WHAT IS AN EAC GRADER AND WHAT IS THEIR PURPOSE

[copper toning]

The title says it all

[physics-fan3.14]

EAC is the group of Early American Copper collectors. They generally refuse to slab their coins, don't mind problem coins (porous, cleaned, etc), and grade using a very strict technical grading system. The system is almost exclusively used by EAC members, and is somewhat arcane. Three different people can come up with three widely different grades, based on their interpretation of the coin. Other members can explain it better, but while I generally appreciate the idea of EAC grading, I'm not a big fan of actually using it.

[copper toning]

I noticed in a couple of recent heritage auctions they stated an eac grade in their description. WHY?

[physics-fan3.14]

I noticed in a couple of recent heritage auctions they stated an eac grade in their description. WHY?

 

It was probably for auctions of early American copper. Collectors of this material tend to grade their coins using this system, and thus want to know this information.

[copper toning]

Thanks that is good info.

[leeg]

Read a couple issues of Pennywise and that will help you in understanding that early copper fans, of which I am one, are who they said they were.

[James_OldeTowne]

EAC grading uses technical evaluation to assess a coin, beginning with an estimate of the details first, then deducting a reasonably well defined number of points based on detrimental factors. It tends to be MUCH more consistent than market grading, since there (generally) aren't bumps for color, or eye-appeal, or other more subjective factors. Furthermore, coins that PCGS and NGC would reject (for example, cleaning, bent, scratched) DO get an EAC grade which places them properly within a condition census. Market grading ignores so-called "problem" coins, which is why things like "pop reports" pale terribly in comparison to a condition census.

 

I hate to offend anyone, but the idea of technical grading is not remotely arcane (as one of my esteemed colleagues stated above), and is superior to market grading IF one cares about a true grade over "market value". However, it is not necessarily conducive to the mass of collectors since it doesn't lend well to manipulative grading. In other words, a technical grade is (again, at least in theory) closer to objective than is a market grade, so there's less room to tack on marketing ploys with regard to fancy toning, etc.

 

As state above, in my years of experience with EAC, I find EAC grading to be MUCH more consistent and reliable than market grading.

[brg5658]

EAC grading uses technical evaluation to assess a coin, beginning with an estimate of the details first, then deducting a reasonably well defined number of points based on detrimental factors. It tends to be MUCH more consistent than market grading, since there (generally) aren't bumps for color, or eye-appeal, or other more subjective factors. Furthermore, coins that PCGS and NGC would reject (for example, cleaning, bent, scratched) DO get an EAC grade which places them properly within a condition census. Market grading ignores so-called "problem" coins, which is why things like "pop reports" pale terribly in comparison to a condition census.

 

I hate to offend anyone, but the idea of technical grading is not remotely arcane (as one of my esteemed colleagues stated above), and is superior to market grading IF one cares about a true grade over "market value". However, it is not necessarily conducive to the mass of collectors since it doesn't lend well to manipulative grading. In other words, a technical grade is (again, at least in theory) closer to objective than is a market grade, so there's less room to tack on marketing ploys with regard to fancy toning, etc.

 

As state above, in my years of experience with EAC, I find EAC grading to be MUCH more consistent and reliable than market grading.

 

My reply is part jest, so take with a grain of salt...

 

If EAC grading is what you explain it as, why aren't these Early Coppers being graded with a computer via surface scan? Then, they would be able to rate them on a scale of 1 to 1000 and have their condition census as they please? It seems such a surface scan could attribute the coin to the correct Die State as well. Then again, maybe it's because computers scare most of the EAC collectors?

 

 

[RWB]

There aren't enough early coppers for a statistically sound database for "computer grading" purposes.

[BillJones]

EAC grading is for the most honest and forthright, BUT there is an element of politics in it for sure. Some coins do get higher grades because of who now or has owned them. Anyone who is not in the inner circle who finds an unusually nice example that had not been known to the hobby before faces an uphill battle with getting the coin anything but a very conservative grade.

 

There are also instances where the conservatism runs totally amuck. Check out this 1794 large cent. According to one of the authorities this coin is an EF-40. PCGS graded it MS-62. My grade is AU-58. To me assigning this coin the EF-40 grade is ludicrous. And yes, none of the “authorities” would sell this coin to you for anything close to EF-40 money regardless of the pricing catalog.

 

 

[physics-fan3.14]

James, I call EAC grading arcane because there seem to be so many variables. For example, why on earth would an EAC grade for Bill's beautiful coin be EF-40?

 

There doesn't seem to be any defined standard for how much a certain problem deducts the grade. I think the rim bump is worth 5 points, you think its 10. I think that surface porosity deducts 10 points, you think its 5. Two graders can come up with wildly different scores on the same coin - so I just think its a bit unpredictable. Maybe I'm not initiated properly, but I don't get it.

[James_OldeTowne]

James, I call EAC grading arcane because there seem to be so many variables. For example, why on earth would an EAC grade for Bill's beautiful coin be EF-40?

That is precisely THE MOST frequently mis-interpreted aspect of all.

 

EAC coins are priced using a different price guide for the grade than commercially graded coins.

