What is your opinion of this Bust Half?

[brg5658]

If you hadn't already lost your faith in CAC, then take a look at the Hard Times token they stickered that's graded PCGS MS66 in this thread. That one will make you laugh out loud.

 

HT, I'm with you. There are too many "softie" non-scientific and non-justifiable "variables" that seem to go into the magical hand-waving that merits the CAC bean process. I get no sense that it is a replicable process, and thus I don't pay it much attention. When dealers hint that the CAC demands a premium, I generally scoff and say something like "the coin is what I'm interested in".

 

[physics-fan3.14]

Never mind, that in hand, the scratch might look far less conspicuous.

 

Hardtimes and I both had a chance to view this coin in hand at FUN. The scratch is actually even more prominent in hand.

[Hard Times]

 

If you lost that much faith in CAC for stickering an XF45 Bust Half with a scratch (which some people think might have otherwise graded AU), then you probably had way too much faith in them in the first place. Never mind, that in hand, the scratch might look far less conspicuous.

 

I can't tell from your posts, whether you already submitted your Bust Half Dime or not. But either way, while you state its".correct in market grade", that's just your opinion. Others may or may not agree.

 

Then you proceeded to talk about its eye appeal "hello - eye appeal - does it matter? Any reward there for eye appeal mate?". But if CAC thinks it's AT or cleaned or over-graded, the eye appeal is pretty much a moot point. You seemed to be ignoring that reality.

 

Mark I have not lost 'that much faith in CAC' and faith has nothing to do with this discussion. I instead now know that CAC graders have different subjective opinions on coins than I do in some cases, hence the need to only consider their coins after seeing them in hand and making a judgement for myself.

 

Don't get me wrong, I generally agree with CAC a big portion of the time in their subjective grading opinions. I am more interested in trying to understand how they reach their opinions on coins given their opinions are setting the market. When I see something like that big ole scratch on a 45 (no trick of lighting or seeing it in hand will make it smaller) then I don't understand which is a set back in my pursuit of knowledge.

 

Best, HT

[Hard Times]

Never mind, that in hand, the scratch might look far less conspicuous.

 

Hardtimes and I both had a chance to view this coin in hand at FUN. The scratch is actually even more prominent in hand.

 

yup......

 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Never mind, that in hand, the scratch might look far less conspicuous.

 

Hardtimes and I both had a chance to view this coin in hand at FUN. The scratch is actually even more prominent in hand.

 

How and why does this negate the Grade of 45?

How does it negate CAC deciding it is 45?

The scratch may appear more prominent to you.

It may not be viewed the same by others.

 

The point is, no valid reason has yet been presented that the coin should not be a 45, or that PCGS or CAC is incorrect in their opinion.

 

I want to learn why, so I will be a more informed collector.

 

I am sure you have a valid position, other than it has a scratch that covers 20% of a distance from one point to the other on a coin.

 

Again, what is your opinion of what the coin should grade? Or in the alternative, what is the reason it should not be graded?

 

Forget the sticker for a moment. Forget market grading for a moment. Lets just concentrate on technical grading. What should the technical grade of this coin be?

 

If we can get that far, maybe we can move to the market grade issue, and then on to the sticker issue.

 

A blanket I hate it, it is scratched and nobody should give it that Grade or a sticker, is not a valid position. It is just throwing feathers to validate a position, instead of a rock.

[MarkFeld]

 

If you lost that much faith in CAC for stickering an XF45 Bust Half with a scratch (which some people think might have otherwise graded AU), then you probably had way too much faith in them in the first place. Never mind, that in hand, the scratch might look far less conspicuous.

 

I can't tell from your posts, whether you already submitted your Bust Half Dime or not. But either way, while you state its".correct in market grade", that's just your opinion. Others may or may not agree.

 

Then you proceeded to talk about its eye appeal "hello - eye appeal - does it matter? Any reward there for eye appeal mate?". But if CAC thinks it's AT or cleaned or over-graded, the eye appeal is pretty much a moot point. You seemed to be ignoring that reality.

 

Mark I have not lost 'that much faith in CAC' and faith has nothing to do with this discussion. I instead now know that CAC graders have different subjective opinions on coins than I do in some cases, hence the need to only consider their coins after seeing them in hand and making a judgement for myself.

