Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;GDJMSP, post: 526658, member: 112&quot;]In this case I&#039;d say it&#039;s some of both.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>It&#039;s not uncommon for this to happen. What you see in pictures can always be seen in hand, you just have to look at the right angle with the light at the right angle.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>That depends entirely on what set of grading standards you are using. The PCGS standards state flat out that they will grade coins with light wear as high as MS67. But to a large degree that has as much or more to do with the value of the coin than it does the condition of the coin. Of course they also take into account that the light wear on the coin may be attributable to cabinet friction or roll friction. </p><p><br /></p><p>I have a probelm with that premise, that being that the conclusion is based on an assumption, not a known fact. For unless you happened to be there personally and saw the entire life history of a given coin you have no way whatsoever of knowing that the light wear visible on the coin was actually due to cabinet/roll friction or if it was due to the coin being used in circulation. Personally, I have always preferred to go with the latter when guessing, for to me wear is wear regardless of how it got there. But I do understand the premise of cabinet/roll friction.</p><p><br /></p><p>However, there is another point to consider and it is evident with this particular coin. That point is this -&nbsp; wear is defined by a break in the mint luster, and cabinet/roll friction can by definition only occur on the highest points of a coin for those will be the only points of the coin in contact with the surface of the cabinet or another coin in a roll. So if a coin has breaks in the luster at any other place besides the high points, like in the fields or lower areas of the devices - then it is logical to assume that any wear imparted to the coin came about as a result of the coin being in circulation.</p><p><br /></p><p>So look at this coin - on the obv the nose, the back of the cap, the cheek, the neck, even some of the legends and stars - all show breaks in the luster. And I don&#039;t mean just breaks in the frost like would occur as a result of the coin being in bag of other coins. Frost breaks have a very distinctive look that is quite different than a break in the luster due to wear. </p><p><br /></p><p>As for the light scratches across the cheek, those have the distinctive look of slide marks from being in an album. But the darker grey marks on the cheek, as well as in the other areas mentioned, those have the look of wear due to circulation.</p><p><br /></p><p>Now the reverse is in much better shape. You would expect to see frost breaks on the breast from being in a bag. But typically frost breaks on the breast only occur on just the tops of the breast feathers and generally appear almost black in color in pictures. But what we see on this coin is the dull grey color associated with wear. Also, there are significant breaks in the luster in the fields, especially to the left of the eagle but some is also visible to the right as well as above the eagle.</p><p><br /></p><p>And as I said above, it is breaks in the luster in the fields and lower areas that confirm that those luster breaks on the high points as well are due to wear and not a weak strike. After that it is only a degree of measurement that lowers a coin from AU58 to lower AU grades. And given what we can see based on the pics of this coin is why I would say AU53. There just appear to be too many luster breaks to justify a grade any higher.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in