 

So, CoinX is commercial AU-58, and the greysheet shows $1000.

 

If CoinX grades EAC 40, you DO NOT use the greysheet to price it, because the greysheet does not use EAC standards! You use CopperQuotes, and as it turns out.... EAC 40 is also priced at $1000.

 

There doesn't seem to be any defined standard for how much a certain problem deducts the grade. I think the rim bump is worth 5 points, you think its 10. I think that surface porosity deducts 10 points, you think its 5. Two graders can come up with wildly different scores on the same coin - so I just think its a bit unpredictable.

... and you have that exact same problem with commercial grading. What's a dip worth in downgrade? or a small scratch by the eye? or hairlines in the obverse left field? or a poor strike?

 

These exact same detriments affect both grading systems the exact same way, so there is no advantage or disadvantage. The advantage of EAC grading, though, is that we don't bump an AU-58 up to MS-62 simply because it has nice luster, and we don't bump MS-62 up to MS-63 just because of album toning, and we don't tack on an extra ten points simply because Eliasberg owned the coin. These latter "bumps" are COMMERCIAL considerations, which lead to commercial grading.

 

I do not agree with Bill Jones that pedigrees wear extra points. Rather, what he describes generally happens with regard to rarities. Fifty years ago, a certain condition census was set up with certain well-known coins in it from a limited supply (i.e. "rare"). Since then new examples have been found that fall between coins already in the census, and they have "stretched" the range for certain Sheldon numbers. It's an unfortunate situation - again that also happens with "commercial grades", but to fix it, we would have to tear down the grades in every book and auction catalog ever assigned to these well-known coins and redo the grades for the entire population. That ain't gonna happen.

[physics-fan3.14]

The advantage of EAC grading, though, is that we don't bump an AU-58 up to MS-62 simply because it has nice luster, and we don't bump MS-62 up to MS-63 just because of album toning, and we don't tack on an extra ten points simply because Eliasberg owned the coin. These latter "bumps" are COMMERCIAL considerations, which lead to commercial grading.

 

I see your points with EAC grading, thanks for the clarifications. Just to be clear, I strongly disagree with the practices you mention, no matter what grading paradigm you use.

[BillJones]

If CoinX grades EAC 40, you DO NOT use the greysheet to price it, because the greysheet does not use EAC standards! You use CopperQuotes, and as it turns out.... EAC 40 is also priced at $1000.

 

 

I have not subscribed to Copper Quotes by Robinson for years, but I'd be very surprised if the quite for an S-21 cent in EF 40 or 45 is a number well over $10 thousand. BTY the fellow who grades this as an EF-45, Average also callls it tied for the 7th finest known for the variety.

[James_OldeTowne]

Bill, just for the record, the instant the image of your coin popped up on my screen, my instant reaction was "EAC 45".

 

I do not have CQR handy, but as we all know, above a certain threshold there really is no good "price guide". This is most very especially true of CC copper.

 

Edited to add: I have never personally witnessed an EACer grade a copper by EAC grade and then attempt to use the lower "market grade price" to buy the coin. That would obviously be blatantly unethical, and there may be crooks like that out there. I just have never seen nor heard of any.

 

If that ever happens to you, please let me know, as we would take that very seriously within the EAC.

[physics-fan3.14]

James, please explain how you got that grade for that coin. Perhaps because I don't understand EAC grading - but you just proved my point on how it makes absolutely no sense. I don't see any wear on that coin except a light rub, and it has smooth, clean, solid surfaces. I would call that a solid AU+ by the market grading scheme. What goes into the EAC grade that makes it so low?

[Arizonadesertrat]

Look at the edge (5 o'clock obv/1 o'clock rev) and also note that there is some porosity.

 

The coin should net 45-50, but not 58.

[Conder101]

One key question is the roughness on the reverse. Is it from porousity or die rust? Without seeing it in hand 'm going to assume die rust. So what I see is AU-58 sharpness, nice color, a clipped planchet which I will not deduct for, die rust which I will not deduct for and the only real "problem" is the spot at 4:00 on the obverse and I would net it out as an AU-50 with some claims to 55.

[James_OldeTowne]

James, please explain how you got that grade for that coin. Perhaps because I don't understand EAC grading - but you just proved my point on how it makes absolutely no sense. I don't see any wear on that coin except a light rub, and it has smooth, clean, solid surfaces. I would call that a solid AU+ by the market grading scheme. What goes into the EAC grade that makes it so low?

Conder101 came to a net 50. Here was my "stream of consciousness" assessment, along some notes:

 

1. AU-55 sharpness

(The coin is most very definitely not "mint state", and that is a crucial difference between technical grading and commercial grading. Rub/wear/friction can slide for a market grade, but wear is wear is wear, period, so immediately, we are somewhere below 60.)

 

2. reddish corrosion spot on the obverse

(I'm starting to think 5 points off a this point.)

 

3. definite spongy texture on the reverse

(I am definitely going to go 5 points off, given #2.)

