Applying market grading guidelines for eye appeal

[Kurtdog]

Here's a little exercise. As long as PCGS went to all the trouble, I'd like to use their guidelines. Here's their link:

 

http://www.pcgs.com/eyeappeal.html.

 

For the purposes of this exercise, this coin is a problem-free, technical AU55. There's enough clarity in the pictures to give you the lay of the toning, which is all you need. Applying the guidelines in the link, what does this coin market grade at? Thanks.

 

[brg5658]

Market grade: fugly

 

The toning in blotches on the reverse doesn't look natural to my eye. Also, the surfaces look void of all luster and life.

[MarkFeld]

Market grade: fugly

 

The toning in blotches on the reverse doesn't look natural to my eye. Also, the surfaces look void of all luster and life.

 

There is ample luster for an AU coin and I think it's rather attractive. If it's been graded AU55, I have no quibble with that. The color does make me wonder whether it was once cleaned, however.

 

Personally, I don't knowingly/intentionally consider eye-appeal when grading circulated coins.

[brg5658]

Market grade: fugly

 

The toning in blotches on the reverse doesn't look natural to my eye. Also, the surfaces look void of all luster and life.

 

There is ample luster for an AU coin and I think it's rather attractive. If it's been graded AU55, I have no quibble with that. The color does make me wonder whether it was once cleaned, however.

 

Personally, I don't knowingly/intentionally consider eye-appeal when grading circulated coins.

 

Fair enough assessment, realizing that we're going from crappy images here.

[Arizonadesertrat]

'Personally, I don't knowingly/intentionally consider eye-appeal when grading circulated coins.'

 

This is in accord with what is stated on the PCGS link posted above. What is not said is that a huge disconnect develops between assigned grade and eye appeal (due to toning) when the colors are wild. At some point, one pays for color rather than grade.

[Kurtdog]

There is ample luster for an AU coin and I think it's rather attractive. If it's been graded AU55, I have no quibble with that. The color does make me wonder whether it was once cleaned, however.

 

Personally, I don't knowingly/intentionally consider eye-appeal when grading circulated coins.

Thanks to all for your replies. A special thanks to you, Mark. I don't know whether or not you recall this, but you replied on these pictures, several years ago, when I had them posted on the PCGS forum. For what it's worth, you're remarkably consistent.

[MarkFeld]

'Personally, I don't knowingly/intentionally consider eye-appeal when grading circulated coins.'

 

This is in accord with what is stated on the PCGS link posted above. What is not said is that a huge disconnect develops between assigned grade and eye appeal (due to toning) when the colors are wild. At some point, one pays for color rather than grade.

 

I think that is much more the case with uncirculated and Proof coins, than it is with circulated ones.

[RWB]

1. It's EF, not "AU 55" or other silliness.

2. It's ugly in the sight of this beholder, but others might differ.

3. It has a net "value" of about 7-cents.

[FishyOne]

Slightly negative eye appeal to me but that wouldn't effect my grade on this one. AU50.

[Kurtdog]

Thank you, Fishy. So far, that's two who say it holds at the technical grade.

[Kurtdog]

1. It's EF, not "AU 55" or other silliness.

2. It's ugly in the sight of this beholder, but others might differ.

I was thinking about this. #1 is an assessment based on technical grading standards and #2 is an assessment based on market grading standards. This is actually a very succinct illustration of the difference.

[Raisethis2]

Nothing surprises me anymore but if the coin's technical grade is AU 55 just by the proper rules of the game it cannot grade under that no matter how ugly it appears.

 

If the coin isn't AU 55 "market graded" then the grading room is playing God rather than doing their job.

 

Right?

 

I say AU 55.

[Kurtdog]