The Official CoinTalk Grading Experiment 17

I'm with the 62 camp

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I'm not familiar with this series but will take a stab at it. It's a very nice looking coin with some dings on the obverse. I would have guessed MS 63/64 but went with AU 58 due to the rub on the eagles head. I'm probably not giving the coin the respect it needs but who am I to talk about respect!

 

I noticed the same, since the shield is one of my focal points in determining grade.
Edit:
Upon a second look, not sure it is a scratch. MS 63

 

Don't mean to be picky but it's not "a" scratch, it's two scratches.

Thanks for the reality check. It's nice to know I wasn't the only one that noticed it.

 

Thanks for the correction. I misspoke. There are clearly two scratches, or not. This is a prime example where grading a coin from photos is a major issue. At this point, I have little confidence in my opinion of the grade. All things considered, this is a very nice coin.

 

I went 64, but the more I look, the more it looks like wear on liberty's leg, the top of Eagle's wings, and Eagle's head. AU58. ???
So this should grade somewhere between 58-68. IMHO.

Edit; wear, or weak strike ??? W/O different angles to see it better ?

 

58 or 62??? Great looking coin!

 

My guess is a MS64, reason is the obverse field is scuffed in more than one place and some worn down device. The same goes for the reverse. Great coin though. As far as luster goes I see none. The toning accounts for an increase of the grade I chose.

 

Well, this one was tough. I told you it would be. However, you did better than the previous St. Gaudens!

PCGS/CAC gave this a 63. While this technically was the most commonly selected grade (29%), 25% of you thought it was AU. Many of you would have probably graded even lower if that was an option! The average guess was 61.77, which is 1.23 below the actual.

This coin was tough, I'm not going to sugar coat it. The luster is not very strong, which rules out a gem grade. There are quite a few contact marks, and especially quite a number in the fields. Remember, the biggest difference between a 63 and 64 is the number of contact marks in the fields. Focal areas will still have quite a few contact marks in 64, but generally the fields are a bit cleaner. I think the eye appeal on this piece is somewhat positive. It doesn't have amazing toning, but it is original looking.

However, the key here is the argument AU vs MS. Many of you focused on the apparent discoloration of the high points. In photographs, that's absolutely a major clue in grading AU vs MS. In hand, it would be easy - rotate the coin under a light, and see how the luster behaves on the high points. If the luster is broken, it is AU; if it is undisturbed, it is MS (different toning doesn't mean wear). However, there are a couple of other clues you should compare when looking at a photo. The biggest one is: look at the fields. If there is wear on the high points, there will be wear in the open fields. This will appear as a darker area, or a lack of luster (even the creamy, subdued luster shown in this pictures will be disturbed). That's a bit tricky given the amount of marks in the field, and the nature of the toning. @TypeCoin971793 actually mentioned this in his post (and I agree, it would absolutely be easier to tell in hand). Especially on the reverse, I see no evidence of disturbed luster in the fields.

So, we have to rely on experience. I'd wager this coin spent time in some sort of enclosed storage device. This is a coin which was intentionally saved, from its creation. The type of toning seen here, and the fact that it is on both sides, leads me to believe it was probably an envelope. When a coin is stored in an envelope, the high points are closer to the paper - and thus the high points are more likely to tone darker than other parts of the coin.

We have always been trained, when examining pictures, darkness on the high points is probably wear. That is not always the case! We could explain it with a weak strike, as @Johndoe2000$ mentioned, but if we look at the rest of the coin the strike is actually pretty good. In this case, the slight darkening is almost certainly due to how it was stored and toned.

A tricky coin, but a learning experience!

 

And that is precisely what is seen in the obverse fields. And the fields were not in contact with the envelope for sure.

 

It sure looks like a 58 to me, which was bumped to MS, because there’s sooo little wear and it’s such a nice coin

 

Good point.

 

I seem to always be a little late on these I look for them and then I’m not on for a few days and you just posted the answer. I do however vote before I look at any of the replies so I have no idea what the final results are until I scroll through. These seated coins are my strong point. A fair amount of smaller marks but nothing major decent luster though technically I see a tiny touch of high point rub. This coin is a solid 63 in today’s market grading. A little better luster and a few lees marks and it’s a 64 all day. I’m a little surprised by the cac not because it’s not a very solid 63 but I don’t feel the surfaces are strictly original. I see this coin as dipped many years ago and retoned naturally

 

I went with 65. We'll see if middle aged silver gets the same high grades for minimal wear as that gold piece did.

 

You can check the grade several posts above.

 

Ah, didn't see that. Thanks.