Thread ATS about "rampant gradeflation"

Lehigh, what was the 'tell' that made that Saint an AU-58 and not a low-60's MS ??

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I'm not sure how well I can discern wear and/or bag marks from this photo, but if I paid AU58 money sight-unseen and received a coin with that HUGE GOUGE under the olive branch, I think I'd be having words with the TPG.

 

All I hear is whining. Everyone gets a chance to look at the coin before buying it. Stop buying the over graded ones if you think they're over graded. You're not going to change the grading companies, so you have to change the way you buy.

 

What do you think this coin graded as?

 

I could see that coin as either MS63 (which is what I think it graded) or AU58 (if the luster breaks extend across the entire breast area, and are also present on the eagle high points, which I can't tell from the
photos.

 

That gouge looks absolutely horrendous! I wouldn't care whether the coin had visible wear or not. Is it true that the TPG's have started net grading otherwise uncirculated coins down to AU58 because of issues like that? To me it really defeats the purpose of the AU58 grade, because what I would expect is an AU coin with minimal marks and superior eye appeal.

 

There is obvious friction in the fields of the coin.

 

The "gouge" as you call it has nothing to do with the conversation about whether the coin should be AU or MS. If the coin did not have wear, the coin would have an MS grade with the "gouge."

 

I call that coin AU55-58, it has obvious wear in the fields, on the drapery, the torch, the head, etc.

 

Ignoring the big hit in the obv field, I think it meets the 58 standard. I do not think we can appraise the condition of the field luster due to lighting. Could it be a 55 with field wear? Sure, I just don't feel prepared to say so.

 

Wrong again,

This is what an AU50 looks like:



and this is what an AU58 looks like:



The determination of AU grades relates to both extent of wear and remaining luster

The AU58 grade with regards to luster is less than 10 percent impairment. And while the obverse of this coin might have more than 10% impairment, the reverse is near full mint state IIRC. If anything would knock this coin into the AU55 grade, it would be the gouge that Jeff mentioned.

 

It is hard to see the high point friction on the knee with that overexposed and strangely lit photograph, but I would bet that in hand, the friction would be evident.

Tell me Doug, what Earthly reason would PCGS and the other experienced members of this forum have to lie about the fact that all Saints have some level of high point friction? Do you really think that PCGS created a conspiracy so that they could overgrade coins?

 

Yes of course they can, and often do-- but those are circulation scratches, and wear.

 

1913s AU58 NGC

 

It is very noticeable....what's the rule on gouges and dings as opposed to bag marks ?

 

The proof of circulation on that AG-58 Saint is.............?

 

You tell me

 

Not meaning to become involved in a fray over seemingly undocumented grading standards, I'm confused about the wear discussion, and especially when the subject is St.Gaudens Double Eagles of which I've been an avid collector of a selection suspected to be unmatched in this venue.

I'm to believe because of the degree of individual investment in products understood to be guaranteed and graded to published standards admissible in court, that litigious action involving the advertised "standard bearers" is inevitable.

I'm to understand there are two TPG "standard bearers" who if adjudged would be held to a published standard, which I believe is the "OFFICIAL A.N.A. GRADING STANDARDS FOR UNITED STATES COINS".

I believe only that written standard defining specific requirements for a numerical grade would be allowed where written description is substantiated by definitive arrowed sketches as one would see when viewing an autopsy report. All other unsupported standards are believed moot, but inadmissible.

I believe you'll find the acceptable published "standard" definition for a MS60 "Mint State" St. Gaudens coin is: A strictly Uncirculated coin with NO TRACE OF WEAR.

I believe to have many of these TPG graded St. Gaudens coins in my voluminous collection which would support the published standard, and refute some unsupported assertions in this thread.

I believe one could find evidence of wear, or not, for themselves by viewing specimens in eBay auctions: #200983040692, 171699144681, 201296446980.

JMHO