Did this coin get a VG10? I'm not a Bust expert by any means, but my I'm just not seeing a VG10. The left side of the obverse still looks strong, while the right side looks like a weak strike with wear. The reverse looks like a VF... any Bust guys care to tell me why this went VG10 and not higher?
With the evident fingerprints on it, and suspicious toning, that might be the reason. Wait for other opinions.
I'm pretty confident PCGS doesn't give a lower grade because of improper toning, or fingerprints on lower grade coins, they just give it a "details" tag.
Personally, I think it should be a F12 or F15 on a good day. The reverse is definitely not VF. Still a cool coin!
This is not the 1950's! Using MODERN GRADING STANDARDS (2018) the coin is under-graded. IMHO, this was NOT a grading error on their part. I'll bet they NET GRADED the coin to reflect its value. I see scratches. And that folks illustrates two major problems with coin grading as practiced today: 1. Stupid net grading makes the TPGS look like a bunch of ignorant, non-collectors who know nothing about coins, strike, original surfaces, etc....and 2. When the value of a coin is used to assign the grade rather than its condition of preservation from when it left the dies, something extremely simple - grading a coin - becomes so complicated it can be confusing. Excellent example.
This is exactly why I have spoken so strongly against market grading. It just creates confusion. The number assigned to this coin has no bearing on its state of preservation, but its value instead. How this is handled in EAC is that this coin would be graded F-15 sharpness, net (value) VG-10. Clear and no confusion. This coin is, to me, a details coin. I would have described it as such if it was raw.
Typecoin, posted: "This is exactly why I have spoken so strongly against market grading. It just creates confusion. [AMEN!] The number assigned to this coin has no bearing on its state of preservation, but its value instead. How this is handled in EAC is that this coin would be graded F-15 sharpness, net (value) VG-10. Clear and no confusion. This coin is, to me, a details coin. I would have described it as such if it was raw." Actually I'm very confused. Which is it by EAC Standards. F-15 sharpness or Net VG-10? Does it have 2 EAC grades? Is this one of those RARE cases where EAC and PCGS agree as both net graded the coin?
What EAC does is grade the coin based on its level of detail, and then give a “net” grade to correspond to its value after taking into account any damage other than wear. They give their coins two grades.
TypeCoin971793, post: "What EAC does is grade the coin based on its level of detail, and then give a “net” grade to correspond to its value after taking into account any damage other than wear. They give their coins two grades." Thanks. So EAC coins have two grades? I must have overlooked this fact (?) while studying the EAC grading Guide! I shall look again. I cannot wait to find a lightly corroded coin with AU-55 details netted down to Fine-12 due to rim damage, and some scratches. That's what we get when some "specialist" decides to design a "new" grading system....
Would the OP's 1817 coin have graded higher if it was dated 1830 (many varieties that year have a worn appearance even in mint state)? That is, are coins graded based on year-specific info? -- A new master die was made for 1817... The obverse die shows more finely engraved curls below the cap than on any other date in the series. -- The cheek and jaw show higher relief... and relief modifications were heightened to the cap. -- The 1817 date half dollars are as a rule generally well struck. -- All varieties in grades above Extremely Fine are quite elusive and command a premium. (Source: From "U.S. Early Half Dollar Die Varieties 1794-1836" by Parsley)
New grade, F+ 18. The rev is 20-25, the obv less at F-15. 200 year old silver coin, plenty of details. It's borderline 20.
That coin is worth a lot more than just fine money anyway. Probably the owner is buried in it with the PCGS grading, imaging, etc..
