What are true UNCs?

[EVillageProwler]

A series of messages between a new board member and me has me thinking about this. The conversation started when I was asking folks to identify underrated truly UNC Seated Dollars.

 

The fellow board member quickly started to analyze the question starting at the MS63 level. Many of us know that there are lots of Seated Dollars that are in UNC holders but really aren't deserving of that grade both in terms of eye appeal as well as technical grading.

 

But... MS63?

 

(This board member chose MS63 because he feels that that is the level at which he readily finds specimens of the type that Michael wows over -- the ones with thick fresh skin and luster!)

 

When I look at my coins, I think all of my specimens in UNC holders are, arguably, UNCs. And, many are under in the Choice grade category. Still, in this series, you'd be hard pressed to find coins in the ChMS category.

 

To illustrate my point, let's look at two examples of the 1845 date. Both are dated MS62 by PCGS.

 

The first is, I think, the Pittman specimen. It is a slider that's been re-toned. The second specimen is probably the 2nd finest known of that date, is untoned and has very lots of luster and is high-end for the grade. (A few marks limit the grade.)

 

EVP

 

[Oldtrader3]

I disagree with that Board Member, particularly for early series and Seated Issues. I would argue that In some series, there are MS60/61 coins that are Unc. and may be the finest known. The grading services (one in particular) should not compromise the MS60/61 grades to include sliders from important collections or personages. That is corrupting a system that was rationalized and defined by all stake holders on the basis of it's own merit. It has stood the test of time for all but one service.

 

We all know that there are coins with compromised luster and sufficient marks to warrant a MS60 grade. These coins are not AU, they are MS. The grading services should not slide the standards, because that causes confusion such as the example you cited. System corruption always causes conflicts and problems.

 

If you have a system defined with historical widely accepted limits, it should be honored. If the system does not work, a careful analysis is needed to correct deviations or, if the system is unworkable, new limits should be defined and agreed upon. The world will not turn and the trains won't run if you do not live within our sytem definitions. Otherwise all the prior art and rules that we live by breakdown and lead us to chaos. That is why humans have systems in the first place.

 

Attached is a PR62 Seated Dollar. It is toned and that is most likely why it was graded PR62. Legend thought it was PR63. Whatever grade it is, it is not circulated. Hence my point.

[EVillageProwler]

Charles,

 

The board member also does not like sliders being mis-graded as UNCs. I think that's why he started with MS63. And, your post of a proof is confusing. We're talking about MS coins.

 

Regards,

 

EVP

 

[Oldtrader3]

Sorry, did not mean to cloud the issue by inserting a Proof into the mix. Anyhow I hope that I clearly stated my case on the issue (other than the Proof). I believe that there is a slow creaping grade-flation going on which is undermining the whole issue of What is an Unc. . That was what I was trying to capture as the issue, not whether it is Proof or MS. Please do not get intangled in the proof and miss my point.

 

I was trying to redress your issue. Maybe I lost my way somewhere?

[BillJones]

I would agree with the gradeflation comment. I have seen a decay in standards over the past couple of years. One need only look at many of the coins in PCGS holders with green labels and coins in NGC holders with the old gold embossed labels or the labels that extrend across the back of the slab to know what I mean. Not all of the coins in these holders are conservatively graded, but enough are to show you that the standards have slipped.

 

My second point is a different. I like many collectors prefer a blush of wear (a true AU-58) to an ugly bag marked coin that looks like it has been though a meatgrinder that gets an MS-60. I'll pay and have paid MS-60 money for AU-58 coins that had great eye appeal. Unfortunately, some collectors are so stuck on the Gray Sheet and other price guides that they can't look beyond that to see the true market. As a result the services have placed a lot of AU-58 in MS-61 or more often MS-62 holders.

 

Is this wrong? From a value perspective it isn't because these coins are worth the money if they are attractive. From condition census perspective it does mess up the system as others have stated. Still some of the MS-60 and 61 coins (especially seated dollars and 19th century $20 gold pieces) that I see are so marked up, that I would defy anyone to tell me that the rub or wear that they might had has not been obliterated by scratches. Sometimes I think that the the scratches were deliberately put there to hide the wear.

