What will PCGS say? Coin 1 of 10 - 1818 large cent

Discussion in 'US Coins Forum' started by Leadfoot, Feb 1, 2011.

Page 2 of 3
  1. Merc Crazy

    Merc Crazy Bumbling numismatic fool

    How many PCGS coins get CAC'ed though? One in eight or so?
     
    Merc Crazy, Feb 2, 2011
    #21 + Quote Reply
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. Leadfoot

    Leadfoot there is no spoon

    Hi Mike! How can it be a "good comparison" if it's a "FAR better coin"?

    I don't follow....(the other) Mike
     
    Leadfoot, Feb 2, 2011
    #22 + Quote Reply
  4. johnny54321

    johnny54321 aspiring numismatist

    Nice coin Leadfoot! My first thought was PQ AU-50 even. There is enough luster imo to make AU for an early large cent.
     
    johnny54321, Feb 2, 2011
    #23 + Quote Reply
  5. FishyOne

    FishyOne Member

    Looks AU50. The pics appear to show a polishing but hopefully that's just the way it's imaged.

    You paid double AU money, did you think this coin was MS?
     
    FishyOne, Feb 2, 2011
    #24 + Quote Reply
  6. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    I think Reynolds pretty well nailed the grade, for a couple of reasons. For one Mike's coin was well struck. And if you look at other examples of this coin in MS grades you can see how well struck this one actually was. The denticles for one, on Mike's coin are full and well formed. On many others in MS grades with weak strikes the denticles are barely there. The details of the hair, the lettering, and the stars in particular, show what a good strike should show. On many other MS examples of this coin you can hardly see any centers at all on the coin because they were weakly struck. But yet on Mike's coin you can see traces of the centers on nearly every star. Now the only reason you can see all this on Mike's coin is because the coin was well struck. And the reason you see some details missing and some flat spots on the high points is because those details have been worn off by wear.

    Now to see what I'm saying take a look at this coin, a 63 - http://coins.ha.com/common/view_item.php?Sale_No=1139&Lot_No=7126 - notice how full the details are at the high points on each side. Look at the star centers, the hair, the leaves, the lettering - it's all there. This coin was also well struck. But yet the denticles are barely even there. Now compare that to Mike's coin.

    Now look at this coin, a 66 - http://coins.ha.com/common/view_item.php?Sale_No=1140&Lot_No=56 - the coin is not all that well struck, but yet it has the luster, something that Mike's coin is missing to a large degree. Look at the flat, high spots on this coin, see the difference between them and the lusterous areas. That's what the metal looks like as the result of a weak strike. No they don't have the luster that the fully struck areas do, but they have an entirely different look than the flat spots on Mike's coin. On Mike's coin those flat spots are duller and a slightly different color than the flat spots caused by weak strike. And be sure to look at the blow ups of Mike's and the Heritage pics.

    If you want to look at more examples of these things to see what I am saying you can check this link - http://coins.ha.com/common/search_r...18 MS&Nty=1&N=51+790+231+307&chkNotSold=0&Ns=

    Now, all of that said - I think Mike has a great coin here ! It has a great strike, it's well centered, on a good planchet, it does not have the common die cracks and heavy flow lines that I always find detracting, it has some remaining luster. It has all of these things going for it, but yet it has some good honest wear that should keep it from getting a higher grade.

    Even so, I expect PCGS will assign this coin an AU grade, in spite of and yet at the same time because of all of the reasons I have listed. But that won't change the fact that the coin really is an XF coin.
     
    GDJMSP, Feb 2, 2011
    #25 + Quote Reply
  7. Marshall

    Marshall Junior Member

    I think it's a technical AU50 which is superior to most MS 60 to MS 63 coins. This is why the circulated coins need a condition grade like the MS have for 60-70. I know the TPGs often do this without ackowledging this is what they are doing. So I go with AU50 EAC and MS-63 TPG.

    But I'm probably wrong. I don't really understand TPG grading.

    I know this ISN'T how it's done, but grades below 60 should all include wear or abnormal condition problems. ALL MS grades should show NO WEAR with differences being condition. Conditon being everything other than wear in this broad context.

    To say that wear means it must be XF flies in the face of all definitions I've seen. That doesn't mean it's not what's practiced though.

    On second thought, I'll just grade it $500.
     
    Marshall, Feb 2, 2011
    #26 + Quote Reply
  8. nerarities

    nerarities New Member

    Ill throw in a guess....AU53
     
    nerarities, Feb 2, 2011
    #27 + Quote Reply
  9. mark_h

    mark_h Somewhere over the rainbow

    Is that EAC grading? Never heard that.

