These are both Heritage coins in their upcoming sale. The EAC grade for the first one (MS64+ RD) large cent is MS64. The EAC grade for the second one, (MS65 RD) large cent is MS60. I'm so confused. Your thoughts?
The dark carbon spots and the luster break between stars 11 and 12 bring it down some IMO, but I wouldn't say all the way to 60--maybe to 63.
64+ and 65 are the type of grades that are close enough that on different occasions the coins could be switched. In the photos, while the 65 has some darkness and spots, IMO it is more attractive. Also, the price jump in value for an 1857 cent in 65 may be another reason.
Don't know for sure that this would be the reason for the difference in the EAC grades but the '53 does have rim issues (corrosion) that are much more severe, at least in my opinion, than the rim issues (rim dings) of the '57. And the '53 is poorly centered. As for the PCGS grades, both coins are over-graded IMO. I also think Heritage's EAC grade on the '57 is high by at least 1 point.
AFAIK, centering is important for paper money, ancients, and error coins. I have never heard of it affecting "normal" pieces with the very slight misalignment on that large cent. I guess because it falls into the "who cares" category. Large cent collectors have a recently published grading guide. Mine is at home. Perhaps a member can say if centering is mentioned in the book as a factor in the grade of Large cents. If not there, than it applies to all US issues.
All aspects of a coin are supposed to count when it comes to grading coins - including whether the coin is well centered or not. If you have 2 coins, one has some hairlines and one does not, all other aspects are equal. Which one should grade higher ? Answer - the one without the hairlines. Same thing with contact marks, location of contact of contact marks, rim dings, scratches, quality of luster, quality of strike, breaks in the luster, spots, - every single thing you can think of - if all other aspects are equal but that one, then the coin without the issue or that is better than the other coin in that regard - grades higher. Same thing with centering. And centering is mentioned as a grading criteria in the ANA standards. But granted, the primary issue between the two coins is the corrosion on the rim of the one.
There is a significant difference between coins in MS and those under MS over what affects the value and grading. The corrosion on the rims might be acceptable on a F12 but not when you are making distinctions between uncirculated coins. In the end, it's just an opinion of the grader and you have to decide whether it affects what you would pay for it.
I am still stumped - I can see the EAC grade for the second coin, but I would still expect a move down from the 64 on the 1857. Then again who provides the EAC grades for Heritage? Maybe they just made a mistake.
I've scanned the 7th edition of the ANA guide and cannot find anything on centering in the intro or dictionary of grading terms. Please save me some time and give me the page number as I should like to read what they say. I should certainly expect it to be there someplace discussing error coins.
IMO and in the opinion of PCGS, these coins are not corroded. Although Technically, each tiny dark spot is corrosion. Remember it is all a matter of degree. I believe most professionals would say these two coins do not meet/have not reached that condition.
Opinions may vary without them being a mistake. But the strike is a bit weaker or the die a bit worn because the stars have little interior definition whic EAC does not use the ANA GUIDE. It has been around before the ANA and has it's own standards, nebulous as they are. They react much more strongly to PMD and less to die related weakness than Market graders. In fact, varieties known for weakness from strike problem at the mint are not usually penalized by EAC like the grading services who don't really take the time to make such adjustments. I had a 1837 N-14 which is known to have a soft reverse and EAC recognizes this when PCGS and NGC just downgrades ALL 1837 N-14s. Market graders opinions should just be the beginning and not the final word anyway.
This was my thought as well. I agree the '53 was hit hard and the '57 not hard enough based on the static photos.