 

Don't get me wrong, I generally agree with CAC a big portion of the time in their subjective grading opinions. I am more interested in trying to understand how they reach their opinions on coins given their opinions are setting the market. When I see something like that big ole scratch on a 45 (no trick of lighting or seeing it in hand will make it smaller) then I don't understand which is a set back in my pursuit of knowledge.

 

Best, HT

 

I'm admittedly confused by your posts. I thought you already knew part of what you just posted above: "CAC graders have different subjective opinions on coins than I do in some cases, hence the need to only consider their coins after seeing them in hand and making a judgement for myself."

 

And it does sound to me like you have lost "that much faith" in CAC when you say things like "..just raised a red flag about the whole beannie deal". But, if you haven't, you haven't. Go out and have fun.

[FishyOne]

I have no problem with CAC approving that Bust Half as a 45. If it were a 50 I imagine they would have declined to sticker it but who knows. Personally I don't care for it with the gouge but believe it to be correctly graded.

 

I have seen many CAC coins that I didn't care for. That's life. 95% of the CAC'd coins I've seen were okay by me. Far, far less than that (maybe 65%) of non-CAC top tier certified pieces are to my liking.

 

To me CAC does a great job of "thinning the herd" and separating the good, the bad, and the ugly. Are they perfect? Not IMHO but they do very, very well with what they do.

[Hard Times]

Mark my 'red flag' is the realization that I can't just blindly trust that a CAC stickered coin as something I will always agree with or will want to buy, so yes that gives me concern. I more or less agree with what Fishy just said although I am not sure I would put my percentages as high for agreement, and he is clearly correct on CAC helping 'thinning the herd'. However with all of the hype we have had about CAC, I was hoping for a clearer path in visualizing the herd and perhaps that was naive.

 

Best, HT

[coinman1794]

Mkman, that is why I gave up posting my coins that went to CAC, it is nothing to do with NGC vs. PCGS, but they have decided what types of toning they are going to bean, and many of the coins I have, which to me have tremendous eye appeal, did not bean. Be forewarned, we are going to probably hear from many informed numismatists that this coin below could not have toned under natural conditions and look like this. I can't say one way or the other given all of the variables in surroundings a coin is exposed to during a coins lifetime whether this is natural or not. PCGS considered it to be market acceptable, JA probably did not. But no major scratches

 

Best, HT

 

 

 

 

It sounds as if you're assuming CAC would not or did not sticker the coin, due to its toning. I would bet that they would not or did not have a problem with the toning.

 

And speaking of problems, unless you hear from CAC precisely why they declined to sticker a coin, you're merely guessing. And you might be way off base on our guess.

 

YOu are absolutely correct Mark. One dealer told me it was the toning, one said they had no idea, and of course, CAC does not list why on the invoice so I could be way off base, which is frustrating....

 

Best, HT

 

Considering this answer to Mr. Feld, is it possible that the same kind of logical thought could apply to the scratched coin, and it may just be that a Grade of 45 is not unreasonable for the coin?

 

Absolutely not, because I don't like scratches that are that bad, whether PCGS and CAC does or does not, it appears that they do sometimes accept bad scratches, and therefore I have to pay attention even more when a bean is on the coin since my tastes and theirs in this don't merge. I think they made a big mistake on this coin and I think alot of other astute collectors agree. In the long run, the more mistakes they make, the more their control on the market is going to diminish as collectors have less confidence in what the bean means. That is why I like the idea of PQ stickers, to get a different 4th party grading perspective.

 

I am sure CAC apologists will completely disagree with what I just said, no worries.

 

Best, HT

 

I understand. I am not referring to whether you personally like or dislike the coin. It is whether or not a Grade of 45 is unreasonable, and if so, why?

 

Your tastes and their tastes can certainly be different, I get it. But that does not mean a coin can't be a 45 with a scratch. You maintain a Grade of 45 is absolutely not logical and unreasonable. Other than your tastes, why not? That is the issue that I don't understand. The OP and you believe it is not a 45 because it has a scratch, and a sticker is somehow not reasonable with a scratch on the coin. Why?

 

What Grade would you give the coin? A 12, a 15, an 8? If it is worthy of some Grade would it be worthy of the sticker at that Grade?

