Could she get a job at NGC or PCGS?

After every purchase, I show off the new acquisition(s) to my wife. She typically feigns interest, and makes comments about my coins being "rubbed-off" and "rusty". Now I can understand a critical EAC eye calling a couple of my low MS certified coins AU, but "rubbed-off" is a little harsh. As for "rusty", I hasten to point out that in the early years of the U.S. Mint, sometimes rusty dies were used, producing coins with tiny lumps. My new 1828 N-6 cent is such a coin.

After the recent Baltimore show, I had my middle date set at home for awhile. During that time, I convinced my wife to examine them, and rank them. She was amazingly willing to do this. She did not see the slab grades or CAC stickers during this exercise. The results were interesting, at least to me.

The following table has the coins listed according to her ranking, best to worst. The date is in the first column and the TPG (P or N) and grade are in the second and third. Other notes follow. For a couple dates I have duplicates. For them, the Newcomb variety is given with the date.

20 N 66BN CAC-reject

37-9 N 65BN CAC-reject

39 N 65BN CAC

37-10 P 66RB Naftzger

32 N 66BN

38 P 66RB Naftzger

34 P 66BN Naftzger

31 P 65BN Naftzger

33-2 P 65RB Naftzger

36 P 66RB Naftzger

18 N 64BN CAC

35 N 66RB

27 N 64BN CAC

33-3 N 64BN Rasmussen, CAC-reject

28 N 64BN

16 N 64BN

19 N 64BN

26 N 64BN

17 P 65BN

25 P 63BN

22 P 62BN CAC-reject

30 N 66BN Rasmussen

24 P 63BN

29 N 61BN Adam

23 P VG10

Clearly, her eye is similar to that of the graders. But there are a couple notable (mis?)placements. #3 in the list is a 65BN-CAC coin that she placed above all of my Naftzger coins and seven of eight 66s. Indeed, it is a nice coin, with an interesting acquisition story, but I would not have ranked it quite so high. It is mark-free, but not as lustrous as several of the nice coins ranked lower. I think she was critical of minor flaws that are more apparent on coins with significant "red" color, thus elevating this coin in her rankings.

Fourth from the end is a 66BN coin, placed below all of the 65s and 64s, a 63, and the 62 CAC-reject! Part of the problem may be that the holder is badly scuffed. The coin does lack the outstanding luster the other 66s have, but makes up for that with a sharp strike and very clean surfaces.

Overall though, I think she did pretty well. Her two top choices are also my top picks. They are truly wonderful coins. (I have written before about not understanding why the 65BN 1837 N-9 did not get a CAC sticker.)

On the subject of CAC, I made the following observations. My wife did rate the two 64BN/CAC pieces ahead of the other five 64s (three of which I owned last year & did not submit to CAC because I thought they were not as nice as the three I did submit). The 1818 64BN/CAC scored ahead of a 66RB, with the 1827 64BN/CAC right behind, and the 1839 65BN/CAC was #3 in these standings. So the CAC coins did well in this exercise.

What does it all mean? Probably not much. But it's interesting to consider TPG (in)consistency vs. my wife's dispassionate, all-at-the-same-time examination. And it's a nice way to share the hobby with my wife, who still doesn't understand why anyone would want to collect this stuff. However, she did say she'd like to take more of these quizzes with my other coins!