Why don't TPG's assign the grade MS60 much?

Getting an MS60 seems almost impossible. I've never gotten one. I've gotten AU58 several times and MS61 a bunch..... for various series. But why do they seem to avoid MS60?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

MS 60 are kind of coins that are one more thing away from a details grade. They're generally pretty ugly. For most series coins that could qualify for that grade just wouldn't be submitted in the first place

 

The biggest reason you don't see 60 and 61 on many series is because it just isn't worth it. The people who are submitting (usually) know how to grade, and won't send something in that is that close to a problem coin.

Now, this all changes when you have a tough series or a rare date. You'll see a lot more 60s and 61s on rare date $20 Libs than on common date Morgans - because it is worth it.

So, I guess you could call it "selection bias". When the grade is warranted, the grade is given.

 

AU58 isn't one step below MS60.

MS60 is a dog. An ugly dog at that. Technically mint state, but ...
AU58 is a beautiful coin with just a touch of wear.

 

Yep.
And I'd pay more for an AU-58 than I would an MS-60.
But the neat thing is you often don't have to.

 

Yeah, but what about Jack Beymer's A.U. 59 1/2, they don't count? J.K.

 

The politically correct term for that these days is AU-58+

 

Heck, why not just say it's a '63?

 

A long time ago, MS-60 was short for ugly.

 

Heck, '62 is danged ugly. Not to repeat what has already been said (but I will)........an nice '58 coups an low grade '60

 

It's hard for an uncirculated coin to get so baggy and beat up that it is a technical 60. It can even be considered a conditional grade rarity of sorts.

 

I believe than MS60 is so rare because of uncertainty. AU58 is definitively an attractive circulated coin. MS61 is clearly uncirculated, just not free of marks. But MS60 coins often ride the fence and could fall on either side of the line. The excessive bag marks can make them look circulated, especially when they are numerous in the fields and take on a used look. We are doing a grading study on the 1881-O Morgan and I buy every MS60 I can find because they are so rare that understanding how the TPGs deal with them is difficult. Really rare are the MS60PL and MS60DMPL.

Let's also remember that there was a time when the TPGs did not use all the MS grades and I believe an MS60 was more likely.

 

I disagree with this. For classic gold, a 62 may be a very nice grade. Also, a 62 may be given to a 64/65 that has one small patch of light hairlines, but that coin may look like a gem without closer scrutiny. A 62 (or even a 61) may also be given to a very nice coin with cabinet rub that they think deserves a higher market grade than a 58.

Generally I think of 62 as being nice but somewhat baggy, or a nicer coin with a minor issue. An MS61 may also be a nicer coin with a minor issue, but usually will just be excessively baggy. MS60 seems to be reserved for ugly but technically uncirculated coins. I think the two main reasons you don't see MS60s as much are that people don't submit coins that are that unattractive unless they are real rarities, or coins that might get an MS60 get UNC Details instead.

 

Another reason that MS60 is not commonly assigned is because it's not a common grade. Most uncirculated coins that haven't been futzed with are nice enough for the "typical uncirculated" grade of 62. A 60 has to have enough negative attributes among strike, surfaces, luster, and eye appeal, that it can't grade 61, but not so many that it would be a problem coin, and no traces of wear that would get it graded 55 or 53 (there are no properly graded 58s that would be 60 without the slight wear, IMHO). That's a pretty narrow window to hit.

 

Here is a 62 that would change youre mind


A few more bag marks than what my pics show, but it shouldnt be in a 62 slab

 

Go to Heritage's website and look at recently sold MS62 early half eagles and see how ugly they are.

Cal

Link: https://coins.ha.com/c/search-results.zx?Ns=Time|1&Ne=16&N=790+231+3183+395+1237&ic4=SortBy-071515

 

The man made a generalization, likely based on the area in which he collects. Perhaps he should've qualified his statement, but if looked at in it's likely context, it wasn't at all unreasonable.

 

I own an MS60 FSB 1935 Merc dime. It does NOT have dings on it, but it lacks ANY luster at all and looks like it was sprayed by Krylon Dulling Spray. If somebody someday wrote about an experiment in issuing 1935 Matte Proof Mercs, I'd have this one to send in again. It's been slabbed for well over 20 years. It has a ridiculously crisp strike.

 

In the early years of TPG's the 60 grade was much more common (After all at teh time a 60 was considered a "typical" uncirculated) but after a little while to pretty much disappeared and 62 became the common bottom grade. It was almost as if the TPG's decided that if someone went to all the trouble to send it in it had to be better than "typical" so they made them 62's.

 

That particular type of 'ugly' I could live with.