 

I am not an apologist for CAC or PCGS or NGC or any other entity, if that is what may be on your mind, or may be the way you are interpreting my Posts.

I don't have any type of monetary or influential interest in these entities.

 

What is the big mistake made? What confidence is lost? What will be cured by a FPG PQ sticker? Think for a moment- you are advocating a 4th party premium quality review service. Why? If so many astute collectors agree and know it is not a 45, how would that change with a 4th or 5th or 6th party? If the coin you believe should have a sticker and it wasn't given one, but you know it should have one, then why do you care? You have graded it, and satisfied yourself. How is the going to change with a 4th, 5th, or 6th party?

 

What do you want to see on the Holder: Warning...this coin has a scratch?

 

In other words, why is the scratched coin not a 45, other than you and the OP and other astute collectors don't like it?

 

I don't really care what is on the holder, but my view of CAC giving a bean to a coin with such obvious detracting scratch that is at least 20% the length of the diameter of the coin, in a 45 grade just raised a red flag about the whole beannie deal. Especially when I have a half dime that is drop dead gorgeous, correct in market grade, but according to some, may be non-beaned for a small tick that is barely noticeable on the chin (see above)? C coin, really? JA hello - eye appeal - does it matter? Any reward there for eye appeal mate? Yet an XF45 half with such a scratch is bean worthy? Wear of an AU50 grade overcomes that scratch? Really? Yikes. And this is what is driving the market right now, one man's opinion. Yikes again. Okay I will keep my mouth shut from hereon since I am still submitting coins to them. JA you da best man! We be friends you and I and I am only fooliin' ya by what I am saying above. (thumbs u

 

Best, HT

 

The half dollar is not a 45, it's an 50-53 with a scratch. PCGS put a conservative grade on the coin. The half dime, perhaps, should have been graded lower than 64+, considering the possible marks. PCGS possibly over-graded it.

[AcesKings]

It seems most here believe the OP coin got a CAC sticker because it was net graded down to a 45 from what should've been a 50 or possibly a little more. This leads me to ask, has anyone ever tried submitting a "detailed" graded coin to CAC, or do they just not accept them? It would seem to me if the reason this one got a sticker was because of the net grade, there should be a lot of "detailed" CAC'd coins since many of them are also net graded.

 

Case in point, below is my 1836 O-104a. At this point, it is still uncertified, but I have it as an AU-58 (other opinions welcome), however there's scratches on her reverse between the eagle and the banner that appear as though she lost a battle with a staple at some time in her past, so she'd grade out as an AU-details coin. Under the above premise she SHOULD be almost guaranteed a green sticker if not a gold one. The only difference being PCGS decided to net grade the OP coin instead of detail grading it. So, where's the line drawn between a details and net graded coin? I've seen less offences on detail graded coins than the OP one, yet this one passed the "test"? Why?

 

 

 

[Hard Times]

Mkman, that is why I gave up posting my coins that went to CAC, it is nothing to do with NGC vs. PCGS, but they have decided what types of toning they are going to bean, and many of the coins I have, which to me have tremendous eye appeal, did not bean. Be forewarned, we are going to probably hear from many informed numismatists that this coin below could not have toned under natural conditions and look like this. I can't say one way or the other given all of the variables in surroundings a coin is exposed to during a coins lifetime whether this is natural or not. PCGS considered it to be market acceptable, JA probably did not. But no major scratches

 

Best, HT

 

 

 

 

It sounds as if you're assuming CAC would not or did not sticker the coin, due to its toning. I would bet that they would not or did not have a problem with the toning.

 

And speaking of problems, unless you hear from CAC precisely why they declined to sticker a coin, you're merely guessing. And you might be way off base on our guess.

 

YOu are absolutely correct Mark. One dealer told me it was the toning, one said they had no idea, and of course, CAC does not list why on the invoice so I could be way off base, which is frustrating....

 

Best, HT

 

Considering this answer to Mr. Feld, is it possible that the same kind of logical thought could apply to the scratched coin, and it may just be that a Grade of 45 is not unreasonable for the coin?

