Gtg 1827 large cent

Exactly! I'd also say AU55. There's still a chance PCGS called it MS...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I guess I see it in the 55 to 58 range.

 

55, possibly netted to 53 or even 50 due to the verdigris. I noticed the circulation rub right away.

 

So far nobody has it. Tho a few of you guessed what I would've

 

I agree that it's probably wear, but I would want to see the coin in hand to confirm breaks in the luster.

With that said, people are ignoring it because the TPGs ignore it all the time. MS60-63 for large cents are almost 100% AU coins. Even some 64s are over-graded AU with above average eye appeal.

I will say, this coin is basically flawless in the focal areas, very nice eye appeal overall, with clearly original unmucked with skin, and based on that my guess is 64.

 

Because the TPG puts it on the label does not mean that it is right. MS means MINT STATE, which means no wear whatsoever. The practice which you describe is called gradeflation. 20-30 years ago, you would have been the laughing stock of the coin-collecting community if you had marketed this as MS. If you can't tell, I have zero tolerance for gradeflation. If the coin has wear, it is not uncirculated. If the coin has no luster, then it is not AU.

If PCGS calls this coin MS, then they are wrong. The coin is clearly circulated, so therefore the coin is AU. Take it to any self-respecting EACer and they will laugh in your face if you expect an MS price for it.

Maybe I'm a purist, or maybe I like the traditional grading standards better.

 

He's apparently never seen weakly-struck Bust Half, then. Or the talons on a New Orleans Morgan. Or a later-date Large Cent.

And, unless we posit that a coin can wear on only one face, where is the "wear" on the reverse?

 

My thoughts were 55-58 and a chance they called it enviro damage when I sent to pcgs. Was a surprise when it went 61. And a bigger one when it beaned

 

I don't agree. I wouldn't be a buyer. Congrats on the result.

 

I agree with your frustration about the third party graders. I don't like them, don't use them, crack out all my coins, and could care less what grade they give coins I buy.

However, this thread is a guess the grade thread, as in guess the grade TPGs gave the coin, and for that I think it's useful in helping people understand how TPGs grade coins. They use market grading, which as you point out is inherently inflationary for grades. They try to determine what they think the value of a certain coin is, and then assign the grade that will put the coin in the correct price range. I think this coin is probably a great example of that. It may very well be an AU coin, but it's got great original surfaces and spotless focal areas. Two qualities that make this a very nice and more valuable coin.

Fully flushing out the grading, I tend to view TPG MS64 large cents as generally being MS60 by EAC standards. Let's assume this coin has wear, and it's really a choice EAC 55 coin. The preimium even EACers pay for choice coins over average may well put the choice 55 at the same price point as an average 60. The TPGs would then say this coin is MS64. Not saying I like the logic, but thats the idea behind market grading. I don't want to get into if it's right or wrong because EAC and TPG grades are really based on two very different systems and philosophies of grading, but I will say I prefer EAC philosophy as well.

In terms of what EACers will pay, when I collected large cent by variety I found in general that the prices between CQR (auction results for EAC graded coins) and what slabbed coins brought was basically none. I had a late date 1847 graded xf40 by NGC which was really a choice vf 25 by EAC. CQR had the coin values at $75 while the price guides for slabbed coins had the xf40 around $70. That is market grading in action, as long as a collector understood at least one method of grading, they would be being the coin at basically the market value using either method. I know this doesn't hold for every coin in every situation, but I found it in general to be true most of the time.

Last point, I am very hesitant to make the distinction between EAC AU and MS based on pictures. AU coins have some breaks in the luster at the highest points, MS coins don't, that the difference. AU coins don't have enough wear to 'flatten' any devices. This coin could have breaks in the luster, it could have complete luster with toning as seen on the high points. Without seeing this in hand I can't make the distinction.

 

You probably would have been where I was raw at xf money

 

I agree very much. I'm not as familiar with the EAC scale as market grading but is one of the the things I'm educating myself more in and learning. This is an interesting coin to grade. The fields are nearly mark free. There is the couple spots of corrosion and verdigris on the reverse. Note I did not treat this coin with Verdicare before I sent it in as I hadn't used the product yet and didn't have any. however I do see breaks in luster especially on the obverse. To me this coin is very lightly circulated. And a high au. This is also a very hard coin to price as the guides mean nearly nothing there's few quality examples of this date trading at auction and most at auction in high au or ms go quite high

 

The further you go back in time, to before mid 19th c, the TPG's will tolerate progressively more luster breaks and light rub and still call the coin MS. If this coin was resubmitted I could just as easily see it going AU58.
Like Superdave, I was a bit puzzled by the lack of wear on the reverse, leading me to think that the obv. was stained rather than worn. Perhaps the coin spent some time face down in a drawer or cabinet, and experienced some friction. Part of the mystery, part of what makes gtg threads fun!

 

Actually I doubt this coin ever saw a drawer The story I heard is the guy I got it from who I trust and know well was taking down an early house. As he pulled off the baseboard on the second story he saw something fall out and drop to the cellar which was full of rubble he said he heard a metallic sound and this landed on the base of the chimney. If it had dropped into the rubble it would have been lost forever. He'd had it a few years and sold me some of the coins he found taking down houses. I bet this fell behind the baseboard shortly after it was new

 

Wow, quite a backstory and amazing that it survived in such good shape.

 

Okay. "Guess what the TPG gave the coin." I kind of missed the purpose of these threads. I'm used to grading the coin and seeing how the grading consensus of the forum compares to that of the TPG, effectively judging the TPG.

I feel like the promotion of guessing what the TPG gave the coin is taking some skill out of grading. It seems more like a contest based on chance than teaching other collectors how to grade.