck and has wear. And yes, I agree 100%... the fields are an important piece of this puzzle, and are neglected far too often.
