UPDATE: IMAGE LINKS ADDED! What do you think of the "AU-58+" grade?

[James_OldeTowne]

Yep, we got a customer's coin back today in AU-58 "plus". For the record, I thought "lock 61". It's a $12,000 coin.

 

So, I'm just throwing it out there:

 

What do you think of the "AU-58+" grade?

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

3/27/2013 Edited to add:

SPAM POTENTIAL ALERT The images for the obverse linked here and the reverse linked here are for a coin that will be offered for sale. Please DO NOT CLICK if this will offend you as SPAM. The images are ENORMOUS (8 Mb each) so please be patient.

 

[Nutmeg Coin]

To true connoisseurs in numismatics, that is a coin that ranges from a very high end about uncirculated coin to a coin that should be MSXX were it not for a touch of cabinet friction, rub or other high point handling.

 

It will no doubt CAC, but will forever be limited by the pricing sheets where phenomenal AU58s rarely get their due.

[MarkFeld]

I hope that the "AU58+" grade is reserved for truly AU58 coins, rather than those which deserve lower grades.

[EVillageProwler]

I hope that the "AU58+" grade is reserved for truly AU58 coins, rather than those which deserve lower grades.

 

But many of the true AU58 coins end up in 62/63 holders.

[$ilverHawk]

Yep, we got a customer's coin back today in AU-58 "plus". For the record, I thought "lock 61". It's a $12,000 coin.

 

So, I'm just throwing it out there:

 

What do you think of the "AU-58+" grade?

 

Hogwash. Although that should be sufficient, I will elaborate.

 

ANA Grading Terminology. AU58. "The barest trace of wear may be seen on one or more of the high points of the design. No major detracting contact marks will be present and the coin will have attractive eye appeal and nearly full mint luster, often with the appearance of a higher grade."

 

The TPGs strike again. Just what constitutes an AU58 + grade? Less than barest trace of wear? Fewer than no major detracting contact marks? More attractive eye appeal? More than nearly full mint luster with the appearance of a higher grade?

 

Sure sounds like the description of a MS coin.

 

I can just hear the thoughts of the last determining grader. Gee, I really think everyone else got it wrong but this is a high value coin. If I give it an MS that will effect the market population and I will have to explain why I think the other graders got it wrong and I'm going to increase the MS population and change the value of this coin by thousands of dollars. My grading company would be liable for the cost difference if this coin was reviewed in the future and found not to be MS, I'm in big trouble. I know, I'll give it a "+". Let the market figure out what we mean.

 

You can only split hairs so much, then the definitions become very unclear.

 

Carl

 

 

[michael]

for a true au 58 not for example a common date three dollar gold coin that is ms 62 but with a wipe or slight problem netted to au 58 etc.etc.

 

so for a true au58

 

i see a coin that has less marks ever so slight friction on the high points and as much or more lustre and even more eye appeal than an ms 61/62 possibly even ms 63

 

and depending on market dynamics, what EXACTLY the specific coin is, what the coin looks like in hand "sight seen" and the overall "look" of the coin; it could be easily worth more than an ms 61 62 62+

 

it all depends...........................................

 

 

[michael]

wow james i would love to see that coin in hand

 

a true auction coin if it is in the 12k range

[coinman1794]

Yep, we got a customer's coin back today in AU-58 "plus". For the record, I thought "lock 61". It's a $12,000 coin.

 

So, I'm just throwing it out there:

 

What do you think of the "AU-58+" grade?

 

Hogwash. Although that should be sufficient, I will elaborate.

 

ANA Grading Terminology. AU58. "The barest trace of wear may be seen on one or more of the high points of the design. No major detracting contact marks will be present and the coin will have attractive eye appeal and nearly full mint luster, often with the appearance of a higher grade."

 

The TPGs strike again. Just what constitutes an AU58 + grade? Less than barest trace of wear? Fewer than no major detracting contact marks? More attractive eye appeal? More than nearly full mint luster with the appearance of a higher grade?

 

Sure sounds like the description of a MS coin.

 

I can just hear the thoughts of the last determining grader. Gee, I really think everyone else got it wrong but this is a high value coin. If I give it an MS that will effect the market population and I will have to explain why I think the other graders got it wrong and I'm going to increase the MS population and change the value of this coin by thousands of dollars. My grading company would be liable for the cost difference if this coin was reviewed in the future and found not to be MS, I'm in big trouble. I know, I'll give it a "+". Let the market figure out what we mean.

