hone your grading skills -- type 2 gold dollar

Discussion in 'US Coins Forum' started by Leadfoot, Jan 20, 2008.

Page 3 of 3
  1. spock1k

    spock1k King of Hearts

    i already have him signed up for spock's validation service. we charge $500 per coin and we verify the grade if an explanation is needed for the validation thats another $1000. members of CT get 10% off :D
     
    spock1k, Jan 22, 2008
    #41 + Quote Reply
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. Leadfoot

    Leadfoot there is no spoon

    You are right that is wear, but wouldn't it be more widespread (i.e. covering a larger area) because the areas that are not well struck don't have luster to begin with?
     
    Leadfoot, Jan 22, 2008
    #42 + Quote Reply
  4. spock1k

    spock1k King of Hearts

    i may be wrong but from what i have seen even areas that are weakly struck will have luster it might not be as much but it will be there
     
    spock1k, Jan 22, 2008
    #43 + Quote Reply
  5. Leadfoot

    Leadfoot there is no spoon


    You and I define "flat" quite differently, I suppose.

    This is a coin with hair worn flat:

    http://coins.ha.com/common/view_item.php?Sale_No=26121&Lot_No=11735#photo

    We also disagree on the difference between a lack of luster and true wear, and on the definition of the word "considerable" and "slight". That's part of the challenge as these terms are entirely subjective to begin with.

    All that said, please show me a slabbed XF 45 with this much detail and luster, much less a VF one -- and I think you'll be hard pressed to find one, but if I'm following you that's part of your point....

    Then again, maybe we're just both reading what we want to read and seeing what we want to see. ;)

    Respectfully...Mike
     
    Leadfoot, Jan 22, 2008
    #44 + Quote Reply
  6. spock1k

    spock1k King of Hearts

    brother leadfoot you have discovered a new variety ( missing hair ) :D
     
    spock1k, Jan 22, 2008
    #45 + Quote Reply
  7. Leadfoot

    Leadfoot there is no spoon

    Leadfoot, Jan 22, 2008
    #46 + Quote Reply
  8. spock1k

    spock1k King of Hearts

    fwiw?
     
    spock1k, Jan 22, 2008
    #47 + Quote Reply
  9. Hobo

    Hobo Squirrel Hater

    FWIW - For What It's Worth
     
    Hobo, Jan 22, 2008
    #48 + Quote Reply
  10. 900fine

    900fine doggone it people like me

    This is an excellent thread for discussing "weak strike" in more depth.

    There are two ways to talk about a coin's strike - absolute and relative. Absolute means compared to the best any mint can do - or perhaps to all other coins in the US series.

    By that yardstick, this coin has a weak strike.

    But it's more useful to talk about how strong is this coin's strike relative to others of the same issue (or even type).

    By that yardstick, this coin has a pretty good strike.

    The Type II gold dollars are one of the most notoriously poorly struck series in all US coinage. The poor striking actually led them to change the design after only two years, leaving this series with a portrait of Liberty unique to Type II G$1s.

    I've seen Type I and III gold dollars so weakly struck, numerals of the date are missing - on MS specimens !


    Even MS specimens often have weak hair details.

    Going only by pictures, I'm sticking with my AU50 market grade.
     
    900fine, Jan 22, 2008
    #49 + Quote Reply
  11. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    Mike I don't think it's so much how you and I define terms as it is how PCGS defines terms. So let's talk about that for a minute. Yes the term is subjective, but it's not that subjective. And when discussing how they grade it is how they define the terms that we should consider.

    Wouldn't you say that when PCGS says "slight wear" for one coin that the term should at least mean close to the same thing for another coin ? And the reason I am using this term as an example is to talk about AU58 coins in general. When you or I or anybody else describes an AU58 coin, perhaps th easiest way to do that is to say the coin has slight wear. Is that not accurate ? Any description you look for any coin in the PCGS standards, when they describe an AU58 coin they say slight wear.

    So OK, let's look at another coin or two that PCGS has graded as AU58. And let's make it a coin that is known for being weakly struck, just like your coin. Let's look at a couple of Morgans first. Now before you get excited, I know that Morgans can't be compared to gold dollars, but I'm not trying to compare them. I'm providing an example of how PCGS defines their own term slight wear.

