The Official Grading Experiment, Phase 2, #3

At the conclusion of Phase 1 around Christmas, I began to think that the photos I was using (from Heritage) might be biasing the grading guesses. So, I want to host Phase 2. I will again be using standardized photos, but this time I'll be using PCGS TrueViews. Again, we will stick to problem free US coins.

So, let's grade some more coins!

All you have to do is guess the grade! I will be attaching a poll to each thread. Please select the grade that you think best represents the coin (to avoid bias, please select your grade before viewing the rest of the thread).

Also please post your opinions about the coin, and it would be most educational if you could explain why you chose the grade you did.

We're going to cover a wide range of material, and some of it may be out of your wheelhouse. However, if you are a confident grader, you should be able to accurately grade almost any coin.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I said 63, but I'm generally not very good with gold.

 

This coin is brutal. The obverse looks AU58 and would max at MS62 if what I'm seeing isn't wear. The reverse looks MS64-MS65. I am going to guess (stress the word guess) that the coin is net graded as mint state as an MS62.

 

I went 62 on this one.
Although very baggy it looks to have decent luster.

 

Copper spots detract, but the bag marks bring it to a 62

 

What would you grade this coin then, with no poll constraints? And could you explain why you would grade it that?

 

I don't see any wear, but there are so many dings and scratches on the obverse that I gave it an MS-60. The reverse is nicer, probably MS-63, but the obverse is just too messed up.

 

63. Average looking, decent luster and strike, surfaces not too clean, not too trashed. The reverse is nicer than the obverse, naturally. I've seen coins like this graded higher, especially for 1904, but they languish in cases as low end coins. The copper spot isn't bothersome, and would be fine on a coin of a higher grade.

 

I agree with GDJMSP - in general, you should put in a wider range of possible grades.

 

...

 

I am limited to 10 choices for a poll. I can't offer a wider range.

 

Jason, Doug has a point, lose the MS68 and include an option for “other (please explain in comments)”. I typically include that option in case people see something that would make it a problem coin.

 

I will make sure I adjust polls up and down a bit in future threads.

I don't want to include an "other" option, because that is impossible to count. I am intentionally excluding problem coins from these threads, so nobody should choose that.

 

The TPG is the reference grade. It's the standard, and I'm judging CT's accuracy compared to the TPG. As you know, the TPGs have a wide variance. There are some barely-there 65's which should probably be a 64+, there are some really nice 65's which might be borderline 66.

I am only choosing coins which I think are properly graded at the TPG grade. I know you've mentioned the semantics of these threads before - but in my opinion, these threads could be viewed either way. "Select the grade you think the coin should be" and "Select the grade the TPG assigned the coin" are different statements. I agree.

However, I am intentionally selecting coins which I think are accurately graded. In this case, the two statements should be equivalent. Many threads are based on pointing out this difference - someone posts an undergraded or overgraded coin, with the intent of pointing out the TPG's error. That's not the goal here.

Perhaps this introduces some bias into the results. I acknowledge this. However, I don't think it is significant enough to worry about, especially when I have guesses from 55 - 63 for the same coin, or an even wider range of 58-67 on the Liberty nickel in the other live thread.

 

I went with AU58 which was my initial feeling of the coin. The more I looked at it the more I figured it was in a 63 slab but I think this one may have been accurately graded as a 58 if it does have wear so I’ll stick with that.