 

You can only split hairs so much, then the definitions become very unclear.

 

Carl

 

 

No more hogwash than MS64+, MS65+, or any other grade on the scale. Grading is done on a continuum, and some coins within each grade are nicer than the rest, but not quite the next grade. AU58+ is one of the best times to use the +, in my opinion. It's an opportunity to distinguish those AU63 sliders from true MS coins and definite 58s. People have been using the term AU59+ for many years on raw coins.

 

I don't think there is anything "clear" about "The barest trace of wear may be seen on one or more of the high points of the design." In fact, ANA standards are notorious for being ambiguous.

 

[coinman1794]

To true connoisseurs in numismatics, that is a coin that ranges from a very high end about uncirculated coin to a coin that should be MSXX were it not for a touch of cabinet friction, rub or other high point handling.

 

It will no doubt CAC, but will forever be limited by the pricing sheets where phenomenal AU58s rarely get their due.

 

I know a lot of people, self included, who value exceptional AU58s at very strong premiums, sometimes in line with MS62 or better prices. The market will appreciate a special coin.

[$ilverHawk]

Yep, we got a customer's coin back today in AU-58 "plus". For the record, I thought "lock 61". It's a $12,000 coin.

 

So, I'm just throwing it out there:

 

What do you think of the "AU-58+" grade?

 

Hogwash. Although that should be sufficient, I will elaborate.

 

ANA Grading Terminology. AU58. "The barest trace of wear may be seen on one or more of the high points of the design. No major detracting contact marks will be present and the coin will have attractive eye appeal and nearly full mint luster, often with the appearance of a higher grade."

 

The TPGs strike again. Just what constitutes an AU58 + grade? Less than barest trace of wear? Fewer than no major detracting contact marks? More attractive eye appeal? More than nearly full mint luster with the appearance of a higher grade?

 

Sure sounds like the description of a MS coin.

 

I can just hear the thoughts of the last determining grader. Gee, I really think everyone else got it wrong but this is a high value coin. If I give it an MS that will effect the market population and I will have to explain why I think the other graders got it wrong and I'm going to increase the MS population and change the value of this coin by thousands of dollars. My grading company would be liable for the cost difference if this coin was reviewed in the future and found not to be MS, I'm in big trouble. I know, I'll give it a "+". Let the market figure out what we mean.

 

You can only split hairs so much, then the definitions become very unclear.

 

Carl

 

 

No more hogwash than MS64+, MS65+, or any other grade on the scale. Grading is done on a continuum, and some coins within each grade are nicer than the rest, but not quite the next grade. AU58+ is one of the best times to use the +, in my opinion. It's an opportunity to distinguish those AU63 sliders from true MS coins and definite 58s. People have been using the term AU59+ for many years on raw coins.

 

I don't think there is anything "clear" about "The barest trace of wear may be seen on one or more of the high points of the design." In fact, ANA standards are notorious for being ambiguous.

 

I agree that grading is done on a continuum. I believe that is the very idea underpinning the Sheldon scale. Exactly what is ambiguous about the barest trace of wear? Either there is wear or not. It is not a difficult concept. Call it cabinet friction or whatever, if there is wear on the high points of the design it is an AU coin. Either yes or no.

 

It doesn't matter how many years people have been using the term AU59+. An AU coin is an AU coin. How about AU55+, AU56+, AU58-, MS63- or as you note AU63, what exactly does that mean? Would you buy a coin that was graded AU58+ and pay any more than the same coin graded AU58?

 

As an aside, if we have "+" grades why don't we have "-" grades? Is AU58+ equal to MS60 - ?

 

Please explain how you find ANA Grading Standards ambiguous. ANA grading standards are fairly precise. What I have found in my experience, is that in the evolution of market grading the TPGs have made grading standards ambiguous.

 

Carl

[coinman_23885]

Hogwash. Although that should be sufficient, I will elaborate.

 

ANA Grading Terminology. AU58. "The barest trace of wear may be seen on one or more of the high points of the design. No major detracting contact marks will be present and the coin will have attractive eye appeal and nearly full mint luster, often with the appearance of a higher grade."

 

The TPGs strike again. Just what constitutes an AU58 + grade?

