Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;physics-fan3.14, post: 3881691, member: 19165&quot;]Well, this one was tough. I told you it would be. However, you did better than the previous St. Gaudens!</p><p><br /></p><p>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.</p><p><br /></p><p>This coin was tough, I&#039;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&#039;t have amazing toning, but it is original looking.</p><p><br /></p><p>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&#039;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&#039;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&#039;s a bit tricky given the amount of marks in the field, and the nature of the toning. [USER=78244]@TypeCoin971793[/USER] 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.</p><p><br /></p><p>So, we have to rely on experience. I&#039;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.</p><p><br /></p><p>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 [USER=82085]@Johndoe2000$[/USER] 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.</p><p><br /></p><p>A tricky coin, but a learning experience!</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1025293[/ATTACH][/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