 

And, yes, it's definitley wrong to add points to the grade of a coin because of a well-known previous owner, but that sadly has become a standard practice. That's why I generally stay away from pedigreed coins.

 

In closing I think that a true Mint State seated dollar is a scarce item, and a Choice Mint State seated dollar is a true rarity. Even among the hoard varieties like the 1859-O and 1860-O Choice Mint State coins are few and far between.

[paigow_johnny]

" My second point is a different. I like many collectors prefer a blush of wear (a true AU-58) to an ugly bag marked coin that looks like it has been though a meatgrinder that gets an MS-60. I'll pay and have paid MS-60 money for AU-58 coins that had great eye appeal. Unfortunately, some collectors are so stuck on the Gray Sheet and other price guides that they can't look beyond that to see the true market. "

 

This statement really hits home with me sometimes as a relatively new collector. Most of the raw Morgans I've bought were advertised as BU. Like a dummy, I bought some back in the day when I probably hadn't read as much as I should have. As a result, I'm sure if I sent some of them in to be graded, they'd come back AU-55/58. Luckily, in my memory, I haven't paid more than 60 money for them. The coins all have great eye appeal, nice luster, and some of them probably fall into the "weak strike vs. wear" conundrum that "raw" buyers face.

 

In short, I have a very pleasing looking collection of some dollars in a Dansco and should be happy with that, and I feel they are much nicer looking than a "true" 60 that looks like someone danced on it...but sometimes the "Gray Sheet" thought comes to mind and I get angry at myself for not getting smarter.....

 

As for certified coins....by God an MS should be an MS, and an AU should be an AU...even if you want to call it an AU-59++++++. That being said, I'm sure even the pros come up on making a call of strike vs. wear. But to jack up a grade because of provenance...that ain't right.

[Guest]

EVP, this sounds sort of like something I may have said, and do agree with.

20 years ago, if you had a coin less than MS63 more than likely it had some serious problem with it. Many coins in the 60-62 range were lumped together and called "UNC." There was no doubt these coins were either heavily bagmarked,

cleaned, or what have you. But usually they weren't rubbed. Original bags of Morgan dollars have plenty of honest MS61-62 coins. But they won't have rub.

About the only place to find real MS61-62 seated dollars IMO would be in the hoard coins released in the 1960's. The dates in the 1840's for example, well most of those in less than 63 just aren't UNC to me. They lack anything remotely close to full luster and certainly in most cases have rubbing. But if they weren't graded so liberally, who would collect them if very few UNC's were made available?

 

Very few pre-Morgan type coins were saved in quantity. It is these coins where I feel you have to look at MS63 and up to really say you have an UNC coin in your hand. Seated dollars are sort of peculiar in that they have a relatively wide and sweeping design that takes wear well. Rubbing on Liberty's highpoints (esp. her leg) often can be easily masked by toning. Not so easily for seated halves though which have a more peaking shape to Miss Liberty's design features. Heavily rubbed seated halves are getting through as high as MS65. I just don't get it. This is not the standard that first came out in 1986-1987. Will it change again?

 

Yes, IMO, you can neglect probably 90% of all MS60-62 seated halves as being something other than UNC. The problem worsens the older the coin gets. The

1879-91 coins tend not to show up with the rubbing as these were saved near time of issue. In many cases I have to start at MS64, even MS65, and sometimes MS66 to ensure I am looking at a truly uncirculated seated specimen. The argument can be broadened to include bust coins but I don't want to go there. Those have varied striking issues as well. And if we graded those to the standard of "no wear" allowed, maybe 5% of the existing mint state bust halves and dollars would remain so. The current standard hopefully will stay put for a while so we don't have to all readjust again.

 

roadrunner

[EVillageProwler]

Yes, IMO, you can neglect probably 90% of all MS60-62 seated halves as being something other than UNC.

 

I guess this is the crux of the market vs technical grading issue.

 

You hone in on the issue of rub and ``full luster,'' which I find a reasonable starting point. I've often asserted to my coin buddies that I prefer a (slightly) marky coin with oomph luster over one with clean surfaces that don't dance to me.

