EAC people, critique please

As you may have seen from other posts, I'm just branching out into EACs. In the past three weeks, I've read 5 or 6 books and watched 5 videos from the ANA library. I've decided to start with late date large cents just to get the feel for copper, because they are much more affordable than some other, earlier series. I bought a copy of the Newcomb book, too.

I went to a coin show the other day with a wallet full of cash, intent on making my first purchase. Let me explain the coin and my thought process, and show you some pics, and then invite you to critique me as a way to build my skills in evaluating copper.

One other note. I went ahead and bought the Nikon D3300 we talked about in another thread. However, I have yet to invest in a macro lens or other equipment that will enhance my numismatic photography. These pics are the best I could muster with the standard 15-55mm lens provided with the camera, and without a tripod or other stand. I will continue to acquire photographic equipment and work on my skills, but right now, these are the best I could do.

Here is what I bought:







Here is my thought process:

I'm using, "Grading Guide for Early American Copper Coins" as my bible.

Sharpness (i.e. technical grade): The dealer told me it had been in a PCGS slab marked as MS-62, but he disagreed with the grade and cracked it. He had the coin marked as AU-58. When I examined the coin through my 10X loupe, I agreed that its sharpness did, in fact, rate a mint state grade. There is absolutely no wear on the coin whatsoever. You probably cannot see this in the pics, but through my loupe it's very apparent, so for now you'll have to trust me.

Color: The color in my pics is close to the actual coin, but not exactly. In hand, the coin almost exactly matches the "chocolate brown" depicted in the book. To me, it has lots of eye appeal.

Surface: I saw three impairments to the coin. First is a small nick in the field to the right of Liberty's head. Second is a carbon spot to the left of the bust. Finally, on the reverse, there is some slight discoloration in the "E" on the reverse. These are all very small, minor impairments, but using the "net grading" process used by EAC, it does drop the coin down below its Mint State technical grade.

Net grade: Although the coin has a sharpness (technical grade) that puts it in the Mint State range, I assessed its net grade to be AU-58. The dealer and I agreed on a price of $145.

What say you copper people? Please critique my grading abilities and thought process so I can improve my skills. When I consult numismedia, it shows I got the coin for a steal. Does the current market reflect that, too?

Lastly, I attributed this coin as being the N-8 variety by using the Newcomb book. Am I correct?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Why would a dealer take a MS62 graded coin, but it out, and sell it raw as AU58? Sounds odd to me.

 

Because EAC net grading and TPG technical grading are different. If you're not a copper person, you won't get it.

 

Because he is honest? The coin is lightly buffed.

Here is something to ponder AND THEN FORGET concerning the old technical grading system:

Can anyone explain the difference between these two "technical" grades?

1. AU, buffed.

2. Buffed AU.

 

Excellent first late date purchase, and I think you did very good on the price!!!

This is similar to the N-8 variety, but it is an N-26. The 1 in the date on the N26 is into the bust while on the N-8 it is slightly lower. But the easiest attribution point is the small cud over star 3. There are some additional attribution points on the reverse as well. The N-8 is R1 (common) while the N-26 is R3 (scarce), although not scarce enough for a price premium.

It sounds like you are getting into late dates, and if so you really have to purchase the Grellman attribution book. Newcomb is a nice historical book to have, and the fact that it was handwritten makes it that much more charming to me, but as an attribution guide it leaves a ton to be desired. It's very difficult to use, missing some later discovered varieties, and wrong on some attributions. There are multiple 'varieties' that Newcomb labeled which are really just different die states of other varieties. Grellman is leaps and bounds both easier to use, much more accurate, and much more thorough. They really don't even compare, although I will not be getting rid of my Newcomb.

Grading from photos is hard to do, especially when you are talking about the difference between AU and MS, as the difference really comes down to luster break on the highest point. With that said, you should look at the highest points and see if you can spot the difference in luster between the protected areas, like in between LIBERTY, and the highest ridge of the coronet. It may be the case that this coin is too dirty to really see any luster at all.

All in all, I think it's a great coin, and MS or AU the price is good! Way to go!!!

