Chances this is UNC?

Rick B, asked: "I'm curious, can you say how the TPG's can change it from AU to MS? Either there is wear or there is not. Maybe if they decide it was graded AU in error because of weak strike? Other reasons?"

It is called "Gradeflation (Greedy dealers running the show). This concept: Either there is wear or there is not (the old standard), was too easy to apply with precision. It left no wiggle room and the grade did not change over time or market conditions.

As medoraman said, many AU coins are worth more money than MS coins of the same date. That SHOULD NOT/DOES NOT change their actual grade. Unfortunately, in very many cases of commercial grading, a coin's actual condition of preservation does not matter. Thus, any "grade assessment" made by folks knowledgeable about the commercial value of a coin often applies.

The OP's coin is definitely a nice AU. It is probably worth MS-60-62 money.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

The coin has a nice strike. There Is disagreement over rub or wear on the high spots. I’m on the rub side. This should put the coin in MS territory. My concern is luster. I trying to up my game. How can one tell (from a picture and in hand) if there is luster under the toning?

 

We can agree to disagree on finer points, but bottom line we agree sir. Same with @Rick B . if we all agreed on everything there is no reason to have a discussion board.

 

@C-B-D, I wouldn't chance to guess from those photos, but believe I see some circulation wear. I will wait for your photos when you have it in-hand. I hope it is what you hope it is. Does that make sense? LOL

 

Thanks for the reply. It’s my inexperience that keeps me from online bidding. Maybe that’s a good thing

 

The word "Liberty" on the obverse headband looks very worn, no? Especially the "B".

 

Its not just experience though. You need to learn your auction houses. I bought a coin one time from an auction house that looked like it was weakly struck. I got it and it was well struck, but toning obscured parts of the design. I have now learned that auction house photographs toned silver coins horribly, and I take advantage of that fact.

So how seller photograph coins also plays a huge part.

 

That is lighting IMHO. I bet you in hand the word LIBERTY is thick with luster and unworn. Toning and luster can really mess with photos. You need to learn where circulation would happen and where it shouldn't. On these, the LIBERTY, like the B, is recessed so would not be a prominent wear point.

 

Nice coin it experienced but I would go AU to me the rubs are a little to much to call it UNC. Nice coin and those rubs may just be the lighting

 

I like the coin, but also think it's a high AU.

 

And you won't even give him a simple like....................................dang!

 

A Doug "like" is the rarest of all numismatic treasures.

 

Their definition of the AU/MS boundary changed. The rationale is that some technical AU-58’s are Ms-65 coins with just a touch of wear. Some are MS-60 coins with a bit more noticeable wear. And then you have some MS-60/1/2 coins that have significant coin-on-coin damage or post-mint manipulation (dipping, etc). With the way the market is (with values of coins distinctly stratified by grade levels), those superb AU-58s were values the same as or only slightly higher the lower-end 58s, and priced lower than a 60.

Why should that be? They are much nicer coins, and they should be worth more. But the vast majority of collectors are afraid to pay higher than the grade’s “value bracket.” That presents a quandary.

You could call those coins AU-58+, but you lose the additional flexibility of further describing the quality of the grade. Does it have 63 surfaces, or 67 surfaces? The + can’t divulge that info. (As a side note, AU-58+ coins regularly sell for low-MS prices).

Then the thinking shifted: “Is the surface degradation caused by a touch of wear really worse than the surface degradation suffered by MS-60/1/2 coins?” The TPGs decided that the slight touch of wear was commensurate with the bagginess and abrasions on MS-62/3 coins, and as such they get their quality premium over a generic 58.

Is this confusing? Most definitely. Can it cause harm to collectors? Absolutely. Are there better solutions? You can bet on it. That’s why I am a proponent of the AU-6X scale. It allows for much greater transparency in the grading decision and gives quality 58s the pricing structure they deserve.

Then they need to learn how to spot the AU-64s in MS-62 holders. Or pay up for an MS-64. Blindly trusting the number on the slab isn’t a safe game anymore.

 

Not trying to hijack your thread, but it seems that the conversation has turned to MS vs. very nice circulated. Has anyone noticed with Indian Head cents that many of the NGC/PCGS slabbed coins are way over-graded? Obvious wear on high points (both obverse and reverse) seem to be ignored as the coins are given an MS grade. I realize that some of the Indian Head cents are not the best strikes, but wear is not a weak strike. I've seen many conversations on this forum that indicate the TPG's are giving higher grades on previously graded coins (originally graded years ago). Apparently Indian Head cents are no exception. No matter what, I buy the coin, not the slab.

 

I would be in favor of a AU64 grade, or simply stop the whole thing and numerically grade everything. In the US world who uses descriptive grades anymore?

 

Nope. You have to look at coins holistically. If 90% of the coin has MS details, but 10% has VF details, then it is reasonable that there are strike issues or you aren’t reading the pictures correctly.

As I stated in your first thread, you still have much to learn

 

The photos are not of sufficient quality for me to decide between high AU or lower MS. I think it's a tossup between 58 or 63. Look forward to CBD's photos

 

And there is the problem. "rub" = wear. Maybe very slight wear, but wear. So to me if it has "rub" it takes it OUT of the MS territory.