 

EVP

 

[Tradedollarnut]

Yet, given the choice, would you not take a bit of high point rub over marked up surfaces (if the luster were the same)?

[EZ_E]

Wow, I really stand in awe of the knowledge that you "old farts" in the hobby possess! I'm just soaking in alot of info being offered.

As a medical professional, I would never compromise my professionalism. I find it incredible that such professional services as NGC and PCGS would deviate what-so-ever from their set grading standards in order to fill a void or cater to a certain pedigree.

[EVillageProwler]

Yet, given the choice, would you not take a bit of high point rub over marked up surfaces (if the luster were the same)?

 

Only if all else were equal, of course I'd take a ChBU-looking piece in an ChAU holder over a marky BU piece in a BU holder.

 

The truth is that it's awfully difficult to find a true BU-looking slider that has full 99.999999999% luster that is not considered (and priced) as a BU piece.

 

EVP

 

[Oldtrader3]

Victor: My point exactly. If you read my first post, I believe that I addressed this issue. EVP got on my case about attaching a 1863 Dolllar Proof to the posting. The reason that I posted that coin was to illustrate that some 62 coins are very nice.

 

I have a pile of PCGS US gold denomination examples of undergrading. I think that any deviation from the accepted standard confuses collectors and creates chaos in the hobby. Right now there is some confusion because of the widely differing grades, on some series, between NGC and PCGS. This is the crux of the problem.

[Guest]

TDN, the problem with accepting the high point rub is how much is ok and how distracting is it. I'll accept some on the reverse for example as long as it is minor.

But when it is particularly detracting, such as a rub half way up Miss Lib's leg, well that's not acceptable to me. A tiny pinpoint at the knee, usually no problem. The real chore is finding a coin with the full luster in the fields and over the high points that isn't all marked up. You may have to pass on 90-95% of all MS63-65 pieces offered, but that's reality. The market may continue to not care about this differentiation as long as prices keep rising. But should they fall, the coins with major rub in 63-65 holders will become very illiquid. You can bet they will be downgraded almost immediately in value. Hence IMO it is better to pay a premium to get the right coin that will allow you to sleep better at night. Quality coins would have helped you fair better through the 1981-82 market bottom as well as the 1992-1995 period. They will likely do so again.

 

roadrunner

[EZ_E]

I have a pile of PCGS US gold denomination examples of undergrading. I think that any deviation from the accepted standard confuses collectors and creates chaos in the hobby. Right now there is some confusion because of the widely differing grades, on some series, between NGC and PCGS. This is the crux of the problem.

 

 

Not to mention that it leaves an uncertain future for undergraded slabbed coins specifically and for professional grading services in general.

[michael]

for me ms 60 to 62 are for the most part not all but for the most part ugly problem coins that have rub

also 63 coins have problems also for the most part yes there are excopetions but few and far between

and if no rub then plain ugly cleaned rubbed or just palin baggy in other words B.U. = beat up

 

ms 63 coins well they are problem also maybe rub maybe not it all depneds but the eye appeal leaves much to

be desired again there are excpetions few and far between to this rule

 

now ms 64 coins usually are reasonable and some are auctally 65 coins ans with great attriabutes and eye appeal

but this needs to be assessed on a coin by coin basis the 65 coins same thing as the 64 coins but for the most

part close to 65 and for the most part most all have no rub as with the 64 coins

66 and 67 well those coins should be really nice no rub and few marks now the seated halves in 65 ms

for me most all are not true 65 coins and either ugly or dipped overdipped

 

i guess i could write another 50000 words but you get the drift just make sure if you buy any seated coin

you buy the coin not the holder and you look at it carefully and dertrmine for yourself waht it is

hence waht it is worth not too hard to figure out with seated coins and nothing would surprise me

even a superb 62 or a crappy 65 66 but as withy all seated unc material sight seen is the best before we can

draw come to any conclusions

 

and there are excpetions to every rule! it is best to buy solid to high end for the grade with monster eye appeal either fully struck

or close to it with monster lustre fully original surfaces be it great toned or original undipped whiyte surfaces with

a thick skin and of course excpetuional eye appeal

 

sincerely michael