 

Perhaps a coin which has no wear at all on the high points and would otherwise grade in the mint state range, except for the slightest rub in the field which creates the slightest of disturbance which is easy to overlook would warrant the said grade. It is better than placing them in MS holders as I have seen done in the past.

[coinman_23885]

Would you buy a coin that was graded AU58+ and pay any more than the same coin graded AU58?

 

As I stated previously, there are many AU58 coins which clearly have wear, albeit very slight on the high points. This is more noticeable than the faintest of disturbance in the fields that could easily be overlooked if lighting is improper or if the coin isn't fully rotated to see the disturbance in luster. As a result, I can see some coins potentially warranting the AU58+ grade. Would a pay a larger premium for an AU58+ over an AU58? No; however, I may pay a small premium if the quality of the coin is noticeably appreciable in my opinion.

 

As an aside, if we have "+" grades why don't we have "-" grades? Is AU58+ equal to MS60 - ?

 

I think submitters would be very resistant to the introduction of a minus grade. Who would want their low end coin graded MS65- when it has simply been labeled as MS65 for years, allowing the owner to flip it on eBay to someone less experienced. In my opinion, it is a strategic marketing decision not to include minus grades.

 

To answer your second coin, no an AU58+ would not be the same as a MS60-. To me, an AU58+ would meet the criteria that I described above - the faintest of rub in the field causes the slightest disturbance of luster - the same type of luster disturbance that is often overlooked and that finds its way into MS holders. A MS60- coin by definition, however, would have absolutely no wear. I would envision such a coin exhibiting so many contact marks that it is barely gradeable and additional marks would render the coin a problem coin and result in a details grade.

[James_OldeTowne]

wow james i would love to see that coin in hand

 

a true auction coin if it is in the 12k range

I can't do that yet, michael !

 

It is a coin I have on consignment, but if nobody objects to a potential SPAM situation, I can seek permission to image the coin and show it here.

 

Comments, please, everyone?

[MarkFeld]

Yep, we got a customer's coin back today in AU-58 "plus". For the record, I thought "lock 61". It's a $12,000 coin.

 

So, I'm just throwing it out there:

 

What do you think of the "AU-58+" grade?

 

Hogwash. Although that should be sufficient, I will elaborate.

 

ANA Grading Terminology. AU58. "The barest trace of wear may be seen on one or more of the high points of the design. No major detracting contact marks will be present and the coin will have attractive eye appeal and nearly full mint luster, often with the appearance of a higher grade."

 

The TPGs strike again. Just what constitutes an AU58 + grade? Less than barest trace of wear? Fewer than no major detracting contact marks? More attractive eye appeal? More than nearly full mint luster with the appearance of a higher grade?

 

Sure sounds like the description of a MS coin.

 

I can just hear the thoughts of the last determining grader. Gee, I really think everyone else got it wrong but this is a high value coin. If I give it an MS that will effect the market population and I will have to explain why I think the other graders got it wrong and I'm going to increase the MS population and change the value of this coin by thousands of dollars. My grading company would be liable for the cost difference if this coin was reviewed in the future and found not to be MS, I'm in big trouble. I know, I'll give it a "+". Let the market figure out what we mean.

 

You can only split hairs so much, then the definitions become very unclear.

 

Carl

 

 

No more hogwash than MS64+, MS65+, or any other grade on the scale. Grading is done on a continuum, and some coins within each grade are nicer than the rest, but not quite the next grade. AU58+ is one of the best times to use the +, in my opinion. It's an opportunity to distinguish those AU63 sliders from true MS coins and definite 58s. People have been using the term AU59+ for many years on raw coins.

 

I don't think there is anything "clear" about "The barest trace of wear may be seen on one or more of the high points of the design." In fact, ANA standards are notorious for being ambiguous.

 

I agree that grading is done on a continuum. I believe that is the very idea underpinning the Sheldon scale. Exactly what is ambiguous about the barest trace of wear? Either there is wear or not. It is not a difficult concept. Call it cabinet friction or whatever, if there is wear on the high points of the design it is an AU coin. Either yes or no.

 

It doesn't matter how many years people have been using the term AU59+. An AU coin is an AU coin. How about AU55+, AU56+, AU58-, MS63- or as you note AU63, what exactly does that mean? Would you buy a coin that was graded AU58+ and pay any more than the same coin graded AU58?

 

As an aside, if we have "+" grades why don't we have "-" grades? Is AU58+ equal to MS60 - ?

