What the heck are you thinking, ANACS?

No excuse for this. Why not go ahead and give it a RB, too?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Looks like the spelled "XF details" wrong. I buy coins sight unseen from certain dealers on occasion, I wouldn't be very happy with this one when it came in.

 

Coin has been NET GRADED! It is corroded.

I think net grading sucks as it leads to this...

IMHO, the coin in an AU-55 "Details." Now, who's grade do you want on the coin.

 

I despise net grading even though I sort of agree with the net in this instance. It needs to be one of the other and should state XX details, XX-00 net, or just the straight numerical grade if it is warranted.

 

I would prefer the tpgs use EAC grading for early copper.

 

Oh my

 

This is why I stick with gold. It appears to just be dirty to me...?

 

Weird, usually they're to quick to throw around details grades

 

Thankfully, what you prefer will never happen.

NET grading is the most stupid , wacky , confusing , bunch of rot that was ever invented (by whom the EAC?) to try to put a value on a coin.

This is not an opinion. Anyone with any knowledge of the essence of grading a coin that's evolved into our present grading system (possibly including Dr. Sheldon himself) can come up with so many reason's to get rid of the Net Grading FOLLY that there is no need for me to post even one stupid example. The OP's coin is enough.

 

I could see AU50 details, but it's soft in a lot of the detail.

 

Coins like this make me want to do some cleanin.... restoration.

 

Could someone explain in extremely fine details why it should details grade?

I see corrosion, a knock on the cheek, what looks like pitting and the funky orange color I'd be afraid came from cleaning but I'm curious if I'm missing anything else as I know very little about these. Thanks.

 

See the light reddish surfaces? And how the gunk, especially on the reverse, is bunched up against the tight devices? That means someone rubbed the surface to remove the dirt and gunk, and it brightened the fields and higher surfaces. So what we have here is a cleaned coin, with some light environmental damage/discoloration. IMO, anyway.

 

Maybe the submitter sent in a dozen coins or more and they were all problem coins, and since this one was the least atrocious, ANACS cut him a break. But if you want to argue that you belong with the big boys, you have to details this coin, no matter how disappointed you make someone.

 

Awesome, thanks! Wanted to be sure that the color was indicative of a cleaning as well.

 

Copper coins that are this age and have this amount of wear are not even the slightest shade of red. This color is unnatural. To me the primary problem with the coin is the cleaning.

 

Arrows, and a whole lot more.........

 

What the heck could they have been thinking? A 12?