Chances this is UNC?

Not my pics, but I have it pegged at MS62, possibly even MS63. I paid more than AU58 money but less than BU money. I'll post my pics as well when it arrives, but wanted to see what yall thought. Would you have taken the chance?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Zero.
Looks AU to me.
Wear on the high spots.

 

I think you did well. The surfaces look pretty nice. I'll guess maybe 63 as well.

 

This is the 3rd or 4th coin from this collection that I've bought. All the others came in old Whitman envelopes, so I was fairly confident that the cheek spot was envelope/high point toning. Can't wait to see her in hand.

 

I would have to see in hand what is used to be graded. Dimes and half dimes almost always came well struck, so they can be deceiving to those used to the more common capped bust half dollars. My first thought, without seeing it in hand, is it used to be graded AU58, but I am not an expert in what the TPG grade these today. Definitely prettier than many 62s I have seen.

 

Well it never has been graded. It's a raw coin from an estate that is being settled.

 

I understand sir. I was just talking about what my knowledge of these were. 20 years ago a coin like this would have been slabbed a AU58. However, much has been discussed here that now many of these nice coins are being graded 62-63, (rightly in my mind). You coin, absent me seeing it in hand, I would say would have been graded the AU58 20 years ago. I cannot say if the TPG would grade this a 62 or 63 today.

 

I would call it AU. The fields aren't fully lustrous.

 

I'm curious, can you say how the TPG's can change it from AU to MS? Either there is wear or there is not. Maybe if they decide it was graded AU in error because of weak strike? Other reasons?

 

I see no reason why it wouldn't grade MSsomething from the pictures, but there's a lot that can't be seen from the pictures.

 

Super borderline, I can see it getting a MS grade, though. In any case, very, very nice coin

 

I love what appears to be original skin on it. Original as they come.

 

@GDJMSP will tell ya all about that .

 

Because saying saying a coin, well struck and attractive, with simply a touch of wear is a lower grade than an ugly, weakly struck POS is simply stupid. We should simply get rid of designations and grade numerically for everything, and this coin rightly should be a 62. TPGs are simply fibbing and fixing this historical error in US numismatics.

 

I'm not sure it's ENTIRELY stupid. What if a collector's main interest and concern is that the coin is UNCIRCULATED?
All collectors have their specific desires on what they want. What if someone's main interest is coins that have never been in use, in circulation? Than the nicer looking coin with some wear would not be of interest, but the weak struck coin with no wear would be. No?

 

But do you think most collectors who think such things do so based upon theoretical, just worry about what the slab says, or want their coins to look nice? Why would we grade a coin that even Ray Charles would agree looks nicer lower than an ugly one?

Btw @Rick B , I never call anyone's collecting interest stupid. I meant the choice in grading standards was stupid. They should have allowed for the fact some AU coins are "better" than some BU coins, but they made it too black and white is what I meant sir.

 

Looks to have some wear to me but i am usually wrong on the sliders so you should get a MS grade, still a very very nice piece, how about MS very nice!!

 

I understand your point and respect it, but another point of view just as valid is that uncirculated coins should be separated from circulated.

 

AU in IMHO. The obverse looks very nice. The reverse, there's wear on the high points, L-eagle claw shows wear to my eye. Looking forward to seeing your photos. Nice find..

 

The rub on the high points of the eagle wings and beak would tell me it's a high end AU coin.