 

Please explain how you find ANA Grading Standards ambiguous. ANA grading standards are fairly precise. What I have found in my experience, is that in the evolution of market grading the TPGs have made grading standards ambiguous.

 

Carl

 

Carl, I strongly disagree with your assertion that the ANA grading standards are "fairly precise". And I feel the same way about any and all other written standards.

 

In the case of unc. and proof coins, written standards do not typically adequately distinguish between two different grades. There are simply too many variables and too many imprecise qualifiers are used.

 

Please select any two unc or Proof grade definitions of your choice. My bet is, that practically speaking, the written descriptions wont adequately let a viewer know the difference between the two grades.

[BillJones]

For many years the "+" was considered to be an inappropriate part of the grading process, but now that there is money involved, it has been accepted. The one danger I see from this is a possible degradation of the AU-58 grade. I have seen the AU-50 grade slide into number for coins that used to be called EF. Time was when you saw the AU-50 grade, the coin was usually quite nice. Now many of the coins I see in new holders with the AU-50 grade are what I would call "disappointing" to put it in polite terms.

 

There has been a on-going discussion ATS about an 1797 dollar in AU-58, CAC that sold for almost $50,000. The piece has dullish white surfaces in the photo which indicates that it has been dipped, perhaps multiple times, and one member, with expertise, who has seen the piece stated that it had very little luster. After a bit of discussion the thought police circled the wagons around the item declaring those who expressed doubts about the piece as "amateurs" and "armchair experts" who should respect for the grades professional graders who had seen the piece. Perhaps we will need to buy AU-58+ coins to get an AU-58 coin in the future. I hope not because that is just grade-flation.

 

My view is that "+" designation has been applied inconsistently just as the "Cameo" designations have been. The "+" might mean that the piece is something special, but don't let that cloud your judgment. Learn to grade and think for yourself.

 

[physics-fan3.14]

I for one would love to see a picture of this coin, James.

 

And for the record, I think AU-58+ is a pretty good idea. I would love to see every AU-62 or AU-63 coin that has been market graded up to UNC even though it has a trace of cabinet friction or a tiny slide regraded to AU-58+. Essentially, the two grades are equivalent (AU-58+ and AU-63) - just one is calling the coin what it is (it has a tiny rub on the high point, or in the field, or whatever), and one is pretending the coin is something it isn't (a true uncirculated coin with no trace of wear).

 

I'm guessing in days past, this AU-58+ coin would have been graded AU-63. So yes, I am in favor of it.

[BillJones]

I for one would love to see a picture of this coin, James.

 

And for the record, I think AU-58+ is a pretty good idea. I would love to see every AU-62 or AU-63 coin that has been market graded up to UNC even though it has a trace of cabinet friction or a tiny slide regraded to AU-58+. Essentially, the two grades are equivalent (AU-58+ and AU-63) - just one is calling the coin what it is (it has a tiny rub on the high point, or in the field, or whatever), and one is pretending the coin is something it isn't (a true uncirculated coin with no trace of wear).

 

I'm guessing in days past, this AU-58+ coin would have been graded AU-63. So yes, I am in favor of it.

 

And to take the other side, this could add confusion for those who have been trained that higher grade numbers indicate that the coin is worth more. There are AU-58 coins that are worth more than technical grade low Mint State coins that have poor eye appeal. That was part of the reason why the MS-62 grade was often used the way it was. Despite the fact that those coins had a rub, their better eye appeal made them just as or more valuable than their low end Mint State counterparts.

[RWB]

"For many years the "+" was considered to be an inappropriate part of the grading process, but now that there is money involved, it has been accepted."

 

I.e.: it's not about condition, it's about money. Sad....

[jom]

And to take the other side, this could add confusion for those who have been trained that higher grade numbers indicate that the coin is worth more. There are AU-58 coins that are worth more than technical grade low Mint State coins that have poor eye appeal. That was part of the reason why the MS-62 grade was often used the way it was. Despite the fact that those coins had a rub, their better eye appeal made them just as or more valuable than their low end Mint State counterparts.

 

I agree and we already have similar problems. The MS62 grade you mentioned is an example. It could be a coin that is really AU but nice enough to valued at the MS level. On the other hand I've seen countless MS62 graded coins that were just MS coins that had some problem such as hairlining.