 

4. color isn't quite "right" if we assume the coin must have been corroded at one time

(This is me being a little conservative perhaps, but the honey-brown is very even and consistent - even over the corroded areas. This leads me to believe it may have been carefully "helped" and recolored. 5 more points deduction.)

 

This puts me at a very tidy 55 minus 5 minus 5 = 45.

 

Even had I started at 58, I would be at 58 minus 5 minus 5 = 48, which is the point at which I have to decide if there is some other minor infractions to net conservatively, or if the coin is just too darned nice to take down three more points.

 

It is absolutely crucial to begin with accurate sharpness, and this is where market grading is so corrupt. I can't stand how sliders end up in MS-XX holders so very often. That is probably 3/4 of the reason why gradeflation runs so rampant - it's skewed all the market grades up by as much as five full points. If you are stringent about where you begin with a sharpness grade, then any sort of rub on a coin immediately places you at 58 and no better, so you can't end up with a worn coin in a mint-state grade.

 

Edited to add: I would "commercial grade" Bill's coin as AU-55. The PCGS MS-62 is ludicrous, as there is no way in XXXX this coin is UNC. Again... wear is wear is wear.

 

Edited to also add: I am going by Bill's image. In hand, I might evaluate the coin much differently.

[copper toning]

Wow market and eac grading. AU coin going ms, ms going au then a 45 cleaned, not cleaned.

 

Rainbow morgans in 63 holders going for 67-68 money but not holdered at that market grade and probably eac'ed to a vf32. It is all blowing my mind.

 

Ignorance is bliss.

[FishyOne]

Wow market and eac grading. AU coin going ms, ms going au then a 45 cleaned, not cleaned.

 

Rainbow morgans in 63 holders going for 67-68 money but not holdered at that market grade and probably eac'ed to a vf32. It is all blowing my mind.

 

Ignorance is bliss.

 

Thank you for the summary!

[DaveG]

By the way, don't apply EAC grading to anything other than coppers.

 

Also, the pricing of toned Morgans (and other toners) is a whole 'nother story!

[nk1nk]

I love this thread, very informative. I REALLY like the EAC concept, everything James has said makes perfect sense to me. I wish this type of grading was done with silver.

 

Nick

[KeeNoooo]

Very informative. I never even heard of this info. Thanks to all contributors!

Nicm

[leeg]

Great stuff so far!

 

(thumbs u

[BillJones]

Here is an off-angle photo of the coin. This piece has almost unbroken luster on both sides. My pictures almost always show and over emphasize every defect a coin has. This one looks better in person than it does in the first picture. The piece is the one that came from the Dan Holmes collection.

 

James, your grading is brutal on this coin. If you grade like that for items that you sell, you are going to get picked off something ferocious. I went though that phase when I was in my 20s and had my first fling as a coin dealer. I picked myself off with under grading and prices that were too low. Conservatism is one thing; fanaticism is another. If you think that you can buy an early piece of copper like this in EF-45, you are in a dream world.

 

 

Just to show you where this type of grading leads, the 1793 S-4 Chain cent, which is known as "THE COIN!" among collection gets an MS-62, net MS-60. from Bill Noyes. I think collectors would be lined up around the block to buy that one as an MS-60, average which is what he gives it.

[Conder101]

3. definite spongy texture on the reverse

(I am definitely going to go 5 points off, given #2.)

I checked and I was right, the roughness on the reverse was due to die rust so that texture is normal for this coin and there should not be a deduction for it. That should bring James' grade up to a 50 where mine was.

[$ilverHawk]

First of all, fascinating and very informative thread. A few questions. What's with the interruption in the dentils by the edge of the bust on the obverse and between OF and AMERICA on the reverse? Conder101 mentioned a clipped planchet. Is the interruption in the dentils due to the clipped planchet? Why wasn't this condition noted when several members offered their grade opinions?

 

Carl

[James_OldeTowne]

3. definite spongy texture on the reverse

(I am definitely going to go 5 points off, given #2.)

I checked and I was right, the roughness on the reverse was due to die rust so that texture is normal for this coin and there should not be a deduction for it. That should bring James' grade up to a 50 where mine was.

I concur (and was too lazy to look it up myself).

 

James, your grading is brutal on this coin. If you grade like that for items that you sell, you are going to get picked off something ferocious.

No way ! I price my stuff based on what it cost me. To be perfectly honest... and dead serious about the whole issue... I have strongly considered not even listing grades for my coins anymore, and just advertising how much I want for it regardless of "grade".

 

Bill please see Conder's note above. Given that the rough texture is as-struck, I would be much more in line with the AU grade level, since there wouldn't be deductions for corrosion and/or recoloring. But still, the PCGS "MS-anything" grade is a crock, and I suspect you agree.

 

By the way, EAC grades start with "sharpness", as I've emphasized a few times, but "sharpness" can only be as strong as the die-state allows, and we do use that as part of the formula. If the dies were ancient, worn down and incapable of striking sharp details, then a coin could look mushy and worn, but have no actual rub and still achieve a mint-state grade. That's just common sense, and plays the same way in market grading.

[brg5658]

If I'm buying, it's an EF45 -- If I'm selling, it's an MS63.