 

Absolutely not, because I don't like scratches that are that bad, whether PCGS and CAC does or does not, it appears that they do sometimes accept bad scratches, and therefore I have to pay attention even more when a bean is on the coin since my tastes and theirs in this don't merge. I think they made a big mistake on this coin and I think alot of other astute collectors agree. In the long run, the more mistakes they make, the more their control on the market is going to diminish as collectors have less confidence in what the bean means. That is why I like the idea of PQ stickers, to get a different 4th party grading perspective.

 

I am sure CAC apologists will completely disagree with what I just said, no worries.

 

Best, HT

 

I understand. I am not referring to whether you personally like or dislike the coin. It is whether or not a Grade of 45 is unreasonable, and if so, why?

 

Your tastes and their tastes can certainly be different, I get it. But that does not mean a coin can't be a 45 with a scratch. You maintain a Grade of 45 is absolutely not logical and unreasonable. Other than your tastes, why not? That is the issue that I don't understand. The OP and you believe it is not a 45 because it has a scratch, and a sticker is somehow not reasonable with a scratch on the coin. Why?

 

What Grade would you give the coin? A 12, a 15, an 8? If it is worthy of some Grade would it be worthy of the sticker at that Grade?

 

I am not an apologist for CAC or PCGS or NGC or any other entity, if that is what may be on your mind, or may be the way you are interpreting my Posts.

I don't have any type of monetary or influential interest in these entities.

 

What is the big mistake made? What confidence is lost? What will be cured by a FPG PQ sticker? Think for a moment- you are advocating a 4th party premium quality review service. Why? If so many astute collectors agree and know it is not a 45, how would that change with a 4th or 5th or 6th party? If the coin you believe should have a sticker and it wasn't given one, but you know it should have one, then why do you care? You have graded it, and satisfied yourself. How is the going to change with a 4th, 5th, or 6th party?

 

What do you want to see on the Holder: Warning...this coin has a scratch?

 

In other words, why is the scratched coin not a 45, other than you and the OP and other astute collectors don't like it?

 

I don't really care what is on the holder, but my view of CAC giving a bean to a coin with such obvious detracting scratch that is at least 20% the length of the diameter of the coin, in a 45 grade just raised a red flag about the whole beannie deal. Especially when I have a half dime that is drop dead gorgeous, correct in market grade, but according to some, may be non-beaned for a small tick that is barely noticeable on the chin (see above)? C coin, really? JA hello - eye appeal - does it matter? Any reward there for eye appeal mate? Yet an XF45 half with such a scratch is bean worthy? Wear of an AU50 grade overcomes that scratch? Really? Yikes. And this is what is driving the market right now, one man's opinion. Yikes again. Okay I will keep my mouth shut from hereon since I am still submitting coins to them. JA you da best man! We be friends you and I and I am only fooliin' ya by what I am saying above. (thumbs u

 

Best, HT

 

The half dollar is not a 45, it's an 50-53 with a scratch. PCGS put a conservative grade on the coin. The half dime, perhaps, should have been graded lower than 64+, considering the possible marks. PCGS possibly over-graded it.

 

The half dollar has a horrible scratch in it and should be in a details holder based on the images AND my viewing it at FUN with Jason, as have discussed. Hence not sure how it can be a 50-53. Have you seen my 64+ half dime in hand so that you can be certain that PCGS possibly over-graded it? Well no you haven't. I have, and I have seen alot of 64 silver with more marks in hand that did get a CAC in 64. This is simply a stunning, eye appealing, ooh!, coin in hand and does not have marks or any other aspect that is lacking to lower the grade to less than 64. PCGS did get this right. So much for rewarding eye appeal as I noted earlier.

 

Like I said, I mostly agree with CAC, but here are two examples where I can say I don't, both based on in hand examination.

 

Best, HT

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

It seems most here believe the OP coin got a CAC sticker because it was net graded down to a 45 from what should've been a 50 or possibly a little more. This leads me to ask, has anyone ever tried submitting a "detailed" graded coin to CAC, or do they just not accept them? It would seem to me if the reason this one got a sticker was because of the net grade, there should be a lot of "detailed" CAC'd coins since many of them are also net graded.

