What style of grading for technical AU58 coins would you prefer from the TPGs?

The problem started with the creation of a dysfunctional scale. Is not even really a scale, it's two scales stacked on top of each other which makes no sense because for some reason wear was decided to be the most important thing instead of grading a coin based on all its merits.

You shouldnt have a scale where coins within half an inch of their life are graded higher than gorgeous coins that are better in every other way just because of rub or not

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I believe if the old objective standards were applied to "market graded" coins, we would no longer see an example as this "P.Q.!!!!! Gem":
https://www.ebay.com/itm/353486453223?hash=item524d6f39e7:g:7X0AAOSwxdtgldyG

A coin that has appreciable "rub", scratches in fields/devices, extensive bag marks, lacking uniform luster, shouldn't have MS grading, much less Gem P.Q.!!

I believe this is a possible extreme example of why coins in of such condition may deserve AU grading.

I suspect a MS66 graded comparable could be found in lesser condition than one of my believed technically graded CACed less than MS65 grade (e.g. MS64+). Coins without wear signs, a few surface disturbances (i.e. sans bag-marks, rub, wear), having beautiful uniform "cart-wheel" luster in fields.

JMHO

 

What I find interesting after reading a number of posts we all are going back and forth on our opinions. Which is good. I do understand that are some AU 58 coins are in slabs grading as high as MS 64. I think those coins could be called AU 59+. They are generally really nice coins that if put in an AU slab would be a disservice to the coin. I my honest opinion there is no coin that is actually uncirculated unless they were taken right off the press and placed in a holder and never came in contact with another coin. Modern proofs would be a good example of a coin that never touched another coin. A coin with bag makes could be considered worn. Technically it's wear. However, we need to be practical and we accept our current grading system. We could go crazy trying to figure out whether a coin is UNC or is it really AU 59. It's called market grading and I'm fine with that.

 

Seeing as we are talking about grading there is something I've been thinking about for a long time. HOW ABOUT A GRADING SYSTEM FOR DETAILS COINS. We could use a 1 to 10 scale. As far as a cleaned coins we could call a coin that someone cleaned a coin with a Brillo pad CLEANED 1 and one that is almost impossible to detect as a CLEANED 10. Coins graded as cleaned 8 to 10 would a coin that some one may have cleared the coin with light soap and water or a slight wipe. Same could be done with a scratched on a coin. Scratch 1 could be a coin that looks like someone pushed it on concrete (road rash). Scratch 10 could be a scratch that is almost impossible to detect. I think any level of details coins could be evaluated. What has bothered me when you see details cleaned or details scratch or details graffiti is there is no defining point for these being graded as such. I have nice bust dollar that someone back in 1865 beautifully engraved a date on the obverse. Does it hurt it's value sure but, not as much as it would if some kid took a nail and scratched a date on the coin. However, both coins would receive a grade as details graffiti. Is that fair? Not really. My bust dollar would be worth a lot more than one someone took a nail to. This may also help the collector in the long term. Today most dealers if offered a coin with graffiti or scratch on the slab will offer next to nothing for the coin. Whereas if mine was graded Graffiti 10 meaning extremely well done verses Graffiti 1 which means the coin is trash. It could be a basis of value. I'm just tossing this out for discussion only. Something to think about.

 

These type of coins remind me of why I draw a hard line at AU/MS.

Actually we have seen many coins hit 67 with circulated surfaces. One of the times the coin sold for over 6 figures, when it sold again returned to earth and sold for around $12,000. I think that this community even guessed the correct correction of the market. @ddddd

Just remember if you spend cash, there is more than plenty UNC/BU coins to be found in a register.

I am also accustomed to market grading, that doesn't mean you have to accept it.

 

If you are talking about the $130k Franklin, it was certainly not circulated. It was optimistically graded (about 1.5 points too high) but it was certainly uncirculated.

 

Although I can see your point of view, the patina was too thick, and the marks were to deep, if we are gonna disagree on anything it would be that the coin was technically a 64 at best, Maybe gold bean it, I would hardly call it a gem.

But yeah that coin.