 

I recommend you purchase these books before buying another coin as they are possibly hard to find. The coins are all over the place! My first choice for late dates is NOYES Volumes #5,6. Grellman is second choice. I have Newcomb but don't use it anymore. I don't think any of these are still in print; however if you join EAC you may find the books through their members. Get a professional quality "German made" brush too along with some "Care."

 

No idea really but I would guess that "AU, buffed" is a coin that is AU and buffed to a shine. A "Buffed AU" is a coin that is not AU but a "Slider" that is buffed to make it look AU. I'm not sure I'd buy either, even if at the right price.

 

Noyes is still in print and available only through Charles Davis new. Grellman is still available, but only through the author . We disagree on the order of those two regarding which one is better, but the difference is minor compared to how much better both are compared to Newcomb.

I second a brush and some verdi-care. Xylol is useful as well, although very hazardous to your health.

 

You can email Bob Grellman and purchase the book (this is how I purchased it). He is a very good person, he sent the book first and asked for payment after receiving it. His email is on the EAC website

 

It appears you are the only brave one here....

One of the originators of TRUE technical grading explained the difference in this way at a grading seminar.

1. AU, buffed. This described a coin with an AU state of preservation (grade) that is also buffed.

2. Buffed, AU. This was used to describe an AU coin that was buffed lowering it's actual grade to the XF range.

This distinction was a "classroom" study to teach nuances of grading. In the real world, both coins are buffed - #1 is AU and #2 is XF.

 

Buffing: I do not believe this coin is buffed or even cleaned. I can see from the photos how one might suspect that; however, when viewed in person and through a loupe there is no evidence whatsoever. All I can say is the indicators in these pics must have been brought out by the flash of the camera.

Additionally, in hand, the obverse and reverse are the same color. In the pics it appears as though the reverse is lighter. As I said in the original post, they are "chocolate brown."

 

The position of the 5 to the curls above, and the 1 in relation to the bust are the big attribution points for this coin, not so much the small die markings. The main improvement in Grellman was the numerical classification system used to describe the date position for each variety. Once you get the hang of it, you can either ID a variety just on the date position, or at least narrow it down to a handful of varieties.

 

Yeah, I was referring to some comments about the coin being buffed, not so much the attribution. I'm confident it is NOT buffed.

 

You have a nice looking coin; yet IMO, it is not original. Perhaps I'm being too critical so I hope you will play "teacher" and educate me ?

Obverse: I see three shades (change of color). The color in the left field
is light and darkens as it reaches the relief. I've been taught that this characteristic is called the "halo" effect virtually always an indication of cleaning (light buffing in my post).

Reverse: How should I describe the surface under "one" and under "cents" that is lighter in color with "silver-looking" horizontal hairlines. I was taught to call that 100% evidence of an unoriginal surface - usually due to improper cleaning.

In my experience, a great photo can show things on a coin that are not easily seen in hand UNLESS the examiner knows the proper way to view a coin. Why not take your coin into a dark room; turn on an incandescent light; then TIP the coin back and forth while rotating it at the same time. Try it first w/o magnification. Then, if you feel like it - tell me what I am seeing. Thanks ahead of time!

 

I think I was close but I wouldn't buy either.

 

I have to agree with insider on this one. Nice coin but it has been cleaned.

 

I bet the seller busted out an unc details cleaned coin, and told people it used to be MS62, and he grades it AU58. It just doesn't make sense to bust out a 62 and call it AU. That would have been a red flag to me.

 

Not much to add, but I'd echo what others have said. It doesn't look like a harsh cleaning, but it's probably been brushed by somebody along the way. Also, and I'm sure you know this, it's hard say anything definitively from a picture. I try to take pictures of all my copper, and it's very difficult to capture the actual color as it would appear in hand. You're pictures are pretty good, however, even if the coin is darker than the pictures show.

 

Exactly what I thought too... the dealer's story doesn't make any sense. I like the coin a lot though.

 

You plainly don't understand EAC, then. For EAC'ers, TPG's and "market" grading are a language they don't speak and don't care to learn.

EAC grades are all Net grades, and they will assign a circulated grade to an uncirculated coin (just as the Europeans do) if the net result of their downgrades reaches below 60.

Here's the coin with nothing changed aside brightness, in an attempt to capture the original color more closely at the cost of contrast. Both were reduced an equal amount.





I do not feel the surfaces are original.