 

Case in point, below is my 1836 O-104a. At this point, it is still uncertified, but I have it as an AU-58 (other opinions welcome), however there's scratches on her reverse between the eagle and the banner that appear as though she lost a battle with a staple at some time in her past, so she'd grade out as an AU-details coin. Under the above premise she SHOULD be almost guaranteed a green sticker if not a gold one. The only difference being PCGS decided to net grade the OP coin instead of detail grading it. So, where's the line drawn between a details and net graded coin? I've seen less offences on detail graded coins than the OP one, yet this one passed the "test"? Why?

 

 

 

Very good questions.

 

If the questions start from a premise that it is net graded due to the scratch, there is no follow on question. It is an opinion of Grade. Certainly there is a market grade approach to the Grade, but that does not mean that technical grading was thrown out the window.

 

A net Grade is not necessarily a details Grade, is it?

 

I would ask, again, why is it not a 45? A does not = B, i.e details does not = net.

 

I understand what you are stating, but it still assumes a coin with a scratch is grading murder.

 

Again, why?

 

Other than personal taste, what makes the coin not deserving of a 45?

Take market grading out of the equation, and review the coin as technical grading. What Grade would you award the coin, if any? Would you grade it damaged, with 50/45/35 details?

 

90 % of the obverse accounts for Grade. So, lets examine what PCGS states for a 53 Grade:

 

"MARKS: There usually will be several minor and major marks/hairlines. These will be scattered, or there can be small concentrated areas of them, including prime focal areas".

 

EF40:

 

"MARKS: There may be a few minor marks or perhaps one medium sized mark".

 

How would you equate the scratch on this coin, in light of the above descriptions?

 

It would seem that a 40 should be less marks than a 53. Or does it? Is it possible that wear is why the several marks are allowed in a 53 vs. a 40, in that by the time the wear reaches a level of 40, the marks should be less?

 

Remember, this series is one of the toughest, if not the toughest, to grade.

 

I don't grade from pictures, so I can't comment on your coin, except to state that my opinion is the staples scratches you describe and that I view in your picture do not mean it should grade details, AU or not.

 

Oh, and your coin is, to me, a very nice coin, and the staples skate marks don't bother me in the least.

[MarkFeld]

It seems most here believe the OP coin got a CAC sticker because it was net graded down to a 45 from what should've been a 50 or possibly a little more. This leads me to ask, has anyone ever tried submitting a "detailed" graded coin to CAC, or do they just not accept them? It would seem to me if the reason this one got a sticker was because of the net grade, there should be a lot of "detailed" CAC'd coins since many of them are also net graded.

 

Case in point, below is my 1836 O-104a. At this point, it is still uncertified, but I have it as an AU-58 (other opinions welcome), however there's scratches on her reverse between the eagle and the banner that appear as though she lost a battle with a staple at some time in her past, so she'd grade out as an AU-details coin. Under the above premise she SHOULD be almost guaranteed a green sticker if not a gold one. The only difference being PCGS decided to net grade the OP coin instead of detail grading it. So, where's the line drawn between a details and net graded coin? I've seen less offences on detail graded coins than the OP one, yet this one passed the "test"? Why?

 

 

 

I have said this before, but will repeat myself here...

 

Often, for graders, the decision whether to award a numerical grade to a coin (with a problem) can be as or more difficult than the decision regarding what grade to assign. That very well may have been the case with the XF45 Bust Half in this thread.

[Nutmeg Coin]

Here was an 1823 "ugly 3" Bust half that was definitely cleaned on the obverse that PCGS decided to net grade to an XF45:

 

 

[MarkFeld]

Here was an 1823 "ugly 3" Bust half that was definitely cleaned on the obverse that PCGS decided to net grade to an XF45:

 

 

I don't see any evidence of cleaning, though perhaps it was dipped long ago. Is that what you're speaking of?

 

If so, a very large number of graded classic coins have been "cleaned", and many, much more so than that one.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Here was an 1823 "ugly 3" Bust half that was definitely cleaned on the obverse that PCGS decided to net grade to an XF45:

 

 

How is it known that it was decided to net grade for this reason?

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Sorry, Mr. Feld. You beat me to the keyboard by about 40 seconds.

I don't want to interfere with your Post or point.

[Nutmeg Coin]

Here was an 1823 "ugly 3" Bust half that was definitely cleaned on the obverse that PCGS decided to net grade to an XF45:

 

 

How is it known that it was decided to net grade for this reason?

