Guess the grade # 5

Leigh , I can not answer why it only received an MS 62. That is splitting hairs for me.
As for the Au 58 –VS MS 63 comment. That is very typical for anyone grading Bust Half dollars. By posting that comment I did not think my coin was Au 58, I though people might grade it as such based on a photo. You know we see the same thing all the time on the NGC board. A perfect example was that 1829 Bust in the old Rattler that was recently posted. I posted that the coin was either Au 58 or MS 63 because from the photo I was not sure, even thought I thought is was a MS 63.
My experience with CAC has been if there is something wrong with a coin for the grade they will find it. I have had some that I thought were a shoe in only to be rejected. Upon further examination after being told why it did not CAC I found the problems with the coin. John A is great at picking up some of the most subtle items that can change or confirm the grade. My argument here is the coin was graded MS 62 by PCGS and the grade was confirmed by CAC. Calling the coin Au 50 before knowing this is one thing , defending that grade after I posted the assigned grade is another.

They were of by 5 or 6 grades depending on how you count if they called it AU 50 and the grade was MS 62 . :smile

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

The problem is really that we can't see the coin in hand. There is no substitute, not even the best of pictures for seeing in hand with your own eyes, where it can be scrutinized turned subjected to different angles and lighting and the such. My very first thought was that coin in MS62?! and CAC'd!? then I thought about it some more and realized that A) someone with a heck of a lot more experience than I and B) was able to grade the coin in hand. My experiences with CBHs is that rubs could not be circulation sometime and other times it will be, it takes years of experience to learn to grade properly and even then sometimes the best get it wrong.

 

a/u 58-60

 

GDJ- please answer my question . What is the grade of the coin you used and is it raw or slabbed?

 

The reason for wear doesn't matter. If a coin has wear, it's not UNC.

Unless you're market grading.

 

I think that I've seen enough Bust Halves in this grade to know that they are hard to grade from photos, and if given the chance to side with PCGS and CAC (who have both seen the coin in-hand) or a third-party interpretation of a photo (even from someone who I respect greatly), I'll take PCGS/CAC every time.

All that said, to see a coin with some rub grade MS by the TPGs should come as no surprise to anyone. While the purists take issue with gradeflation (and perhaps rightfully so), as long as the TPGs are consistent (and they seem to be), I could really care less...Mike

p.s. I think the coin in question has some high-point rub and some toning which some are confusing with wear -- that's why I asked the OP what the luster was like because toning can confuse many in a photo, but a quick rotation of the coin under the light can speak to the difference between the two that few pictures can.

 

What about Morgans that got "wear" from being transported in bags and never saw a day in circulation? Are they all AU?

 

Although I might quibble that their way of grading hasn't changed, I agree 100% with the bolded portion above....Mike

 

Bagmarks are not wear, and they do not have the same appearance as wear.

 

I'm not talking about bagmarks -- nicks and such -- but rather high point wear that occurs during bag transportation. Are these coins AU?

 

Those are bagmarks, not wear.

 

I thought it would be at least a MS 64 . How can you use a MS 65 coin to compare with a MS 62 coin ? Someone with your level of expertise should know right away that the strike on that MS 65 is far better them my MS 62 . Diagnostic number one is the Eagles left wing. That MS 65 coin has a full wing detail , mine although not as weak as many others I have seen is still softer then yours. My Busts left wing is not wear, it is strike. Number two would be the hair curls. The Luster on your coin is also exceptional as it should be for a MS 65 Bust Half. We could get into the Overton discussion but in this case there were no obvious major strike issues for my O-109.
I agree with you 100 % that TPG’s overgrade , that is why I trust CAC to weed out the good ones from the others. I also agree that TPGS’ have changed grading standards over the years. Why do you think they tightened up so much in the last couple of years?? It was because of CAC .
In summary, it is better to be more on the conservative side of grading then the liberal side. I just think you take the conservative side a bit to far.

 

Here's an example:



I see lots of bag marks, but I also see readily apparent high-point rub (above ear, in the cap, etc.).

Is this coin, which has never seen a day in circulation, considered AU because of obvious high point rub?

 

If the luster is broken, yes.

 

I would grade this MS 61 maybe 62 . I could see why people might give it Au 58 .
What is the grade on this coin ?

 

64

 

But I thought they were bagmarks?

 

I don't know if they are bagmarks or not, I don't have the coin in my hand.

You said "I see lots of bag marks, but I also see readily apparent high-point rub", and if the rub breaks the luster, the coin is AU.