1892CC Guess the Grade

I agree, what probably threw me off the most was the brownish discoloration on the weak spots, which looks a lot like wear.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

PCGS graded this a 64?
That amazes me
And from those photos, this coin looks to be a PL coin... At least..
This is a case of buy the coin, not the slab... And I would pay for this coin, at an AU55 price, not a MS64 price

 

........isn't subjectivity wonderful?

 

Here are my thoughts on the coin, I think it should be graded AU58, the coin definitely doesn't have the details of a MS coin, but it has the luster of one. Here's how I see it; AU50 Details + MS Luster = AU58. I guess I can never be a grader . Either way it's a very interesting coin, I wonder if you cracked it out and resubmitted it would it get the same grade. I bet it would get a different grade every time.

 

Considering it's a CC, I'm guessing PCGS "bumped" the grade a little. It's definitely not DMPL, and probably not even PL. I could see it maybe being MS61 but even that is a little bit of a stretch. Maybe the photos are just that bad....?

 

I'm still trying to figure out that brown toning , or whatever it is .
rzage

 

It sure looks like wear to me.... Then toning over the wear...

 

Here is my novice take on this coin. I think there was some type of strike problem when the coin was minted. The center of the front and back look very strange and I can see why it appears to be wear , however , if this coin had that much wear there would be no way the rest of the coin would be that clean. If it was in circulation for that long there would be some substantial marks on the coin.

 

I would say PCGS screwed this one up. You can call an AU50 coin MS all day and it still doesn't make it so, even if you put it in some fancy plastic with a label on it. This is a clear case of buy the coin, not the holder, and that coin screams "don't pay anymore than AU money for me!"

 

Sure is news to me...But doesn't surprise me...
I thought a coin, to be uncirculated has to have no WEAR...
So I'm guessing if they were to just get in any key date coin with luster, and a little wear, it makes it an uncirculated coin, because of the date... I guess that is what we have here anyway...

 

I am very confused by the photo.

On the one hand, the coin's cheek and field luster suggest a coin up to about MS 65. However, the high point wear/toning make the coin appear to have seen some circulation and thus would be 63 at best and AU at worst.

Therefore I'll split the difference and guess 64....Mike (who will now read the rest of the thread and likely find out he's way off)

 

Or maybe not.

 

p.s. I wonder if some here are mistaking toning for circulation wear. Said another way, if the coin had circulated, there's no way the cheek, rims, and fields would look as clean as they do.

 

There is WEAR..
You can't explain the reverse's wear, with a simple tone theory...
You can see where the breast feathers are worn, and below, near the tail feathers is worn as well
I agree, that this is toned, but it has toned over wear
Just because it doesn't have wear all over, doesn't mean the coin is uncirculated.

 

I just read the rest of this thread and that is just horrible grading and/or lack of eyes.

 

If you can tell the difference between toning and wear from a single set of photos, then you are either more skilled than I in interpreting photos (which I doubt) or you are jumping to conclusions without solid evidence (which I think is far more likely).

Respectfully...Mike

 

p.s. show me an AU morgan dollar in a TPG holder with that clean of a cheek, that clean of fields, and no rim bumps. I'm waiting.