But how on earth does Anacs label this EF-40? It looks like a VG with Enviro Damage. http://www.teletrade.com/coins/lot.asp?auction=3411&lot=2979#n
That token was struck looking that ugly, it's actually a nice EF considering it's such a poorly made token.
Struck with rusted dies ? I'd say definitely. But that doesn't change the fact that the token looks like a ground find that has been badly corroded and should be in a details holder.
Odd. I find Anacs to be conservative when grading my modern coins. I often get 62's and 63's. The lowest Ngc has given me was 64.
I have no knowledge of the issue, but the above makes a lot of sense. Sometimes you see the same thing with colonials. You look at the coin and think it has something like VG details. They you look at the grade and it's XF. The point you're missing is the coin was struck with crappy details to begin with. That makes these coins VERY hard to grade.
It sure is easy for an ancient collector. VG details=VG grade. Life is a lot simpler in our little corner of the world until some US collector tries to come over and screw it all up talking about "rusted dies", "weak strike", "poor planchet" and all the other garbage. I buy a coin based upon what percentage of the design is still on the coin, for WHATEVER REASON. Like I said, sure is nice and easy to grade, and we all know what a VG or an XF looks like. Ya'll should just accept some coins left the mint as a VF or F, and that this is ok!