 

The coin was definitely cleaned, impossible to tell from this picture clearly. Under proper lighting you could see serious cleaning in the fields.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Here was an 1823 "ugly 3" Bust half that was definitely cleaned on the obverse that PCGS decided to net grade to an XF45:

 

 

How is it known that it was decided to net grade for this reason?

 

The coin was definitely cleaned, impossible to tell from this picture clearly. Under proper lighting you could see serious cleaning in the fields.

 

I understand, but that is not what I was curious about.

 

I was asking how it is known that the "cleaning" made PCGS decide to net grade? And, as I asked in another Post, what does that even mean?

[Nutmeg Coin]

My former 1823 "ugly" coin looks AU50 by my perception, or at least has AU aspects.

 

The grading service graders see every aspect of most coins, a few slip by. As was mentioned earlier they will net coins occasionally. In my experience details holders do absolutely nothing for most coins so in some cases the grading services try to accommodate the market, if they were overly critical much larger numbers of coins would be in purple holders and genuine ones.

 

Ask "Lance" the photographer over at the PCGS boards, he photographed the coin and probably has them in a database.

[coinman1794]

The coin probably should have been no-graded, actually. I'm simply trying to explain how it ended up where it is.

 

PCGS decided to lower its true grade a few points due to the scratch, and let it go with a numerical grade. CAC was faced with an AU+ coin in a 45 holder, with a medium sized scratch, and said ok, that's reasonable. I probably would not have done that....but that's what happened.

 

Your half dime is a tougher call, without seeing it. But if there is any friction under the toning on the cheek, or that bright line is a tick mark in "prime focal area," then that is probably why they didn't sticker it.

 

Certified Bust half dimes are notorious for showing friction on the cheek, right up into high MS grades.

 

[MarkFeld]

Hot off the press:

 

Coincidentally (really), I just viewed the 1811/10 half in person. I didn't even know it was in an upcoming auction until I happened to be viewing several boxes of coins today.

 

I grade it AU50. And, while I don't like the scratch, it is acceptable to me for a graded coin, especially one graded XF45. In-hand, at some angles, it is less conspicuous than in the image. To my eyes, at no angle, is it more conspicuous. It is also quite a bit less conspicuous without magnification.

 

I was somewhat pleasantly surprised, not to mention, shocked to see the coin!

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Hot off the press:

 

Coincidentally (really), I just viewed the 1811/10 half in person. I didn't even know it was in an upcoming auction until I happened to be viewing several boxes of coins today.

 

I grade it AU50. And, while I don't like the scratch, it is acceptable to me for a graded coin, especially one graded XF45. In-hand, at some angles, it is less conspicuous than in the image. To my eyes, at no angle, is it more conspicuous. It is also quite a bit less conspicuous without magnification.

 

I was somewhat pleasantly surprised, not to mention, shocked to see the coin!

 

With apology and without malice toward the OP or anyone else, I rest my commentary ( I am sure to the relief of all).

[AcesKings]

A net Grade is not necessarily a details Grade, is it?

 

Agreed

 

I would ask, again, why is it not a 45? A does not = B, i.e details does not = net.

 

I never stated it wasn't a 45, I'm questioning whether it should've graded problem free. IMHO, it does have details of a 45, but I'm not sure if I'd grade it any higher than that, even without the scratch. Since the majority here seem to believe it should grade higher I'll concede to the majority on it, which then implies it was then net graded to the 45. For all we know, the PCGS graders may have felt it only warranted a 45 as is without a net deduction, then CAC's people felt it should've graded higher, both simply ignoring the scratch. I however have a hard time ignoring it, and can't understand how this coin could bean as average or better for the grade, net graded or not.

 

I understand what you are stating, but it still assumes a coin with a scratch is grading murder. Again, why?

 

I wouldn't say murder, after all it still winds up with a grade of some sort, details or otherwise. Why? I'd guess I'd attribute it to the TPGs. In the past if you sent a coin like this in you'd risk getting it back in a no grade body bag. Hence, heavier scratches as the one that seems to be on this coin became somewhat taboo to the point of affecting its market value. Lower market value = a net grade. This is all conjecture on my part though, as I was in the hobby for only a few years when PCGS and NGC started up. I don't know how ANACS handled similar coins prior to that so I may be way off on this. But it does seem to be the trend.

