eBay: "Rare Gem AU" Walkers

I'm OK with Gem AU, because AU means a touch of wear....so basically your AU-58 level. I prefer a nice AU ( Gem ? ) ms-58 coin to an ugly MS-60 ( like peppered with bag marks), esp. with larger coins like a Morgan dollar.

I think an AU-58 should even usually sell for more than a MS-60. But technically I guess gem means MS-65 or higher. We don't need gem VF when it already goes from 20-35. Gem EF doesn't work....if it's a gem 45, then what is a 50 ?

Gem AU 58 , I can make a case for, as it is an attractive coin that would be a 63 or higher but for a trace of wear, and looks better than a 60 by a lot.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Of course the dies were entirely different from the 10's to the 40's and the minting process as well. I was just merely describing how the orginial shown coins from the ebay auction from the forties couldn't possibly make gem, au or before mentioned vf. That's my opinion and as previously stated the views of Photograde and PCGS.

Also, the example I comparded with was a 1943 because the auction mentioned was also 1943.

 

A Grade Defines Condition, Regardless....

I respectfully differ with your pleading, as I can easily present coins of the "teen" Era that are believed properly graded, thus:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/walking-liberty-1916-half-dollar-XF-NGC-certified-/330612579683?pt=Coins_US_Individual&hash=item4cfa0b9d63
or rebut your argument by showing a 1940s' Era coin that I plead most informed viewers would find in conflict with the stated "standard", thus: (which I would respectfully grade Fine, at best)
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1942-WALKING-LIBERTY-HALF-DOLLAR-PCGS-CERTIFIED-AU50-/270808032792?pt=Coins_US_Individual&hash=item3f0d6aa618

If one desires "overgraded?" specimens from the years between those presented in this posting, I could easily accommodate.

As to any arguments supported by photograde references, I can show similar disparities in those publications, where the photos are obviously in disagreement with verbal description, and similar condition coin images are shown for differing class gradings.

I would plead that the only objective material to be used for universal grading is the original illustrated OFFICIAL A.N.A. GRADING STANDARDS FOR UNITED STATES COINS, Copyright 1977.

The point presented by my posts is that there is no accepted universal grading standard, as the Creme De La Creme of TPG may espouse a standard, while certifying to what I believe is one of ridicule. I believe an objective court reviewing my arguments would find that virtually any advertised grade is acceptable.

Just my humble pleadings, supported by public publishings. :thumb:

 

I'm not sure where the 'teens' walkers came into play when I was simply talking about the ebay auction of 'forties' GEM AU. While I do not agree with this grade and the sources which used before also would claim they are not. I also agree that no two graders or certification companies may or may not agree, which was earlier stated. Humans are bound to mistakes. No one can be perfect. Even certification companies. All we can do is to aspire to do our best and/or try to agree with the masses.

 

I thought it was common knowledge that there is a progressive grading scale for Walkers?

 

I thought it was common knowledge all coins have a progressive grading scale depending on age?

 

Age Dependent Progressive Grading?

I hadn't seen the age dependent progressive grading statement in the A.N.A. GRADING STANDARD, but can view the difference when one compares this vintage coin graded to the "standard":
http://www.ebay.com/itm/walking-liberty-1916-half-dollar-XF-NGC-certified-/330612579683?pt=Coins_US_Individual&hash=item4cfa0b9d63
versus this newer coin, seemingly graded to a lesser "standard":
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1942-WALKING-LIBERTY-HALF-DOLLAR-PCGS-CERTIFIED-AU50-/270808032792?pt=Coins_US_Individual&hash=item3f0d6aa618

I believe the difference is apparent, explaining anomalies I've found, and I now recognize that seemingly "Age Dependent Progressive Grading" is practiced by some.

Thanks for the explanation/clarification. :thumb:

 

First off it you are going to compare anything or any coins please use the same certification company. That's like comparing a slasher zombie movie with a romantic comedy. I've sent type 2 stuff to NGC and had it come back type 1 then bust it out and send it to PCGS and have it come back type 2. Of course there will be differences between the two hince why they are different companies.

Sencondly, I personally believe its all market grading versus standard grading. If you can withhold a large client base who when they recieve a coin they say "Wow, I think this coin would grade higher if I certified it." Or whatever they choose to do with it. I much rather have that then a small or no client base that says "Hey, this coin is way overgraded!" Exactly, like the majority said about the original thread was about. If they were indeed Rare, or Gem , or AU I think the mass populace of ebay would be wise enough to pay more than melt. But as previously mentioned he was almost spot on before the fall.

Also, the dies were much weaker in the late tens and twenties. Books are littered with information explaining how they were made and what is struck weak. When grading coins these anomalies and differences in the minting process must be viewed and judged accordingly.

We all have our views and differences when it comes to grading. We can as a majority disagree or agree or even have a few people versus a lot of people. That's the beauty of this site and Nusmatics.

 

This conversation is getting more and more interesting and I am learning new things with each successive post..Thanks guys~~