Discussion in 'US Coins Forum' started by TypeCoin971793, Jul 2, 2020.
Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.
What are the dates for the 2 gradings ?
As for OP coin, it was wrong on both counts. It might have rated an extra 5 points in the VF holder, but sure isn’t an AU now.
Again....anybody know the 2 grading dates ?
I agree, maybe after the FBI wraps up their investigation into PSA they should give PCGS a look.
I don’t know when exactly it was graded, but it sold in the VF35 holder in Feb 2017, and then in the AU58 holder in June 2017. Take that for what you will.
Read each of the descriptions.
It's plausible that they thought it would be a Bad Idea to say a TPG 58 was EAC 15.
@Beefer518 did. Who determined the "Our EAC grade...."?
Its not like EAC grades ever match the TPG grades, and I've always been under the impression that they aren't there to appease a TPG, but to grade a coin based on their much stricter guidelines.
Seems like HA has 'in-house' EAC 'specialists' that get a paycheck from HA, and HA doesn't want to rock the TPG boat.
I wonder how the EAC would explain the discrepancy in something where their institution is implied to have reviewed the coin and gave it the two different grades, presumably only months apart. As for PCGS, I've never liked their grading personally, and realize they are a for-profit organization, and keeping certain clients happy keeps their bank accounts fat.
So who got ripped off worse? The owner that submitted the coin and got the 35, or the guy that bought it as a 58? I think if i bought it as the 58, I'd be pretty ticked off if I saw the earlier auction.
The EAC grades are usually assigned by Mark Borckardt. He is a very well known and respected EACer, and the ANA named him Numismatist of the year this year.
I wonder what he would say about this.
@TypeCoin971793. On what planet does that coin get graded AU58? Good grief...
The rest of the detail would qualify as an EF, but the coin has finely granular surfaces. A few of those marks were probably on the planchet from the beginning. The die did not flatten them. But most of the other tiny pits are from mild corrosion, which is very common for copper coins from this era. It’s also to be expected because the metal is reactive. The coin probably has had some expert restoration work done in it.
Despite that, this piece is a very nice example. From the commercial point of view, an EF-40 grade is fair. BUT with the original mint surface totally gone, there is no way that this coin could be graded AU, let alone AU-58, which says the coin is a hairbreadth from Mint State.
This is an interesting blundered die. The die maker placed the first "1" in the date too high and then punched it in correctly. Many of the survivors from the this common mintage (by 18th century standards) were struck with badly broken dies and lack much of the major design elements. This piece is a fairly early die state and well struck.
The old ANACS graded this VF-35. I'd would say that it is a VF something.
Separate names with a comma.