Which would you choose...

I'm trying to get down to just one example of the 1/2 Real type and wanted to see what others thought.

The first example is a higher grade at MS 62 (and was possibly in a PCGS OGH MS 63 holder before-according to the label the seller sent me with the coin). It's also semi-pl.

The second example is a lower grade, but a more unique one at AU 58+

Please let me know your thoughts. Feel free to comment on any aspect of the coin or the holder.

A)


B)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I like the 1816. It has more character with the toning/patina, than the other one.
And you gotta love the "Boxers Nose" on the profile.

 

I concur. Go with the 16, it may be a few points lower but it makes up for it in eye appeal.

 

Why is the second one more "unique"?

You say the first one is semi-PL... that seems like a huge plus to me.

The 1801 is a nicer coin, and seems to be graded accurately (completely disregard any PCGS fantasy about foreign graded coins... they are like "Whose Line is It Anyways" where the points are all made up).

What the hell is AU-58+? That seems like marketing nonsense.

And also.... any foreign coin in NGC plastic is instantly more liquid than PCGS.

This seems like a clear and easy choice to me. Try to sell the PCGS coin if you can (you will almost certainly take a loss on it, unless you got a great deal), and keep the NGC coin.

 

The “unique” reference was for the grade, “AU 58+” (I can see how it can be a bit confusing with the way I wrote that sentence).

What’s interesting about the AU 58+ is that was an earlier generation of holder-closer to when the plus was adopted at PCGS. It’s also the only 58+ for the date and possibly the only one for the series (I haven’t confirmed that part).

I think both are fairly graded and the NGC might even be low. With a 62 I’d expect more issues, but this one doesn’t have any. Interestingly enough, the seller told me it was in a PCGS 63 OGH holder and he cracked it to try for an upgrade.

The NGC photo might also be swaying some opinions as I recall people thinking it looked like corrosion or damage when I used it for a guess the grade.

 

Guess the grade thread for the NGC certified one:
https://www.cointalk.com/threads/guess-the-grade-mexico-1-2-real-the-other-half-is-also-real.350203/

 

Gotcha.

Calling an AU-58+ "unique" because of the "plus" is buying into the marketing gimmick. There's nothing unique about it.

NGC might be low, I don't see any major marks or hairlines in these images. However, in hand it might be different.

As for the textured appearance of the devices, people probably thought it was corrosion or damage because they aren't familiar with the series. These coins are usually struck with an intriguing textured bust. It's kind of an interesting quirk of coins of this era from that part of the world. I personally don't have any Mexican coins, but I do have Guatamalan, and they too exhibit this same sort of texture (in fact, I'd be a lot more worried if it *didn't* have that texture). I don't have any Charles IIII, but here's a Ferdinand VII of mine:

 

What you see in that thread are people unfamiliar with the series. It's very tricky for world coins, where there are number of factors affecting the quality of production. I'll be honest, there are quite a few world coins where I'd have equally odd guesses. However, I have some adjacent-experience which helps here.

I focus on PL coinage, and Guatamalan coinage just happens to be well represented (especially in this era). Thus, I've looked at more of these than many others have. The Mexico Mint issues are fairly similar, from what I've seen (they just didn't produce as many PL's).

 

Sometimes marketing gimmicks can be effective. It did help clinch the decision of buying the coin for me (although I’d probably still buy it without the plus). Besides looking for eye appealing coins, I collect oddball holders as well. So things like this combine two of the things I like (nice coins and interesting holders). I didn’t pay a premium for it (at least not based on what I’ve seen from prior sales).

You are correct that people not being familiar with these coins is likely the reason for some of the guess the grade results.

And that Guatamalan coin is a beauty!

 

Thanks! Just one of many. If you want to see the rest, check my set here: https://coins.www.collectors-society.com/WCM/CoinCustomSetView.aspx?s=27305

 

I'd go with the ngc coin, love the look of it

 

Lol. I called that a shipwreck 62, and nailed it. Sorta.
I thought it looked like the surfaces were almost saltwater damaged kinda...

 

I'm a sucker for CIIII's portrait, but I like the one that reportedly got the engraver in hot water because of the supposedly accurate portrait of the nose.

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/photos/mexique/1292-original.jpg

 

I'm guessing nobody ever accused him of being very attractive!

 

If the TPG didn't put PL on the holder than its not. I personally like the AU one but that's me. Only you can decide what you like and what best fits into your collection.

 

It’s semi-pl, so they would not put pl on the holder.
I’d also caution against automatically saying something is not pl if it is not on the holder. As @Jaelus and @CircCam have shown in the past, it can take more than one grading attempt to get the pl (or DPL) designation.

 

What I'm saying is what's on the label is what it is unless on obvious mistake. Just because you say it is doesn't make it so. If I'm buying it, it doesn't mean it is unless the label agrees. Yes you can resubmit and maybe you'll get that extra bit it's not there now so it isn't.

 

I personally have bought several coins which were not designated as PL. I bought them because they were PL. I paid a PL price for them. I resubmitted them and now they are labelled PL.

Were they not PL before I resubmitted? Did the label somehow magically turn an ordinary coin into a Prooflike?

No, that's ridiculous.

Also, he's saying it is semi-prooflike - it has some reflectivity, but not enough to be called PL. Hence, it's not labelled as a PL.

 

If I didn't need the money, I'd keep both. They're different enough to each warrant a place in a collection.

But if only one, then I'd keep the 1801. It's simply a nicer coin.

 

Video: https://www.instagram.com/p/B6i2k1CHQoS/

Def looks better in the vid