 

The toning was just right and a definite positive (I wouldn’t describe it as too thick). There were too many marks for the grade but they weren’t as deep as one would see on a low MS. You can make a fair argument that without color it was a 64 and the market should push it up to a 65+/66. The 67+ was a stretch.

https://www.cointalk.com/threads/19...ms67-fb-cac-sells-for-110k-at-auction.324310/

 

Have we strayed from the original technical argument or has it just begun?
It's a good coin for this discussion?

 

I need to catch up on this thread but I don't think the Franklin is an example that fits the original question. It's not an AU coin and wouldn't be under any of the proposed systems. It is a coin that could grade anywhere between MS 64 and MS 68 depending on how conservative one wants to be or how much of a color bump one wants to allow.

 

It's not at all. Has nothing to do with whether or not there should be a continuous real scale or we should keep 2 scales stacked on top of each other with the wear line

 

I would Love to meet you before any Objective court in the land for an argument to prove and refute your statements as being ludicrous.

I would wager any amount to your limits, that the original grading system was considerate throughout, from a cull coin that can't be verified, to a pristine specimen having flawless natural finish/color, with the exceptions of die wear/handling characteristics.

It would be established through evidentiary specimens that at a transitional point, some coins will retain "Mint State" conditions, regardless of Mint handling, up to the Mint State 70 pristine struck conditions.

JMHO

 

I agree we understand market grading but, don't have to like it. Generally, I avoid "market graded" coins. Mainly when come time to sell the first thing that will be pointed out is the coin was market graded. It gives the buyer something to point out and give then a reason to degrade a coin.

One thing I find interesting today is the number of high end coins being sold. MS 66 and above. Many of them 15 years ago would be called MS 65. I have a pattern Indian cent that is graded proof 66. It was graded at least 20 years ago, green label PCGS. Last year a similar pattern cent was sold as finest known and graded proof 66+. The proof 66+ is not as nice as my proof 66. If the proof 66+ is the correct graded than mine should be a proof 68. So be leery of a coin being called finest known. It wouldn't surprise me if many of coins graded over 20 years ago would go up a grade if graded today.

 

You are right. The thread is about gradeflated AU coins, not over graded MS coins.

 

How about a AU63 grade?

 

I've read this thread with good interest. It's refreshing to have civil discussions on a topic that should be discussed. That said, I have a proposal that could help. Why not have a"respect" and no respect" sticker.

 

The original A.N.A. standard for a Franklin MS-60 is: A strictly Uncirculated coin with no traces of wear (e.g. scratches/gouges)/1977 Std./RJF, but with blemishes (i.e. few barely noticeable nicks or marks)/1977 Std./RJF, but with blemishes more obvious than higher grades, may lack mint luster, but may be unevenly toned.

I believe that may describe the coin shown in post 88 close-up, possibly if one likes surface luster altered by chemical deterioration?. Not MINT STATE, as would be received "in-hand", after just being struck.

A POSSIBLE AU-59, BUT LESS THAN MS-60!

JMHO/RJF

 

Here is a video:
https://www.instagram.com/p/CPYjqCbFDcW/

I don't see the luster impaired by the toning.
I reiterate, it's debatable what level of MS that coin deserves but calling it AU would be a stretch in any grading system.

 

This is why there's a void between a 58 and a 60...there should be NO question between slight ware and no ware at all.

 

Thank You for the video, which I agree the "toning" does not detract from original luster, but is merely a chemical alteration of surface molecules. I believe this alteration would be unseen in a MINT STRUCK coin, as delivered from the mint. Thus, it is legally (i.e. as would be argued in a legal action) Almost Uncirculated, as I'd need to declare as a Jurist.

The scratches, gouges, dings, are greater than on some CACed AU58 coins in my collection. I have tens of thousands circulated 90% silver coins picked from bullion dealers bags during the 1950s-60s.

It is a beautiful toned coin, as I have prepared, sold raw, at their request, to some of my past customers. My coins however were at least virtually unflawed MS64 before specialized toning.

In my opinion, that it just a pitiful example of "market grading/dealing"!

Hopefully, no offense intended/taken.

JMHO, worth at least that paid!