I Need Some SERIOUS Opinions About This Coin

I still refuse to accept market grading. It is just an excuse for the TPGs to justify being wrong.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Or, with coins like this, it allows them to create an actual population of more than 50 coins. Right or wrong, it's an accepted practice.

 

On Typecoins chart it does match up with the F-15.
I gave my grade of F-12 because, if they net graded it (which they don't)
my VF/VG came out to F.
If, they grade the obverse more importantly, I had it as VG-10, and because this is a special exception coin, it bumps to F-12.

 

I too used the PhotoGrade to come up with my swag of F15, and I think it is a nice F12, and worth F12 money.

https://www.pcgs.com/cert/

Don't have to log in to anything.

 

Obverse has the details of a F12 while the reverse grades slightly higher.
Overall smooth surfaces with light graininess. No corrosion or verdigris.
The obverse may have been gently smoothed as it looks slightly unnatural.
Would probably EAC around VG10.
1793, C-4, low rarity 3.

 

My example is a C-3, R-3. Certainly not as nice as the coin Kanga shows, but all natural. Pronounced graininess of the reverse. Many C-3's seem to suffer from this. It probably was the nature of the stock planchets used.

 

EAC this is a VG 8 obverse and either VG8 or F12 reverse. Standards at VG8 are Liberties eye is clear with some hair detail at back of neck, which is spot on for this coin. The reverse states wreath is bold, at F12 reverse has some leaves showing veins which I don't really see on your coin, but these reverse can be hard to grade. What is a good strike versus wear...

I would call this a 10 net 8 for scratches in focal point of obverse and general surface condition. Not surprised it straight graded, and I would guess somewhere in the 15 range, could see it as low as 12 and as high as 20, but that is a solid VG half cent to me.

Edited to add links to an EAC straight graded F15 1793:

http://images.goldbergauctions.com/php/lot_auc.php?site=1&sale=65&lot=3

F12 net 8 1793:

http://images.goldbergauctions.com/php/lot_auc.php?site=1&sale=60&lot=1

VG8 net 7 1793 c4:

http://images.goldbergauctions.com/php/lot_auc.php?site=1&sale=90&lot=359

 

I agree with the posters above. Photograde uses a market Grade which is inflated and EAC does not.

That said, I see a full F-15 Obverse using the Photograde with detail at the rims, the highest hairline and the lowest curl. The reverse F-20 comp has better detail at the dentils, but weaker interior detail.

I'd jump at anything lower than a full F-15 market price.

 

I gave it a bit higher sharpness than Eduard did at obv 15 Rev 20, but I don't like the surfaces as much as he does but we both net grade it at around a VG-8 to 10.

 

I'm so used to poor surfaces, I failed to even discount that.

 

Thanks for all of the additional input.

 

F-12 seems to be accurate in my opinion.

 

My best guess is that the dealer and I will not reach an agreed upon price.
Too far apart.

 

Very nice coin, I am to new at this to grade, still learning.
good luck

 

Hold out for a better example in that grade. If that coin was out of the plastic it would not fetch anywhere near F-12 money.

 

Wow, you guys are more brutal and old school ancient graders. Of course, we do not worry about dug coins? In ancients, this coin would be a Fine net.

 

Oh my grading reference on this one was Bowers' "Grading Coins by Photographs."
FWIW.

 

Think I'd rather have that coin (It's been waiting for me since 1793 !)than a box of Chocolates. However, I do admit that the price would have some bearing !

 

Giving it a 20 because pcgs uses temps. Cheech grading service gives it a 15