Help me understand this Trade Dollar

Doug , I'm just not seeing the wear that would drop it to a 50 -53 . To me a 50-53 is like a high end XF where you can see the wear without really looking for it . I figure the slight wear I see would market grade to a 63 if those other marks weren't there . Now if this was graded strictly by ANA Standards it would be a 58 in my book .
As for your question , I'd love the tpgs to use the ANA standards .

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

What I find interesting about this thread is, regardless of level of expertise, I'd doubt any poster here would feel comfortable saying he knew with 100% certainty what has happened to this coin. The two quotes above are coming from obviously knowledgeable collectors and yet even these views don't coincide; they are hardly conclusive.

To me this shows that some coin situations are simply going to be beyond consensus and left ultimately to opinion. (Granted, a look under a microscope might reveal a bit more about this coin—but I doubt it would resolve, e.g., whether the scratches in the field are "natural" or intentional.)

My point is you don't have to know everything in order to make a smart decision; in fact, in most cases you probably won't be able to know everything. We all make the best use of our own knowledge as we can. If a coin raises a red flag for you, best to let it be. Some might want to pursue this coin (or one like it) for their collection; others, given any uncertainty, might want to avoid it.

Finally, I believe this makes for the argument that, lacking complete knowledge, it's better to have access to more opinions rather than fewer.

 

I'm not seeing this level of wear either, especially on the ribbon and motto. Doug shows no mercy.

 

IMO, the coin PROBABLY has a very tiny amount of friction (that is not visible in the photo - at least I don't see it) and an old time technical grader may have called it AU-58 (if it shows rub) and EXCESSIVE MARKS for the surface.

However, IMO there is not a successful dealer alive who would sell this coin as an AU. IMO, it is a poster child for an MS-60 in the ANA Grading set. As I implied, the TPGS downgraded it on purpose to reflect its eye appeal (which is still decent to me ).

If the OP would take a photo of the obverse showing just the knee, arm, head, and breast, using FLOURESCENT LIGHT we can finally put this thread to rest.

 

No. No time for your games.

 

Thanks for one of your typical & expected VERY INFORMATIVE POSTS.

There is a reason that 99% of Professional numismatists at grading seminars, TPGS's, auction companies, and coin dealers recommend examining coins using incandescent light. It keeps the ignorant or misinformed collectors in the dark ; allowing them to have opinions about things they know nothing about.

Here is a game I recommend all of you try...take an Uncirculated coin into a dark room, turn on a florescent desk light and examine its high points with a glass. This game was played every time I was with technicians/authenticators at the Treasury Department in DC. You might be surprised at what you see.

 

I knew I was opening up a can as the word "SCRAPE" is in both of our definitions. That's why I tried to cover myself by adding "Doug is technically correct at the end." It is going to take me at least an hour to type a reply so it will have to wait.

Until then, I'll say that this is simply a case where a group of unscientific, uninformed, untrained, SUCESSFUL coin dealers came along in 1986 and changed how certain words such as "scrape" were interpreted by the ACTUAL PEOPLE WHO MAKE THE COINS and used for over a dozen years by professional numismatic authenticators/graders. More details later...

 

@GDJMSP

Your opinion of florescent light shocks me! Incandescent is very important for grading but not the detection of wear, rub, luster loss.

We can do this in PM/open forum/on the phone. Swords, knives, pistols, or ...

I prefer the phone (takes less time) and then we can each issue a release to inform other members of our opinions.

 

Insider, your emojis and text colors are distracting and frankly, come across as childish. Let your words do the talking.

 

Faces say it better than I could ever convey...see...

This is a place for learning and FUN! AT LEAST FOR ME.

 

Don't get me wrong; I'll fight to the death for your right to enjoy yourself (if emojis are what it takes); it's just that they kinda get in the way of communication.

 

It's an interesting coin. I figured it would bring lots of different opinions. Thank you all for joining in. I'll report back once I get it back home and get it under the microscope. I'll also have a friend shoot better images at the Fun Show in January.

 

Yes, please. This is a fascinating coin.

 

I've been having a discussion about the merits of florescent light when used to determine the condition (as far as friction/loss of luster) of a coin's surface.

First, let me say that as for lighting: incandescent shows just about everything. It is a MUST for seeing hairlines, bagmarks, etc. on coins. Furthermore, incandescent light is both used and recommended by all the professionals I know both inside and outside of the TPGS. The reason is simple, it lets you see surface defects; however, the glare from this type of light "masks" the change of color on the high points where the lost of luster (for whatever the reason) occurs first.

I have inserted two micrographs (15X) of a BU silver Roosevelt dime. One was taken using a 100 watt incandescent light. The other was taken using a 2 bulb (15 watt each) jeweler's florescent lamp. I learned these were used by technicians at the U.S. Mint's Office of Technology in the 1970's.

One image shows a fully lustrous head. The other shows a change of color on the high points of the hair. These are places where the original surface luster has been smashed (shiny) due to "stacking" pressure in a roll. This area of friction ALSO has luster (reflection of light) it just looks differently from the luster which remained totally original.

I use BOTH light sources as they are for different things. Also, florescent light is the ONLY type of light one should use for authentication - PERIOD.

 

Looks like I'd choose the floresant bulb for grading MS coins as I'd want to see if there is wear . Though they both could come in handy . Guess I should try some GE Reveals too .

 

YOU HAVE SEEN THE LIGHT!

I have converted two major dealers to florescent (so far) at their office desk. When buying over-the-counter - first look florescent for authenticity and to determine amount of friction (if any); then incandescent to finish grading it.