    Personally I grade it AU55.


    Ooops - forgot to add it is a beauty.
     
    mark_h, Feb 2, 2011
    #28 + Quote Reply
  10. Lehigh96

    Lehigh96 Toning Enthusiast

    I have no idea how to grade early coppers but I think I see enough remaining luster to warrant an AU grade so I will guess AU53!
     
    Lehigh96, Feb 2, 2011
    #29 + Quote Reply
  11. coinmaster1

    coinmaster1 Active Member

    Nice coin. At first I thought weak strike, but based on closer inspection, I'd say 55BN
     
    coinmaster1, Feb 2, 2011
    #30 + Quote Reply
  12. Duke Kavanaugh

    Duke Kavanaugh The Big Coin Hunter

    EAC = Early American Copper
    They are a collector group that grade copper a bit tougher then today's standards.
     
    Duke Kavanaugh, Feb 2, 2011
    #31 + Quote Reply
  13. mpcusa

    mpcusa "Official C.T. TROLL SWEEPER"

    Looks really good! A very nice coin :)
     
    mpcusa, Feb 2, 2011
    #32 + Quote Reply
  14. coleguy

    coleguy Coin Collector

    I hear a lot of "luster" talk on this one. EAC's aren't generally graded on luster like silver or gold. Copper ages differently and a MS coin that has never seen a bit of wear can show no luster whatsoever. For these it's strike and detail.
    Guy
     
    coleguy, Feb 2, 2011
    #33 + Quote Reply
  15. medoraman

    medoraman Supporter! Supporter

    Not a copper expert, but I would say PCGS will net grade this a 45. I would personally say 40 on the reverse, but with nice surfaces I think it will be 45 overall.

    Very pleasing coin for an middle year cent.
     
    medoraman, Feb 2, 2011
    #34 + Quote Reply
  16. medoraman

    medoraman Supporter! Supporter

    You may be more of an expert, but I have a couple hundred large and half cents. I know copper ages differently, but when you tilt a cent you can still usually see where wear occurred and where it didn't. Same idea. The non-worn section may not be as "lustrous" as silver, but I could always see broken luster on XF cents indicating wear versus non wear. Of course, environmental damage would make this harder, as does the 1808-1816 series of dark metal cent planchets.

    Just my view, and on this coin I clearly see where the wear occurred and where it didn't, but it would be easier in hand. I will say I don't have any XF or higher early cents, just post 1800. Maybe early ones are different.

    I do appreciate your main point that lack of luster may not be against it, but I do think it helps on net grading and can still be used on coppers to determine wear.

    Chris
     
    medoraman, Feb 2, 2011
    #35 + Quote Reply
  17. TopcatCoin

    TopcatCoin TC

    I will say that PCGS will go XF45. Nice coin! TC
     
    TopcatCoin, Feb 2, 2011
    #36 + Quote Reply
  18. Leadfoot

    Leadfoot there is no spoon

    Here's a little tidbit about this coin that GDJMSP alludes to.

    The vast majority of this date you see are really Randall Hoard coins. They typically are mint state and have the circular die crack.

    My coin is NOT a Randall Hoard variety.

    That doesn't change the grade or grading standards used to judge this coin in any way, IMO, but it is notable.

    There are some great observations and comments thusfar. Thanks & keep them coming.
     
    Leadfoot, Feb 2, 2011
    #37 + Quote Reply
  19. coinman0456

    coinman0456 Coin Collector

    I see absolutely no reason for PCGS not to fully grade this coin. My opinion as to the grade , I'd have to give it an XF45 . It's a fabulous coin , even in that grade.
     
    coinman0456, Feb 2, 2011
    #38 + Quote Reply
  20. coleguy

    coleguy Coin Collector

    I agree, Medoraman. I'm not saying luster is never present, just that it isn't always as evident as it is on silver and gold. Like yourself, I've handled and seen countless pieces, so my opinion was merely based on what I've seen. I would think if someone wanted a life-long project, it would be the stuff of legend if they could assemble a grading set of EAC's in all the various conditions one might expect to see. That would be a priceless reference for myself and I'm sure many others.
    Guy
     
    coleguy, Feb 2, 2011
    #39 + Quote Reply
  21. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    GDJMSP, Feb 2, 2011
    #40 + Quote Reply
20 more messages...
Page 2 of 3
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page