The Official CoinTalk Grading Experiment 16

You guys asked for copper, so let's grade copper! I will tell you that this coin is designated Brown, so I will not be asking for color designators. It is in a problem free holder.

How good is CoinTalk compared to the TPGs? Let's find out! Over the next several months, I'll be posting a continuous stream of Guess the Grade threads. I will be using photos from the Heritage auction archives (please do not cheat!).

All you have to do is guess the grade! I will be attaching a poll to each thread. Please select the grade that you think best represents the coin (to avoid bias, please select your grade before viewing the rest of the thread).

Also feel free to post your opinions about the coin, and it would be most educational if you could explain why you chose the grade you did.

In order to give everyone time to respond, I'll reveal the grade Sunday evening.

Around Christmas, I will tally up the results and see how we did. This thread is an offshoot of a recent thread where I compared CT grading to the TPG, seen here: https://www.cointalk.com/threads/how-good-is-cointalk-at-grading.343417/

We're going to cover a wide range of material, and some of it may be out of your wheelhouse. However, if you are a confident grader, you should be able to accurately grade almost any coin.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

64

 

Oh boy, this brings back my memories of arguing with Doug about the difference between circulation wear and roll/stacking/cabinet friction. He claimed that “wear was wear” and that any coin showing wear had to be AU. I subscribe to the philosophy employed by the TPGs that certain coins are prone to high point friction from roll/stacking/cabinet friction and when high point friction is found on those coins, the coin will be graded as mint state without corresponding friction in the fields. Saints are a series that PCGS claims that every coin shows some measure of high point friction in the knee & breast.

This coin has obvious friction in the knee & breast but none in the fields, so to my eyes it is mint state. There are no major marks but there is plenty of chatter throughout.

My grade is MS63.

 

I voted 64...with gold it appears to take more hits/marks to lower the grade compared to silver

I could see a case for 58 since it looks like there is some wear, but I think the TPGs went with what @Lehigh96 mentioned above

 

That's the goldiest looking copper I've ever seen...

 

Based on Liberty's face and the gouges at her hip, it looks like I'm the toughest judge so far (I voted for MS-61).

 

64. Good luster, strike, and eye appeal. Surfaces have only minor field scuffs and ticks on the devices. No heavy hits, but too many for a gem grade. One thing I like to look at on Saints is the rays. Hacks that go across rays seem especially distracting to me, probably because they interrupt the lines of the artwork so abruptly, and this doesn't really have any.

And I disagree that it's designated brown.

 

I'm really inexperienced with gold and only an amateur with silver, so I'll guess MS-64.

 

There are clear and major luster disturbances on the high points of the obverse. Coin-on-coin friction crossed my mind (which @Lehigh96 brought up in a long-ago thread), but the surfaces look dulled, not scuffed. That, to me, strongly suggests circulation wear. This is further confirmed by what appears to be luster abrasions (aka “rub” in the fields).

My grade is AU-58. I will guess that PCGS said the same since @physics-fan3.14 would not use an egregiously-overgraded coin for one of these GTGs.

If I had the coin in hand and could confirm that the abraded areas were scuffy rather than dull, then I would say this coin maxes out at 63, though I’d like it better at 62.

 

There's copper in the alloy Haha, just copied and pasted from the last one. Teach me to proofread my posts!

 

This one is in my wheelhouse so I'll jump in on the MS64 bandwagon.

 

I mean, you're not wrong...

I'm not big into gold (a little out of my price range), but I think it's clean enough for a 64.

 

63 from me for exactly the same reasons.

 

62. Doug would say this is an AU, and in a sense, he wouldn't be too terribly off base. The "markiness" of this piece is a real drag. Some originalfeistiness, however, makes me think PCGS gave it a mercy grade of MS62.

 

I think he would be correct. Due to the difference in color and the luster breaks on the high points, this errrm shiny little “copper” coin should grade Au58.

 

"Original frostiness".... my phone didn't like my made up word, so it made up another word, apparently.

 

I'm going with 58, the luster loss on high points looks rubbed off to me rather than broken by coin on coin friction, so when I find out it graded 64 I hope someone can explain the difference to me!

 

I see the same thing. The difference between the two is that circulation friction would dull the surface, while coin friction will have a scuffy appearance.

 

I'd love to get a few more guesses on this one before the results tomorrow evening. Come on, give it a shot!

 

I'm not sure about the 'friction' bit but concede that gold being soft is probably more susceptible to mint dings, dents, and blemishes. That said, the scuffing on the obverse, especially her face, is too distracting. I think for sure on silver/nickel/copper it would significantly affect the grade despite presenting well overall. I also couldn't get the reverse to enlarge to do a proper review, so I took a point off (although it looks better than the obverse shot at similar focal length). Looks like less highpoint wear.