Ballpark grade on this 1830 Capped Bust 50C?

[coinman1794]

Yes, Mark, there is a great deal of subjectivity when it comes to grading these coins. A lot of the variations here are the result of this being done from photographs. I do however wonder how much variation occures at NGC on a coin like this, with experts viewing it in person one after another. It "seems" they have dropped their former standards of trying to evaluate luster, wear, and strike, and have begun throwing out a lowball grade based on detail alone. It "seems" that such a change in standards had to be intentional. Perhaps a response to CAC?

[coinman1794]

Here she is straight on at 90 degrees and under different lighting to show the luster.

 

 

In picture two, notice that the wear could not be any lighter! Just a touch on the cap, hair behind the ear, a few points in the drapery, the 1 and 0 of the date, and on couple of the stars. The remainder of this coin's missing detail is due to strike, and mostly a result of this being a very late die state.

 

 

 

[Mark T]

What grade did NGC give this coin ??

[MarkFeld]

It still looks AU to me, though I'm not seeing a lot of luster.

[okbustchaser]

It "seems" they have dropped their former standards of trying to evaluate luster, wear, and strike, and have begun throwing out a lowball grade based on detail alone. It "seems" that such a change in standards had to be intentional. Perhaps a response to CAC?

 

I believe (and agree with) you when you say that 75% of the luster is present on the obverse. I believe (and agree with) you when you say that most of what appears to be wear on the high points of the cap and bust are actually the result of worn dies.

 

However, It makes absolutely no difference what number NGC would have put on this coin a year ago as compared to today. It makes no difference what PCGS would have graded it either. Both companies have consistantly overgraded bust halves for their entire existance. An AU (at any level of AU) is defined as having light wear on only the HIGHEST points of the design. If a coin has rub (exhibited as a break in luster) in the fields--ie, the LOWEST part of the coin--then it should never be graded as an AU coin.

 

The TPGs do this because they PRICE coins rather than grade them. This coin in last spring's red hot market would have sold for an AU price and if submitted then would likely have garnered an AU lable. In the cooler climate of the current market it would probably only sell for an XF+ price and therefore probably received an XF lable.

 

Grading standards don't change. Market standards do.

 

 

[coinman1794]

There is no shortage of luster, that's for sure, Mark! My original estimate, from memory, of 70% of the obverse luster and 95% on the reverse was wrong. When I shot these pics today, I put it at 90% over 95%. Strong carthweel luster is unbroken through the fields of each side, and sparkling frost shimmers in and around the devices.

 

From a technical standpoint, this piece has solid AU58 details. I would dock this coin for the minor rim bruse (again, it is VERY MINOR IN PERSON), bringing it down to AU55 or possibly 53. And if you wanted to be overly harsh and dock it for the mild wipe (which left virtually 0 hairlines), you could reasonably place this coin at AU50, leaving it very comfortably on the conservative end of the grade spectrum. Anything below AU50 is problematic. I am a very conservative grader. I require evidence and at least some measure of scientific analysis to formulate a grade. A coin with wild luster, AU58 details, beautiful toning (yes it is), and no disturbances of note on either side does not belong in an NGC XF40 slab, as this one was housed.

[coinman1794]

It "seems" they have dropped their former standards of trying to evaluate luster, wear, and strike, and have begun throwing out a lowball grade based on detail alone. It "seems" that such a change in standards had to be intentional. Perhaps a response to CAC?

 

An AU (at any level of AU) is defined as having light wear on only the HIGHEST points of the design. If a coin has rub (exhibited as a break in luster) in the fields--ie, the LOWEST part of the coin--then it should never be graded as an AU coin.

 

 

 

I know where you are comming from, and I agree that market grading is a real problem that needs to end. However, your analysis of where a coin wears fisrt is not accurate. The fields are just as vulnerable on a large coin like this to rub as are the high points. Besides this coin has essentially full carthweel

[MarkFeld]

Grading standards don't change. Market standards do.

I disagree. Even if published grading standards don't change, their application does change, whether due to market standards or some other reason

[brog]

I think that the reverse of the coin will go AU-53. But the obverse was struck with a very worn die. It has a die flow on the nose and stars with the rim dings i give it vf-30

[coinman1794]

I think that the reverse of the coin will go AU-53. But the obverse was struck with a very worn die. It has a die flow on the nose and stars with the rim dings i give it vf-30

 

Worn dies do not affect the grade of the coin. The amount of wear and luster loss after striking affects the grade. Drawn stars are characteristic of many die varieties. Some die varieties are only known in late stages. You can have Gem UNC, MS65 bust halves with drawn stars. To hold that against the grade is not correct.

[okbustchaser]

Grading standards don't change. Market standards do.

I disagree. Even if published grading standards don't change, their application does change, whether due to market standards or some other reason

 

Mark, where is the disagreement? I fully agree that it is the TPG's application of their standards that changes rather than their standards themselves. That's basically what I meant when I stated that they don't grade coins they price them based on the current market.

 

[MarkFeld]

Grading standards don't change. Market standards do.

I disagree. Even if published grading standards don't change, their application does change, whether due to market standards or some other reason

 

Mark, where is the disagreement? I fully agree that it is the TPG's application of their standards that changes rather than their standards themselves. That's basically what I meant when I stated that they don't grade coins they price them based on the current market.

