AU or UNC? (grade revealed)

[cameron12x]

Thoughts on a technical grade? I assume the scratches are on the holder.

 

 

Eye appeal?

[MarkFeld]

The coin looks obviously non unc., due to noticeable wear over most areas of the obverse portrait, as well as on the eagle. It does appear to have better luster than a good number of others I have seen.

[cameron12x]

Thanks Mark... what do you think? AU-55?

 

What about the luster/toning? Cleaned and then re-toned? Market acceptable? Eye appeal?

[BillJones]

The grades somewhere in the AU-50 and 55 depending upon the number of marks on the coin or on the holder. It has been dipped, and the coin is re-toning with the fairly usual yellow tarnish, which some people like. Eye appeal might be so-so because of the scratches. I don't think that the eye appeal could be outstanding.

[MarkFeld]

Thanks Mark... what do you think? AU-55?

 

What about the luster/toning? Cleaned and then re-toned? Market acceptable? Eye appeal?

 

I'd guess AU53. It looks as if it was dipped an retoned, but as I mentioned previously, it has good flash. To me, the eye-appeal is OK, not bad, not great. But that is often an individual thing.

[L1ncolnF4n]

I'd say it's a toss up between 50 and 53. Looks to have been played with at some point.

[cameron12x]

Thanks for everyone's insight!

 

The actual grade is PCGS AU-55.

 

Can a coin this "flashy" (obviously dipped) still come back with a grade?

[MarkFeld]

Thanks for everyone's insight!

 

The actual grade is PCGS AU-55.

 

Can a coin this "flashy" (obviously dipped) still come back with a grade?

 

I don't understand why you are asking, especially considering that is precisely what looks to have occurred. And because, this coin aside, there are countless obviously dipped coins which have been graded. That is nothing new or secretive.

[cameron12x]

Thanks for everyone's insight!

 

The actual grade is PCGS AU-55.

 

Can a coin this "flashy" (obviously dipped) still come back with a grade?

 

I don't understand why you are asking, especially considering that is precisely what looks to have occurred. And because, this coin aside, there are countless obviously dipped coins which have been graded. That is nothing new or secretive.

 

I suppose the "purist" in me comes out today... it seems like such a double standard to see a coin BB'd for being cleaned when dipping also physicall alters the surface of a coin (albeit in less obtrusive fashion most of the time).

[MarkFeld]

Thanks for everyone's insight!

 

The actual grade is PCGS AU-55.

 

Can a coin this "flashy" (obviously dipped) still come back with a grade?

 

I don't understand why you are asking, especially considering that is precisely what looks to have occurred. And because, this coin aside, there are countless obviously dipped coins which have been graded. That is nothing new or secretive.

 

I suppose the "purist" in me comes out today... it seems like such a double standard to see a coin BB'd for being cleaned when dipping also physicall alters the surface of a coin (albeit in less obtrusive fashion most of the time).

 

It can be a matter of degree - some dipped coins are graded, while others are not. And ditto for cleaned ones. But yes, it could fairly be argued that there is a double standard.

[BillJones]

If you declare that all dipped coins are "damaged" and are therefore worthy of only going into a "genuine" holder, you will drive the prices for original, non net graded coins through the roof. Be careful of what you wish for. Isn't it better for you to leave things the way they are and use your freedom to exercise your preferences than have a bunch of coins declined as "no grades" there by restricting the market?

 

In addition many of the coins you think are original and have never been dipped, have, in fact, been dipped and have retoned. The term one dealer I knew used was "original now." Many of us have lots of "original now" coins that we admire very much.