 

As long as we are discussing what things used to be: Grading was supposed to be just a way to communicate to another the appearance of a coin. I'm pretty sure it wasn't meant to be some sort of high-precision scale to value coins with. All of these "+" signs (and other designations) are really just a futile attempt to create the perception of precision that can't exist. Grading is not an accurate "science" so trying to apply precision to an already inaccurate process is folly, IMO.

 

jom

[RockMyAmadeus]

You have to wonder what it really is that these graders are seeing.

 

At AU-58+ (and, as physics-fan put it, "AU-63"), what is it really that is causing this "touch of wear" to be seen as that? Because we're basically talking about a disturbance in luster at this point, are we not? Maybe a few micrometers of metal disturbed, so that light bounces off in a different direction. How many coins graded high AU were done so even though they were taken right out of a bag, but had just the right angle of just the right hit to look like a "rub"...? Conversely, as has been discussed for many years, how many MS61-63 coins are really just high AUs, because they genuinely had the luster disturbed by handling, and not contact from other coins?

 

One man's "slight rub" is another man's "contact mark", and back and forth.

 

 

I do know, however, that owning these high grade AUs, without having to pay the price of the MS62 or 63 they look like, is quite a nice prospect.

[johnny9434]

id rather have an honest grade. au58 is still an au58 and theres nothing wrong with it.

[Tradedollarnut]

Define 'wear'

[$ilverHawk]

Yep, we got a customer's coin back today in AU-58 "plus". For the record, I thought "lock 61". It's a $12,000 coin.

 

So, I'm just throwing it out there:

 

What do you think of the "AU-58+" grade?

 

Hogwash. Although that should be sufficient, I will elaborate.

 

ANA Grading Terminology. AU58. "The barest trace of wear may be seen on one or more of the high points of the design. No major detracting contact marks will be present and the coin will have attractive eye appeal and nearly full mint luster, often with the appearance of a higher grade."

 

The TPGs strike again. Just what constitutes an AU58 + grade? Less than barest trace of wear? Fewer than no major detracting contact marks? More attractive eye appeal? More than nearly full mint luster with the appearance of a higher grade?

 

Sure sounds like the description of a MS coin.

 

I can just hear the thoughts of the last determining grader. Gee, I really think everyone else got it wrong but this is a high value coin. If I give it an MS that will effect the market population and I will have to explain why I think the other graders got it wrong and I'm going to increase the MS population and change the value of this coin by thousands of dollars. My grading company would be liable for the cost difference if this coin was reviewed in the future and found not to be MS, I'm in big trouble. I know, I'll give it a "+". Let the market figure out what we mean.

 

You can only split hairs so much, then the definitions become very unclear.

 

Carl

 

 

No more hogwash than MS64+, MS65+, or any other grade on the scale. Grading is done on a continuum, and some coins within each grade are nicer than the rest, but not quite the next grade. AU58+ is one of the best times to use the +, in my opinion. It's an opportunity to distinguish those AU63 sliders from true MS coins and definite 58s. People have been using the term AU59+ for many years on raw coins.

 

I don't think there is anything "clear" about "The barest trace of wear may be seen on one or more of the high points of the design." In fact, ANA standards are notorious for being ambiguous.

 

I agree that grading is done on a continuum. I believe that is the very idea underpinning the Sheldon scale. Exactly what is ambiguous about the barest trace of wear? Either there is wear or not. It is not a difficult concept. Call it cabinet friction or whatever, if there is wear on the high points of the design it is an AU coin. Either yes or no.

 

It doesn't matter how many years people have been using the term AU59+. An AU coin is an AU coin. How about AU55+, AU56+, AU58-, MS63- or as you note AU63, what exactly does that mean? Would you buy a coin that was graded AU58+ and pay any more than the same coin graded AU58?

 

As an aside, if we have "+" grades why don't we have "-" grades? Is AU58+ equal to MS60 - ?

 

Please explain how you find ANA Grading Standards ambiguous. ANA grading standards are fairly precise. What I have found in my experience, is that in the evolution of market grading the TPGs have made grading standards ambiguous.

 

Carl

 

Carl, I strongly disagree with your assertion that the ANA grading standards are "fairly precise". And I feel the same way about any and all other written standards.

 

In the case of unc. and proof coins, written standards do not typically adequately distinguish between two different grades. There are simply too many variables and too many imprecise qualifiers are used.

 

Please select any two unc or Proof grade definitions of your choice. My bet is, that practically speaking, the written descriptions wont adequately let a viewer know the difference between the two grades.

