1875 Seated Liberty Dime

Saw that too, but since it was not prima facie to the issue, I chose not to muddy the water with another issue.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

The "broken S" is a well-known die variety and has nothing to do with the wear versus strike topic that this thread has evolved into. If you go to Gerry Fortin's die marriage website you can see many varieties of this date with strong dies and some not-so-strong. And, of course, die states change over time for the same die marriage.

I have already stated that while this coin is a weak strike, it exhibits wear and dings that should knock its grade down to at least the low AUs. It is possible, you know, for a coin to exhibit both wear and a weak strike.

I also have to disagree with the claim that most of the TPG's MS62/63 grades are actually high-end AUs. While this is sometimes true, it is inaccurate to state that it is universally true or even mostly true. As is stated here so often, look at the coin not the holder.

​

Share This Page

 

Okay, I guess I exaggerated a bit to make a point.

No worries, we’ll have your back. You can openly say that you’d grade her VF at best
:-D

 

Jump in, the water's fine. Ignore those fins, they're probably porpoises.

Seriously, coin grading and evaluation is subjective so there will always be differences of opinion, particularly when only looking at the photo. There may be vigorous debate, but it doesn't always devolve to a mano a mano survival contest.

I often learn the most when I get corrected. Having one's convictions over-turned is an educational experience.

 

Unfortunately some here believe that anyone that doesn't join their mob attacking the TPGs is a fanboy and just resorts to comments like that.

 

I know. Hey, I will be the first to admit that TPGs make mistakes. I posted a proof Liberty Nickel that was so obviously undergraded, it was almost a joke. It happens—graders at TPGs are human, too. But, to dismiss Third Party Grading as largely inaccurate, and making statements like “All coins that are not MS 64/65 are AU” is so ridiculous, that it undermines one’s credibility. Obviously, it is within a TPG’s enlightened self interest to get it right a majority of the time. Otherwise, they would not be in business. The anti-TPG posters are really not particularly perceptive as collectors, if they honestly believe that nonsense. AU 58 coins are difficult to grade—is it MS, or high level AU? Everybody knows that—hence the joke MS 58 or AU 61. But, to carry it to the point that the “anti-fanboys” do is simply immature, [edited], as it is tiresome to read a thread of inexperienced collectors trashing a service that has been a boon to the hobby.

 

I completely agree. The real shame is that people who don't know better or are knew may believe that perpetuating the misinformation. If they were as bad as some say they wouldn't be world wise businesses that basically grow every year. Even the British Royal Mint is now directly submitting to NGC in London.

There certainly are subjective aspects of grading and many fail to understand that a coin doesn't necessarily have one correct grade. There's plenty of coins you can make strong arguments between two grades. If knowing the TPGs are better graders than most posters makes us fan boys then so be it

 

I'd say that technically the coin is AU. I see luster breaks in all the spots I would expect to see luster breaks on a lightly circulated coin of this series. However, the coin has above average eye appeal. It would be more likely to sell at low MS prices than AU. So market graded, ms62 is acceptable.

VG at best... I might be able to pay melt for it. ;P

 

I feel the coin is a strictly original au 58 market graded to 62. I could see it at au 58 cac. Luster washed out in pics. Tiniest bit of high point rub. I think you could submit this coin raw half a dozen times and get grades from 58-62. But in my opinion it’s a slider at best

 

And I would not buy this coin at 62 money. At au 58 money all day.