 

What Grade would you award the coin, if any? Would you grade it damaged, with 50/45/35 details?

 

Personally, I'd grade it as a 45, but as a details coin, net 40 as per the major TPGs. But that's just my opinion.

 

90 % of the obverse accounts for Grade. So, lets examine what PCGS states for a 53 Grade:

 

"MARKS: There usually will be several minor and major marks/hairlines. These will be scattered, or there can be small concentrated areas of them, including prime focal areas".

 

EF40:

 

"MARKS: There may be a few minor marks or perhaps one medium sized mark".

 

I think this is part of the problem throughout this thread. These descriptions are vague and open to interpretation (as is grading itself to an extent), allowing for many different opinions on the same coin. I realize you have to do this to allow for the many differing things that can happen to any coin throughout its life, and not every coin will fit into each cookie cutter description. To me, the biggest problem with the coin is the length and apparent depth of the scratch. I don't think I'd be as bothered if it were more of a glancing scrape.

 

 

 

Oh, and your coin is, to me, a very nice coin, and the staples skate marks don't bother me in the least.

 

Thank you! I like her too, warts and all.

 

Often, for graders, the decision whether to award a numerical grade to a coin (with a problem) can be as or more difficult than the decision regarding what grade to assign. That very well may have been the case with the XF45 Bust Half in this thread.

 

I didn't mean to offend Mark, I was just asking what guidelines a grader uses (or did you use) to determine what makes a net grade coin and what makes a details grade coin. I realize this can be just as varied as the number of coins you saw each day. But, if you had to narrow it down to one aspect (in this case on a scratched coin) what would you say was the most defining characteristic you'd use? Location of the scratch, length, depth, overall look of the coin with the scratch or some other means?

[MarkFeld]

A net Grade is not necessarily a details Grade, is it?

 

Agreed

 

I would ask, again, why is it not a 45? A does not = B, i.e details does not = net.

 

I never stated it wasn't a 45, I'm questioning whether it should've graded problem free. IMHO, it does have details of a 45, but I'm not sure if I'd grade it any higher than that, even without the scratch. Since the majority here seem to believe it should grade higher I'll concede to the majority on it, which then implies it was then net graded to the 45. For all we know, the PCGS graders may have felt it only warranted a 45 as is without a net deduction, then CAC's people felt it should've graded higher, both simply ignoring the scratch. I however have a hard time ignoring it, and can't understand how this coin could bean as average or better for the grade, net graded or not.

 

I understand what you are stating, but it still assumes a coin with a scratch is grading murder. Again, why?

 

I wouldn't say murder, after all it still winds up with a grade of some sort, details or otherwise. Why? I'd guess I'd attribute it to the TPGs. In the past if you sent a coin like this in you'd risk getting it back in a no grade body bag. Hence, heavier scratches as the one that seems to be on this coin became somewhat taboo to the point of affecting its market value. Lower market value = a net grade. This is all conjecture on my part though, as I was in the hobby for only a few years when PCGS and NGC started up. I don't know how ANACS handled similar coins prior to that so I may be way off on this. But it does seem to be the trend.

 

What Grade would you award the coin, if any? Would you grade it damaged, with 50/45/35 details?

 

Personally, I'd grade it as a 45, but as a details coin, net 40 as per the major TPGs. But that's just my opinion.

 

90 % of the obverse accounts for Grade. So, lets examine what PCGS states for a 53 Grade:

 

"MARKS: There usually will be several minor and major marks/hairlines. These will be scattered, or there can be small concentrated areas of them, including prime focal areas".

 

EF40:

 

"MARKS: There may be a few minor marks or perhaps one medium sized mark".

 

I think this is part of the problem throughout this thread. These descriptions are vague and open to interpretation (as is grading itself to an extent), allowing for many different opinions on the same coin. I realize you have to do this to allow for the many differing things that can happen to any coin throughout its life, and not every coin will fit into each cookie cutter description. To me, the biggest problem with the coin is the length and apparent depth of the scratch. I don't think I'd be as bothered if it were more of a glancing scrape.