 

Mark,

 

OK, let's go with ANA Grading Standards.

 

MS-63 "Mint luster may be slightly impaired. Numerous small contact marks and a few scattered heavy marks may be seen. Small hairlines maybe visible without magnification. Several detracting scruff marks or defects may be present throughout the design or in the fields. The general quality is about average, but overall the coin is rather attractive. Copper pieces may be darkened or dull. Color should be designated.

Contact Marks: May have distracting marks in prime focal areas. Hairlines: May have a few scattered or a small patch. Luster: May be slightly impaired. Eye Appeal: Rather attractive."

 

MS65 "Shows an attractive high quality of luster for the date and mint. May have a few scattered contact marks, or two larger marks may be present. One or two small patched of hairlines may show. Noticeable light scruff marks may be seen on the high points of the design. Overall quality is above average and eye appeal is very pleasing. If copper, the coin has some attractive luster with original or darkened color, as designated.

Contact Marks:Light and scattered without major distracting marks in prime focal areas. Hairlines: May have a few scattered. Luster: Above average. Fully original. Eye Appeal: Very appealing."

 

I can clearly understand the technical differences described in the above descriptions. I have a fairly clear idea of what ANA is talking about when they mention the amount and distribution of Contact Marks and Hairlines and the differences in Luster. The Eye Appeal comments are not that clear. And I realize that the ANA description or any written description cannot hope to totally encompass all of the variables that determine the grade of a coin.

 

Written standards are needed as a reference point. They are not the end all. You have to start somewhere and having a written description with a pictured example has worked for a number of numismatic authors; Q. David Bowers, James Ruddy, Scott Travers etal. It is really interesting how closely those descriptions parallel the ANA Grading Standards.

 

Carl

 

 

[lehigh96]

Just to put an anecdotal spin on this discussion. This coin recently upgraded from AU58 to MS62.

 

 

Should it be graded AU58+?

[physics-fan3.14]

Paul, trying to tell AU from MS in pictures is next to impossible. I'll say this - if there is a trace of rub on the highest points, then yes, it belongs in an AU-58 holder. It appears to be an attractive coin, I just can't determine what you are asking from those pics.

[MarkFeld]

Yep, we got a customer's coin back today in AU-58 "plus". For the record, I thought "lock 61". It's a $12,000 coin.

 

So, I'm just throwing it out there:

 

What do you think of the "AU-58+" grade?

 

Hogwash. Although that should be sufficient, I will elaborate.

 

ANA Grading Terminology. AU58. "The barest trace of wear may be seen on one or more of the high points of the design. No major detracting contact marks will be present and the coin will have attractive eye appeal and nearly full mint luster, often with the appearance of a higher grade."

 

The TPGs strike again. Just what constitutes an AU58 + grade? Less than barest trace of wear? Fewer than no major detracting contact marks? More attractive eye appeal? More than nearly full mint luster with the appearance of a higher grade?

 

Sure sounds like the description of a MS coin.

 

I can just hear the thoughts of the last determining grader. Gee, I really think everyone else got it wrong but this is a high value coin. If I give it an MS that will effect the market population and I will have to explain why I think the other graders got it wrong and I'm going to increase the MS population and change the value of this coin by thousands of dollars. My grading company would be liable for the cost difference if this coin was reviewed in the future and found not to be MS, I'm in big trouble. I know, I'll give it a "+". Let the market figure out what we mean.

 

You can only split hairs so much, then the definitions become very unclear.

 

Carl

 

 

No more hogwash than MS64+, MS65+, or any other grade on the scale. Grading is done on a continuum, and some coins within each grade are nicer than the rest, but not quite the next grade. AU58+ is one of the best times to use the +, in my opinion. It's an opportunity to distinguish those AU63 sliders from true MS coins and definite 58s. People have been using the term AU59+ for many years on raw coins.

 

I don't think there is anything "clear" about "The barest trace of wear may be seen on one or more of the high points of the design." In fact, ANA standards are notorious for being ambiguous.

 

I agree that grading is done on a continuum. I believe that is the very idea underpinning the Sheldon scale. Exactly what is ambiguous about the barest trace of wear? Either there is wear or not. It is not a difficult concept. Call it cabinet friction or whatever, if there is wear on the high points of the design it is an AU coin. Either yes or no.

