would you consider this to be au58 or below?

But would the grades be wrong technically is the ultimate question. Market grading, now that's a different beast altogether.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Yes. He'd be wrong in this case. Clearly the coin is AU.

 

Is it just me or does that coin look really small for the holder?

 

@Marshall @900fine @Conder101 or any other EAC specialist what would be an EAC grade on this vf20?

 

Personally I wish that Doug did work for a TPG, then we could have some consistency. His grading is in line with what it always was until recently. Why do you think that everybody re-submits coins in old slabs looking for an upgrade? TPGs, particularly PCGS, in the early days were very strict on grades. Some would argue that grading standards haven't changed, but I would disagree. An argument for another day. I recently cracked out my three cent nickel proof set from their old rattlers because the slabs have been beat to death over the years and resubmitted them. The set averaged about PR-64, not a single one came back lower than PR-65. Some had jumped three points.

Back to the topic...
The coin that I posted is MS details due to an obvious cleaning, but was shown to display the characteristics of the die misalignment of the die paring and strike weaknesses that they display. Mine is a decently struck example, while the OPs coin show a weaker strike. i still think that NGC went WAY too strong with the grade, but I don't disagree with calling it an AU. The lack of luster doesn't bother me, as I said previously, even MS large cents hardly show much luster or cartwheel, just typical of the series.

 

It does look strange.

 

I'm with Chris, EF-45 (after seeing BOTH sides), nice coin!!

 

no luster; looks dead. AU must have original luster. lots of detail EF details.
But the coin looks 'wrong'. How so?? Please go to the PCGS online grading set.
Found here: http://www.pcgs.com/Photograde/#/BraidedCent/Grades
This coin is 'less attractive' than the VF35. The surfaces are not as nice. Something happened to this coin that has left it dead looking. net grade VF25-30.

 

Good catch. It appears there's some shenanigans going on here. Here's another large cent in the same style holder.

 

Yes, I would consider this to be "AU58 or below" and would emphasize the latter. I agree with those in the EF/XF range. There is too much wear (especially on the reverse) and not enough original mint luster to get you to even AU50 IMO.

 

I disagree, and do not think Doug is wrong at all. If this is an AU coin, then grade inflation is even more rampant that I believed it to be initially. In the 1990s and before, this coin would be EF all day long.

Edited: Now that I see it was slabbed by NGC as AU58, I will say that this is the reason that CAC exists whether you agree with the CAC concept or not.

 

It even looks smaller than my half cent.

 

Did anyone take the time to look at this? Something is not right here.
I'm at XF45. No way that coin is AU.

 

Thank you all, here is the link to where I saw the coin

http://www.apmex.com/product/90662/1855-large-cent-upright-5s-au-58-ngc-brown

 

I originally said AU50 and 45 wasn't too low. That was without the reverse having seen both I'd go 45 and wouldn't argue with Doug at 40. It's not AU and my 45 is generous. Still a nice coin if the money is right. $50 range would make me interested.

 

I had graded the obverse as shown.. before I saw the reverse. So, I will state it separately.
Obverse: EF40
Reverse: VF35
I will stand by this assessment. However, NGC would likely call it higher.

 

Resubmitting seems to be the lifeblood of TPG'ers. In order to stay in business the TPG'ers will likely call it MS60 at some future date.
I'm sure sellers have no problem with these continuing relaxing of standards. Collectors, on the other hand, not so much. When I started collecting this large cent would have been a strong VF. I just can't seem to get away from the strict grading.