 

 

 

Oh, and your coin is, to me, a very nice coin, and the staples skate marks don't bother me in the least.

 

Thank you! I like her too, warts and all.

 

Often, for graders, the decision whether to award a numerical grade to a coin (with a problem) can be as or more difficult than the decision regarding what grade to assign. That very well may have been the case with the XF45 Bust Half in this thread.

 

I didn't mean to offend Mark, I was just asking what guidelines a grader uses (or did you use) to determine what makes a net grade coin and what makes a details grade coin. I realize this can be just as varied as the number of coins you saw each day. But, if you had to narrow it down to one aspect (in this case on a scratched coin) what would you say was the most defining characteristic you'd use? Location of the scratch, length, depth, overall look of the coin with the scratch or some other means?

 

I assure you, I took no offense, whatsoever. Thank you for your concern.

 

In answer to your question, I look at each coin individually, in order to make my determination. I factor in the location, nature, severity and conspicuousness of the problem, the other/positive attributes of the coin, and, as you put it, the overall look of the coin.

 

If I am contemplating awarding a numerical (non-details) grade, I consider the problem and try to ensure that in accounting for it, I can arrive at a grade that makes sense. For example, if I would have to downgrade an AU coin with a bad problem to a non-details VF, I wouldn't do that. Because the coin would look (and this is my unofficial, but long-standing threshold in making such decisions) "silly".

[FishyOne]

Hot off the press:

 

Coincidentally (really), I just viewed the 1811/10 half in person. I didn't even know it was in an upcoming auction until I happened to be viewing several boxes of coins today.

 

I grade it AU50. And, while I don't like the scratch, it is acceptable to me for a graded coin, especially one graded XF45. In-hand, at some angles, it is less conspicuous than in the image. To my eyes, at no angle, is it more conspicuous. It is also quite a bit less conspicuous without magnification.

 

I was somewhat pleasantly surprised, not to mention, shocked to see the coin!

 

With apology and without malice toward the OP or anyone else, I rest my commentary ( I am sure to the relief of all).

 

Thanks John!

[$ilverHawk]

Here is an example coin to add to the discussion. The scratch is across the face rather than the left field. Seemed to make a difference in grade..

 

 

What do you think about the grade PCGS gave this coin re the OP s coin? I am of the opinion that the scratch on this coin is less conspicuous than the scratch in the field of the OP s coin. Then again, I have not evaluated either coin in hand. Judging by pics, this coin is more acceptable than the OP s coin.

 

Full disclaimer--I would not purchase either of these coins.

 

Carl

[physics-fan3.14]

I'm glad you got to view the OP coin in hand, Mark, and I'm glad you posted your opinions of it.

 

I guess this is just a case where we will have to agree to disagree. I consider it damaged to the point of not being market acceptable (in this case - I was the potential market and I would not accept it). But, obviously plenty of other knowledgeable people disagree.

[AcesKings]

I assure you, I took no offense, whatsoever. Thank you for your concern.

 

In answer to your question, I look at each coin individually, in order to make my determination. I factor in the location, nature, severity and conspicuousness of the problem, the other/positive attributes of the coin, and, as you put it, the overall look of the coin.

 

If I am contemplating awarding a numerical (non-details) grade, I consider the problem and try to ensure that in accounting for it, I can arrive at a grade that makes sense. For example, if I would have to downgrade an AU coin with a bad problem to a non-details VF, I wouldn't do that. Because the coin would look (and this is my unofficial, but long-standing threshold in making such decisions) "silly".

 

Thank you for the reply, I think this part best explains what I was looking for......

 

"If I would have to downgrade an AU coin with a bad problem to a non-details VF, I wouldn't do that. Because the coin would look (and this is my unofficial, but long-standing threshold in making such decisions) "silly".

 

 

[MarkFeld]

I'm glad you got to view the OP coin in hand, Mark, and I'm glad you posted your opinions of it.

 

I guess this is just a case where we will have to agree to disagree. I consider it damaged to the point of not being market acceptable (in this case - I was the potential market and I would not accept it). But, obviously plenty of other knowledgeable people disagree.

 

Thanks Jason and I expect that we will have other disagreements in the future. . But it respect your opinion and that of others.