    So here's 2 Morgan dollars, both from the O mint which is notorious for weakly struck coins. Link 1 Link 2

    Now on both of those coins graded AU58, there is slight wear. Yes the hair detail is weakly struck and it shows. But the coin is nearly fully lustrous with the exception of the areas where there is slight wear. But if you were to compare the amount of wear on either or both of these coins to the amount of wear on your coin - there is no comparison.

    Now some might say yeah but you are comparing a very large coin to a very small coin. OK, let's look at another very small coin. The 1916-S Mercury dime. Again, AU58 examples graded by PCGS, and again with slight wear. Link 3 Link 4

    Now everything I said about the Morgans above applies to these coins as well. The amount of slight wear on these when compared to your coin is again no comparison.

    In all fairness, I think we also need to now look at coins graded VF35 by PCGS in order to judge how they define their grading terms. So here's some Morgans and some Mercury dimes graded VF35 by PCGS.
    Link 5 Link 6 Link 7 Link 8

    Now if you look at these 8 coins I have posted and use them as a comparative measure to judge how PCGS defines their terms regarding wear - then I think these are pretty good examples. They clearly show the difference as to what PCGS considers and AU58 coin looks like when compared to a VF35 coin. And even though I used coins vastly different from another for the comparison the way the two grades do compare to one another is patently obvious. It is also quite consistent in that regard.

    That being the case, I would see no reason whatsoever to expect that there should be and difference in how they grade the 1 dollar gold when comparing the two grades of AU58 & VF35. This is why I say that PCGS does not even follow their own standards. Especially in how they define th edifferences in between the terms slight wear and considerable wear.




    Rather obviously I can't, because they don't grade them correctly - even based on their own standards.
     
    GDJMSP, Jan 22, 2008
    #50 + Quote Reply
  12. Leadfoot

    Leadfoot there is no spoon

    You have a great point, and you've explained and illustrated it well with examples. I can't really argue it. Clearly their view of an AU coin varies from series to series, and it is hard to defend.

    However, I would maintain it doesn't really matter that they grade them correctly according to their written standards. It is important that they grade them consistently, and by and in large I think they do a good job.

    Doesn't make me feel any better about the issue of gradeflation, but as long as the TPGs are consistent then I can live with it.
     
    Leadfoot, Jan 22, 2008
    #51 + Quote Reply
  13. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    I will readily agree that PCGS and NGC both grade the one dollar gold in about the same way. Even the old ANACS follows suit albeit they are a bit more forgiving. But when you try to compare a slabbed gold dollar in XF or AU to an MS example - they are light years apart. Whereas with any other coin they are pretty close.

    One last thing, this coin makes an excellent example for market grading in a way that we don't usually perceive market grading. That being what the market deems acceptable defines the grade. I rather think the majority of opinions given on the grade of this coin illustrates that pretty well.

    ps - I have enjoyed this thread immensely ;)
     
    GDJMSP, Jan 23, 2008
    #52 + Quote Reply
  14. ozland tiger

    ozland tiger Senior Member

    This is truly an interesting thread.
    A long time ago I purchased a 1853-P one dollar gold, NGC Mint State 61. I like to see how different grading companies handle the same coin. With that said, I sent it to PCGS to be crossed over. PCGS said no. Now I was curious, so my dealer took the coin out of the NGC slab and resubmiteed it to PCGS. It came back 'body bagged' 'altered surface'. What were they seeing that my dealer and I did not? Resent it back to NGC raw and it slabbed Mint State 61 as before. My dealer then notified NGC that the coin was reslabbed so that they could crediit the census record to relect that.
    Live and learn...never to old. I still don't understand what PCGS saw that we didin't.
     
    ozland tiger, Jan 23, 2008
    #53 + Quote Reply
  15. Leadfoot

    Leadfoot there is no spoon

    I would also add to your observation that it isn't only gold dollars -- they do the same thing on most gold types and in particular older gold of this time period. For instance, gold quarter and half eagles of the 1840s and 1850s. I see a lot of AU and even MS gold of this time period that I'm left scratching my head about because of this seemingly different standard applied in terms of wear and grade.

    Thoughts?
     
    Leadfoot, Jan 23, 2008
    #54 + Quote Reply
Page 3 of 3
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page