Guess the grade: GOLD

The graders who work at PCGS and NGC are professionals, they do it for a living. Do you guys really think that they see the wear that we think is so obvious and are simply content to ignore it? Something else must be going on here. They must know something that we don't. How many people who have posted in this thread collect $3 gold? How many people who have posted in this thread have even seen an AU/MS $3 gold piece?

I know very little about this series and every series of coin has its own grading intricacies. After viewing Heritage Auction archives for Mint State 1878 $3 gold coins, I have come to the conclusion that what we are seeing in the fields of these coins is not wear, rather a luster effect caused by the striking of the coin. The effect appears on most mint state graded coins including those at the gem & premium gem level (see example below)

1878 $3 MS66 PCGS. CAC



Since I have very little knowledge & experience with this series and considering that the photographs in the Heritage auction archives suggests that what we are seeing is not wear in the fields, I am inclined to accept the assigned grades by PCGS.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Count me in the group of people who does not believe there has been a deliberate loosening of the grading standards. My contention is that resubmissions over time have led to gradeflation which is perceived by the collector base as a change in standards.

That said, I do believe that the TPG's have incorporated and expanded certain aspects of market grading that they did not employ at their inception. For example, coins with rainbow toning are much more likely to get a higher grade today due to exceptional eye appeal than they would have gotten in the 80's and 90's.

 

If you didn't live it you may never understand. I can see how it's hard to believe. My opinion is based on seeing the results starting in the late 80's in a really big way. At almost 50 years in the hobby, I still catch myself being wrong. Those that lived it may change my opinion.

 

Assume you had the choice of two shoe boxes full of coins that have not been looked at since they were slabbed. In box A you have 100 AU58 coins in old 1st and 2nd generation pcgs holders. In box B you have 100 AU58 coins just back from pcgs yesterday (you can interchange pcgs with ngc here if desired, same question).

Which would you think, if cracked out and resubmitted would net the most MS grades ?

Honestly!

.... and how many AU58 in old holders do you see nowa'days.... not many ?, wonder why ?

 

I would think there would be more 58s in more recent years with the everyman registry set and all...

 

That is a rather unfair question. I have stated previously in this thread that the TPGs have expanded some aspects of market grading since their inception. The practice of grading coins with high point wear as mint state coins in order to allow for roll friction is another example. Therefore, it seems rather obvious that sliders in early generation holders will see more upgrades than coins that have been recently graded under the revised standards.

That said, the TPGs still use the AU58 grade and do not abuse the roll friction allowance as much as most people would like to believe. Some coins are just difficult to grade. This coin was graded last December.



But that is because I cracked it out and resubmitted the coin. The year before it was given this grade!



Other series are easier to grade and the AU58 grade is used consistently without much controversy. Please note the friction in the fields.



Don't worry, the AU58 grade is alive and well. Posting a coin with high point wear and an MS grade on the label is provocative and has been the subject of many threads on internet coin forums over the years. It is much less interesting to create a thread with a subject "hey look at my AU coin with an AU label." Just because you don't see threads about them doesn't mean they don't exist.

Rather than turning this thread into another endless/pointless debate about whether TPG grading standards have changed, can we return to the original subject which is the grades of the 3 gold coins posted by the OP. I can't believe that nobody wants to comment on the post I made earlier today (Post #61).

 

I pretty much assume the TPG graders have more knowledge than I do - at the same time I don't think it makes them perfect. I also use the heritage archives when trying to grade something like these coins. What I did not do was blow them up enough, but then again it may have made me go to low on the grades. So I have no problem with the grades assigned. Now if people want to call them AU that is fine with me also - I am not going to argue over pictures in this case. My opinion is the pictures show enough to qualify as MS. I just know most of the gold I have seen in the 60-63 range look a lot like these - in hand not to my tastes. So far the ones I have bought (6) are all in the AU range. Gold is tough to grade.

What was really cool was one day the shop had the same date, type, etc in AU-55 and MS-62 grade. The two coins looked identical based off the strike - the difference being the luster and bag marks on the 62. The 55 looked much nicer to me, just no where near the luster of the 62. To me the bag marks made the 62 one ugly coin, with each bag mark looking like a break in luster. This is one of the things I really like about my local coin shop - they will let me look at study everything, even though they know I will not buy most of what I look at. Probably the only way I will ever get to look real close at proof 1840 seated dollar - I read somewhere 10-20 of them minted(with the total of 40 at PCGS and NGC being re-submissions). That reminds me - they covered the grade on a fugio cent and ask me to grade it. The strike was so weak - I said XF, maybe AU-50. Turns out it was a MS62 coin - then we discussed it for about 10 minutes on why he thought it was graded correctly.

 

au coins are being defended as ms coins. come on grandpa