hone your grading skills -- 1839 large cent

Please guess the grade that PCGS assigned to the following coin:





Please also discuss YOUR grade (and standard) if it differs from PCGS.

I think this will be an interesting coin to discuss.

Have fun....Mike

p.s. bonus points for attribution.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

NOTE: Like the prior photos, the luster of this coin doesn't come out in the photos. Look carefully.

 

MS 64 B. I see no signs of wear whatsoever. Strike on reverse a bit weak.
Another superb coin!

(but how about showing us also some 1794's, 1795's and 1796's?)

 

My grade is XF-40. There is definite wear on the coin. The stars, the hair and the nose show wear. The chin shows a large mark that I can't seem to explain other than by stacking I doubt that this coin was ever in a roll, but it kind of looks like roll friction. The strike is poor as evidenced by the dentils on the reverse and the stars on the obverse. Overall the coin exhibits very little wear but IMHO shows it nonetheless. I think the TPG may have gone as high as XF-45, but no higher.

 

with the look of the jaw, side of nose, hair beads, and curls I am going to have to say the coin is an AU50. It has light wear, but seems to be a pretty nice coin. I see no obvious detractors on the coin, except for the appearance of a weak strike around the edges.

 

I'll guess it got an AU-50.

 

I do not think I am seeing any wear, just a not full strike, I will go 64 with the biggest strike being the weak rims. As we discussed that last go around, this grade is dependent on the luster.

 

Well I would have said AU58 based off the pictures, but listening to you talk it is probably a MS63bn with the luster you mention on what looks like small rubs.

 

I see light rub on nostril, jaw, hair bun, leaf tips- the high points- so I say AU58. Beautiful!

I believe PCGS gave it MS63.

 

Mike, when are you going to tell us how PCGS graded this coin. Don't keep us in suspense. I am curious to learn whether what we are seeing on the reverse is wear, or a weak strike.

TPG ?
ANA ?
EAC ?

Eduard

 

I'm going to let the thread stay unanswered for a little while longer (will PM you the answer). However, I will say this, what you are seeing on the reverse is neither wear nor a weak strike -- it is an abraded/worn die, IMO.

 

PCGS graded the coin MS 62 BN.

 

I would have said AU53.
You say you aren't capturing the luster, maybe try to get the set of pics you have with the detail, then one showing the luster, if you can, it would make it easier for us to get the grade right.

 

Doug, If they don't loosen up their standards, then there won't be any upgrades for people to re-submit. I have said for about a year now that the TPGs have just about run their course. People are starting (once again, thank God) to grade and evaluate for themselves. Maybe for a while the TPGs helped illustrate what was a good coin for the grade, but not so much anymore. Now they just need more submissions. That's why the whole green and gold sticker phenomenon, because people are starting to become leary of the TPGs grade (as they should have all along).

 

OK, I'll bite. What's the difference between market grading and pricing?

 

here we go again...

honestly, leadfoot, I have always agreed with this point. Value should never affect grading, but it does, and it's what I refer to as market grading.

 

Very well stated and in agreement 100%:high5:

 

Not the way I read your post. To wit, you defined the term grading as follows:

"When coins are graded the assigned grade is based on several things acording to both ANA standards and PCGS standards - contact marks, hairlines, luster, eye appeal and quality of strike."

Then you defined pricing as follows:

"They look at a coin, say it's worth $X dollars, and assign a grade according to that value."

You never defined market grading, except to say it's defined as grading:

"Market grading is a concept that was developed over many years and finally accepted by both the ANA and the TPG's in 1986. And it was absolutely not based on value, but rather the criteria I listed above."

I will submit that market grading and pricing are one and the same. A coin is evaluated in market grading by its technical merits -- strike, marks, luster, eye appeal. Then it is given a bump up or down based on the market (most often a result of the eye appeal of the coin). The result is that market grading = pricing = ranking, IMO. To say the TPGs only look at the value of a coin is an oversimplification of how it works (again IMO).

I will further submit that EAC grading does something remarkably similar, except there are never bumps in grade upwards, only downwards. The net effect is a ranking/pricing system that results in market grading/pricing.

Lastly, I will submit that ANA grading, on the other hand, doesn't take into account eye appeal in the way a the market does, and that's the real difference between the grading standards (other than the ANA grading standards being slightly more conservative and based on details-focused grading).

Respectfully...Mike