I am a big fan of 3rd Party grading but it can make us (including me) lazy at times. We are told constantly buy the coin, not the holder. It sounds good but we don't always listen. I really like perusing the better online auction sites because typically the main picture is viewed without the grade being obvious. If a coin isn't appealing, I keep on scrolling. The 2 coins below were both in the Heritage NY sale this week. It's a design I have been interested in but hadn't acquired yet. It's unusual for me to find 2 coins of the same variety in the same auction for me to compare side by side. Both of these were designated KM# A907. The first coin is dated 1741. The following one is dated 1742. They were consecutive lots in the auction. Below are the lot descriptions and pictures. Coin #1 Saxony. Friedrich August II "Vicariat" 1/2 Taler 1741 MS63+ PCGS, KM-A907. Markedly sharp in the peripheral features with the slightest softness atop the highest points of the central devices, this charming 1/2 taler clearly owes its plus classification to radiant gold and cobalt tones as well as comparatively clean surfaces. Coin #2 Saxony. Friedrich August II "Vicariat" 1/2 Taler 1742 MS64 NGC, Dresden mint, KM-A907. Vicariat issue, two year type. D G FRID AUG REX POL DUX SAX ARCHIMARESCHALL & ELECT Friedrich August II with sword in hand, on rearing horse right / IN PROVINCIIS IUR SAXON PROVISOR ET VICARIUS Empty throne on dias with symbols of office. Crisp legends and edge reeding, beautiful olive-gray toning with gold and red shades accenting, and very clean unmarked fields with a bit of weakness in center of coin strike. It's irrelevant but did 2 different people write the lot descriptions? Anyway, both coins sold for the exact same price. Coin #1 is now mine and I never seriously considered bidding on coin #2. Both coins have the same catalog value but it looks like the 1741 shows up in auctions more often which may be part of the reason the prices ended up the same. I myself only wanted an example of the type. It's possible somebody out there really "needed" a 1742. The statement "a bit of weakness in center of coin strike" is a bit inaccurate in my opinion. I have to mention that, in my mind, the grade on both would make one assume that neither piece was in circulation. Coin #1 does appear to have some rub on the high points. Maybe the grader considered it cabinet friction. I'm not good enough to distinguish between the two. I don't agree or disagree with the designated grades. I have sent enough similar material in that I think I have a good feel for what the graders are looking for. This is a good example of why the stated grade should only be one factor to consider when making a purchase.
I think the second coin suffers from poor pictures, and is probably more attractive in hand. The strike weakness nearly obliterating the central devices would be the biggest turnoff for me on that coin. This quote from the auction description is probably the most likely reason for the weakness on the devices. The strike is clearly better than the second coin, but still somewhat incomplete on the highest points.
I find esp. with hammered coinage, a MS-63 may look way better then a 65. Case in point here is a Louis XI AV Ecu a la couronne in MS-65. Dies where worn out
Very nice. I've found that most of the people that are chasing 70's in current coinage don't appreciate these as we do.
Personally, neither one is really my cup of tea. But in the eye appeal department #1 winds hands down as I find #2 quite ugly, particularly the dark, mottled toning.