Jim, I believe that if the application of the standards changes, in essence, the standards change. However, I see your point, and maybe we don't disagree after all, other than perhaps with respect to terminology.

[jtryka]

Well this thread quickly veered off into tedious annoyance...

[coinman1794]

Well this thread quickly veered off into tedious annoyance...

 

Haha! Only tedious and annoying if you don't buy or own any certified coins

[coinman1794]

Actualy, there seems to have been a clear shift in the way NGC approaches the grading of Bust halves, and that's what sparked the debate/thread/"annoying" commentary/etc. I submitted Bust halves to NGC since 2001, and in 2008, they changed their standards drastically. I do not think it was a shift in the application of a standard, but the rewriting of a new standard. Just my opinion based on my own observations.

[Bugmann1974]

Well this thread quickly veered off into tedious annoyance...

 

Haha! Only tedious and annoying if you don't buy or own any certified coins

 

I definitely wouldn't call this thread tedious and annoying. I have learned a lot about bust halves in this thread. For instance I had no idea what caused the drawn stars on these.

 

[RI AL]

I I have learned a lot about bust halves in this thread. For instance I had no idea what caused the drawn stars on these.

 

I have always wondered what caused the "drawn stars" (I think Overton says "stars drawn to edge") but I didn't see any explanation of that in this thread. Did I miss something?

[okbustchaser]

I I have learned a lot about bust halves in this thread. For instance I had no idea what caused the drawn stars on these.

 

I have always wondered what caused the "drawn stars" (I think Overton says "stars drawn to edge") but I didn't see any explanation of that in this thread. Did I miss something?

 

It is caused by worn dies.

[coinman1794]

When dies are comming together, the flow of metal squeezing out the sides as the coins are struck in an open collar press is probably, itself, enough to wear the dies and stretch the edges. Additionally, the plan was not always centered properly and the dies weren't alwasy aligned properly. The result was stress on the dies that dies fixed in a collar dont get. Thsiis why Bust halves were often so poorly struck. Lets not even get into unevenly rolled planchets

[just-john]

so the grade is set by the standards of that day,time ,period,year,decade, century, so then the grade and cert# should include at least date of issue.

And with eye appeal/fashion a reflection of the TPG graders eye's or norms of the day .They whole point of this is ??

[coinman1794]

Honestly, I'm not sure what you're saying, but it sounds like you've made a great case against coin certification!

[jtryka]

It's certainly not the information that is tediously annoying, I think I am merely annoyed by the tone of the OP. The OP posts a photo of a coin that looks to be XF to AU, then posts descriptions where he insists that there is no wear (suggesting this should be an MS coin perhaps), then when people guess based on the grade, he takes a condescending tone.

 

So what is the lesson here? NGC has bad grading standards, or at least has changed them recently? That coins struck from weak dies often look more worn than they truly are? Or is there another lesson here in the 4 pages of the OP posting like an aged school marm?

[coinman1794]

Jtryka, I believe there has been a misunderstanding here. I posted a coin that I wanted to show because of the tricky nature of determining the actual vs. the perceived condition of a Bust half dollar, and how the graders have changed the way they evaluate these coins.

 

At no time was I condescending about the opinions of others. You may have read it that way by mistake, however. I did say that I didn't believe the responses I was getting, and that was merely out of playful jest and to help point people in the right direction to make up for my misleading photographs.

 

Not once did I give my opinion of the grade until the end, at which point I graded it AU50.

 

I was going to say that the only tedious, negative influence here is you and your name calling. However, I take my newfound status as an "aged school marm" with pride, because I'm 24 and just got my Masters degree in artifact conservation and museum studies, and a little grey hair would lend credence to my physique.

[coinman1794]

The results are in from PCGS on this 1830 half dollar, purchased as an obviously undergraded, NGC XF40. Does anyone want to guess the new grade?

 

I have been rather vocal lately that it is my belief that NGC consciously changed the way they approach the grading of Early half dollars, late last year. I based this belief on having submitted Bust halves regularly since 2001, and being downright horrified by what NGC did with Bust halves I submitted, or that I saw on the market in new holders, beging last fall. Horrified, not becuase I was going to get hurt (they cant get anything by me), but rather, because people were loosing potential fortunes by having NGC grade thier Bust halves before putting them into auction. It's great to be a buyer into such a senario, however. And that is why I chose to bring up what I was seeing, to give heads up! I have no bones to pick and nothing to gain by talking about this.

 

Yet, this 1830 is one of 3 of the many NGC new holder, undergraded coins I was fortunate to win at Heritage this winter. I submitted each to PCGS, raw, and the results are in. I will be making a seperate thread to illustrate thesse results. I think its interesting. That's why...

[EZ_E]

Assuming it is "problem free"...I'd go AU 55, but I have a little bit of a problem with the problem free part.

 

That's how I feel about it. There really is very little loss of metal from circulation so it is technically an AU coin, I feel, but I've never been a Capped Bust half fan apart from type so I'm not particularly drawn to this coin. I still think that it is a nice coin, especially at an XF price.