Three grades, one 1832 capped half. GTG

IMO, Net grading SUCKS! If some dummy put that coin in a 2X2 marked and priced as an XF hundreds of collectors would be killed (trampled) in the crunch to buy it! Then it would trade hands a few times at increasing prices until it finally got into an MS slab. I'd even open my stingy wallet.

Problem with net grades is you don't know what you are getting if you cannot see the coin. Besides, IMO AU-55 would be the LOWEST "net grade" for this one.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

When you have 3 different TPG's giving 3 different grades, anything in that territory could be right.

 

Ms 60 details scratch weak strike...

From the hobby center and think tank of MTS.LLC

 

Cool thread easi3699. I don't think anything like this has ever been done before (this forum). Considerable outlay of funds, which further stresses the need that we all be proficient with our grading, because you can't trust the so called professionals......

 

ICG - MS details cleaned
PCGS - AU details cleaned
NGC - AU 58

 

Thank you. I was going to send it to ANACS as well. I've been waiting and wanting to do this thread. I know there have been many threads about the difference in grading companies, figured this will give an example of a single coin and their opinions. Like others have mentioned, this is a good example of buy the coin and not the slab and learn how to grade for yourself. I know I learned from doing this little experiment and I hope others do as well.

 

If we rule out errors or something the TPGS misses, the professionals are pretty good. On the OP's coin it can be demonstrated that there are several ABSOLUTELY VALID grades and I'll bet I can defend each grade assigned to the coin by the TPGS.

Grading is a personal thing. Some have better training, more knowledge, better tools, or looser standards. It is a miracle to me that the TPGS's are generally so close.

A coins value + loose commercial standards have introduced so much BS into the equation that it is a wonder there is anything approaching a standard. One TPGS finalizer (I think he's nuts) claims that a grading guide for Morgan dollars would need to have a date-by-date section listing all the things to look for concerning strike, luster, etc. For example, an 1884-S is graded differently than an 1881-S. Years of study is needed to reach this point and many long time dealers still have not learned to grade and rely on the label.

Decades ago Coin World sent the same coins to the TPGS with the OP's result. There was also a court case where a $20 Saint was graded from AU-55 to MS-64 by prominent numismatists if I remember correctly. I also read that a 1794 Large cent was graded from VF to AU by prominent professionals at a Coin Grading Roundtable working on setting grading standards.

Bottom line...nothing has changed. It is up to each of us to set our own standards. The most important is how much friction wear/cabinet friction/loss of luster you will tolerate on a coin before it becomes AU in your eyes. The OP's coin is AU in mine and I don't care what is on the label.

@easj3699 When do we find out??

@physics-fan3.14 What do you think?

 

Well, Physics did right a book about grading, I'll reveal the grades after we hear from him.

 

Most personal......and I tend to be harsh.

 

Well, heck dang.....you gots to rub the lamp.

@physics-fan3.14

 

Did someone summon me?

Hmmm.... shakes magic 8 ball....

I always find it somewhat irrelevant to guess what the TPGs would have graded it. The three TPGs often grade differently. ICG has a reputation for being loosest, PCGS has a reputation for letting a lot of problems slide on early US material, and NGC can be a little strict. The whole emphasis of learning to grade is to figure out what you yourself would grade it (although, comparing to the TPGs is very helpful for learning).

I'll just say that your photos *appear* to show an AU-58 coin. It looks bright and lustrous, and I don't see any obvious signs of cleaning (although a lot can hide in a picture). This is exactly the type of coin that may appear in a slab as high as MS-62 or 63, although you'll hear old timers refer to them as AU-62. There clearly appears to be rub evidenced by broken luster and color change on the high points (curls of hair, breast, shield, and eagle's head).

So, I wouldn't be surprised if your slabs read anywhere between 55 and 63 - but I like it best at 58.

 

AU Details, altered

 

I bought this in the ICG holder and paid the MS 60 price in the Grey Sheet. I think it was dipped and has since retoned. I was hesitant of the color but I thought this would be a good coin to send in to the companies.

 

As far as details grades go questionable color is about as good as it gets.

 

ICG '64........I'm way stricter than that.

 

It's currently raw again because I was planning on giving it one more trip to ANACS. Right now though I don't mind having it ungraded in my collection.

 

I have a 1832 that was dipped & I am storing it in a manila coin envelope for some retoning I have not looked at it in over 4 months

Here is pics when I first got it. June 2014

 

You know you're now obligated to get it back out and show us what it looks like now

 

What is the number on the ICG label? That may tell when the coin was OVERGRADED!

 

It is rather hard to defend a 64. The other two you can certainly make reasonable arguments for