SO, I'm going to attempt to grade my mercury dimes. And while researching the various grades and those coins currently on sale that have been professionally graded by the recognized graders, I found a rather wide difference in coins, but all graded the same. So, it seems to me there is a kind of spectrum, say of AG3, where the lowest might be seen as a low-end AG3, while the better looking ones would be a higher grade AG3. All still AG3, but some slightly better (see photo attached). What is most odd to me is that in the photo I attached, the last two are graded at AG3... However, these two look almost identical to the next grade up G4/G6. In fact, these AG3 coins actually look a bit BETTER than some G4/G6 coins I've see online (all graded professionally and mounted). So..... any insight for me? Thanks.
I see the differences in your photo. But, for example, the last two pictures in my photo are professionally graded as AG3 but they actually look better (at least to me) than the G4 & G6 in your photo. The AG3s seem to have more detail—i.e., a cleaner delineation between hair/wings, and even a couple inner feathers of the wings. But your G4/G6 don't have those details. I'm so confused. lol.
This is what is confusing me. I'm trying to grade my own coins honestly, but I am not seeing a real consistency. Some G4s/G6s are WAY worse than other G4s/G6s. And some graded AG3s are actually looking better than some G4s/G6s.
I am sure others can chime in, but I think you may be complicating the issue a bit. When I see a Mercury dime in AG I am immediately thinking of devices. For example, the rim will be completely worn flat, and likely blending into all the lettering elements for obverse and reverse. Moreover, everything is an outline. Lady Liberty's wings will blend to her posterior and anterior curls, no wing details are noted and the anterior face is more of an outline than it is a representation of a face with details of cheek, chin, eyes, and cap being all blended. The fasce is completely worn flat. When I see a Mercury dime in G, it is all about the rim for me. You are right, especially for the reverse, a lot of the design elements show little more contrast and elemental relief, but grossly worn flat with little detail to show. But if I see a solid rim NOT blending into letters I am immediately thinking more of a G vs AG Mercury. The head is another focus point. You will definite elements. Wings will stand out from posterior curl, cap from face, etc but high and intermediate points will be worn flat. I also agree with you, especially for the key and semi key dates in '21 that graders often provide grade bumps which may not fully represent what the coin should grade as. I can see how that is confusing. Hope this helps to some degree. Personally, I always start with the rim in those lower grades.
Based on the original illustrated A.N.A. standards, all 4 of the posted coins are correctly graded at the grade indicated between the upper and lower images. I've collected, and have high grade bags of this coin collected in my more than 70 years of coin collecting. It is one of the easiest U.S. coins to grade, if the original standard is applied. The TPGs' have grossly distorted the believed only proper standard. JMHO
this is why CAC is still in business doling out green and gold bean stickers. in every grade, there is low, mid, and high. the high could pass for a grade higher, the low makes you think, "no way this is whatever the grade, are they crazy!" Even at AG3 the majority of them should be solid for the grade, and then there will be some that have you scratching your head why it even got AG3, and some that have your scratching your head why it isn't G4. Actually curious now if CAC would green bean the 1916 last two asAG3 but nice enough rims and separation from the lettering at least on the first one to make G4.
I suggest, if you can find a copy, that you use the Illustrated "OFFICIAL A.N.A. GRADING STANDARDS FOR UNITED STATES COINS" Copyright 1977. I believe that it is the only legal standard published for UNITED STATES COINS, as the same description was used in later versions, with some images that are not compatible with the words. Later versions after the initial have used photos that often don't match the descriptions, believed to have created some of the confusion seen in TPG graded coins. JMHO
A PUBLISHED, unchallenged, relatively complete standard that generally represented a universally accepted organization for the Numismatics industry. I believe the STANDARD when altered, using pictures that are in conflict with the written initial description, would attempt voidage of the legal requirement to have a contract for product detail. An applied unchallenged example of believed improper argument by an "expert" was, in the believed PCI trial, a PCGS representative argued that the plaintiff had been sold a coin with a scratch, which should have been sold as virtually a worthless coin. PCGS does numerous things that aren't industry acceptable, and not properly applicable throughout the industry. If it can't be proven that there is an industry standard, exceptions by brand aren't acceptable. I can show numerous examples of potentially illegal standards practices. JMHO