How AU coins can have better Eye appeal than MS coins

Hey cointalk,
Do you guys agree that some AU coins have better eye appeal than low MS coins? It shows it with these two:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Yes, it can happen, but you are comparing eye-appeal with circulation wear and these are different factors. I don't disagree, just apples and mango which is tastier?

 

Absolutely! I've seen some 'dogs' in low mint state that couldn't hold a candle to a high AU grade. All the more reason to keep your glasses on (such as is my case) and buy the coin and not the holder...........

 

I'd take an AU58 over an MS61 almost any day.

 

I adore many original skin AU type coins, but run like heck away from dipped MS type coins.

 

I agree completely. I just bought a 1911 Eagle yesterday. Its "only" a 58, but gorgeous. If not for a tiny bit of wear, it would be a 64 at least. I will take this coin, (and its cheaper price), over a 62 or a 63 all day long.

 

The big advantage of AU-58 coins is that they many times were MS-63 or higher, whereas an MS-60 coin is just a low grade uncirculated coin. I think an AU-58 with great eye appeal is most time a great deal for the money, and a great alternative to an "UNC" with tons of bag marks.

 

Before the ANA adopted AU-58
it was jokingly called AU-63.

 

Well, if an au coin has superb eye appeal over an ms one it's awarded one Watermelon Jelly bean for that...brand name'CAC.'

 

Yes, and they should.

The whole AU/MS mess was created by the bad decision to say a coin not worn, (but can literally beat to heck with bag marks), is by definition "uncirculated" and therefor higher grade than any circulated coin.

I wish they would do away with all descriptive grades and simply grade a coin based upon its degree of perfection. A weak strike, bag marks, or wear can all be types of imperfection, but for some stupid reason in US grading wear is MUCH more severe than any other deficiency on a coin.

 

I know, I really hope that Sheldon made a 'Eye appeal grading' along with the '1 to 70 grading' with his large cents slash half cents.

 

It seems the vast majority of AU coins I've encountered had far better eye appeal than MS coins. Of course, grade isn't factored using eye appeal. I think even most of the XF coins I have look nicer by far than the MS coins I've bought, which may account for my preference toward them.

 

This sounds familiar.

The secret to collecting key dates (The elusive AU64 slider)

 

an au that is better then an ms needs to be sent back in for grading if it really is better.

 

Eye appeal and circulation wear are 2 different things.

 

true and if you like looking at au coins then you should collect them in my opinion.

 

It seems as though you are missing the point here.

Is this actually what CAC is/does/means or could it be that are you making assumptions?

 

The whole point of the matter is to buy/collect what you like in a grade acceptable to ones collecting/buying parameters. Some folks only collect the best of the best and their pockets are a lot deeper than mine. In my quest to assemble a complete type set of commemorative (classic) half dollars I find that I have to sometimes accept a lower grade because the higher grades are totally out of my price range. A nice AU-58 fills the need rather handily as opposed to a mucked up '62 or '63. And the need for green beanishness is totally inconsequential. I don't need another set of eyes to tell me a coin is solid for the grade. I can trust my judgement. I've purchased coins in holders that I've felt have deserved a higher grade than the published grade on the holder. I don't crack and resubmit, but I do have fun picking up such coins. And I always enjoy a really nice, beautiful, full bodied, sumptuous, well struck, lustrous, sexy coin in an AU holder that on another day submitted could command a '63/'64 grade.........

 

I don't think the mods would appreciate
my stating where CAC can stick their jelly beans.