 

It doesn't matter how many years people have been using the term AU59+. An AU coin is an AU coin. How about AU55+, AU56+, AU58-, MS63- or as you note AU63, what exactly does that mean? Would you buy a coin that was graded AU58+ and pay any more than the same coin graded AU58?

 

As an aside, if we have "+" grades why don't we have "-" grades? Is AU58+ equal to MS60 - ?

 

Please explain how you find ANA Grading Standards ambiguous. ANA grading standards are fairly precise. What I have found in my experience, is that in the evolution of market grading the TPGs have made grading standards ambiguous.

 

Carl

 

Carl, I strongly disagree with your assertion that the ANA grading standards are "fairly precise". And I feel the same way about any and all other written standards.

 

In the case of unc. and proof coins, written standards do not typically adequately distinguish between two different grades. There are simply too many variables and too many imprecise qualifiers are used.

 

Please select any two unc or Proof grade definitions of your choice. My bet is, that practically speaking, the written descriptions wont adequately let a viewer know the difference between the two grades.

 

Mark,

 

OK, let's go with ANA Grading Standards.

 

MS-63 "Mint luster may be slightly impaired. Numerous small contact marks and a few scattered heavy marks may be seen. Small hairlines maybe visible without magnification. Several detracting scruff marks or defects may be present throughout the design or in the fields. The general quality is about average, but overall the coin is rather attractive. Copper pieces may be darkened or dull. Color should be designated.

Contact Marks: May have distracting marks in prime focal areas. Hairlines: May have a few scattered or a small patch. Luster: May be slightly impaired. Eye Appeal: Rather attractive."

 

MS65 "Shows an attractive high quality of luster for the date and mint. May have a few scattered contact marks, or two larger marks may be present. One or two small patched of hairlines may show. Noticeable light scruff marks may be seen on the high points of the design. Overall quality is above average and eye appeal is very pleasing. If copper, the coin has some attractive luster with original or darkened color, as designated.

Contact Marks:Light and scattered without major distracting marks in prime focal areas. Hairlines: May have a few scattered. Luster: Above average. Fully original. Eye Appeal: Very appealing."

 

I can clearly understand the technical differences described in the above descriptions. I have a fairly clear idea of what ANA is talking about when they mention the amount and distribution of Contact Marks and Hairlines and the differences in Luster. The Eye Appeal comments are not that clear. And I realize that the ANA description or any written description cannot hope to totally encompass all of the variables that determine the grade of a coin.

 

Written standards are needed as a reference point. They are not the end all. You have to start somewhere and having a written description with a pictured example has worked for a number of numismatic authors; Q. David Bowers, James Ruddy, Scott Travers etal. It is really interesting how closely those descriptions parallel the ANA Grading Standards.

 

Carl

 

 

Carl, my apologies - I meant to ask you to choose published definitions for two consecutive grades, not just two different grades. And my contention is that the two definitions will not be specific or different enough to allow viewers to be able apply them on practical basis.

 

[Zoins]

I'm surprised there's no AU-59 yet. For the longest time AU-58 was the tops, however, if we're moving to AU-58+, why not just go to AU-59 at the same time?

[lehigh96]

Paul, trying to tell AU from MS in pictures is next to impossible. I'll say this - if there is a trace of rub on the highest points, then yes, it belongs in an AU-58 holder. It appears to be an attractive coin, I just can't determine what you are asking from those pics.

 

The coin used to reside in an AU58 holder which is now empty (photo1). I sent the coin back to NGC and it graded MS62. I think it is pretty obvious that there is a slight rub on the leg in the photo and it can be seen in hand as well. But the coin has no luster breaks in the fields. My question is basically, what do people think about coins exhibiting cabinet/roll friction. Should they be in MS holders or would they rather see them in AU58+ holders?

 

Btw, I don't own the coin. I sold it a few months ago. I just thought it was a very good example of an AU58+ for us to discuss.

[WoodenJefferson]

Send that AU-58+ into CAC, get a Gold Bean and you'll have a $15,000 coin!

[Nutmeg Coin]

Without specific examples, this discussion is not particularly helpful IMO.

 

 

Here is an AU58 that was all there many years ago I sold, that was worthy of CAC and or plus:

 

http://images.goldbergauctions.com/php/lot_auc.php?site=1&sale=10&lot=1553

 

The suggested "59" grade deserving of assignation in some cases has been answered by the plus which serves a market need.