Picking up on RWB's comments about MS-63 Graded gold.

[BillJones]

[A personal comment - most of the "MS63" gold I have seen is AU at best. Many of the double eagles might not have circulated in commerce, but they circulated between banks and counting clerks, and have obvious wear -- yet, they still are put in holders claiming the coins are uncirculated. Wear is wear. Rub is rub. Dub is dub. Uncirculated is uncirculated.

 

[i realize there are some, including all/most of the professional graders, seem to disagree, yet the abrasion is obvious on most of these pieces.

 

[There seems to be so much money-presure in coins that only a continued degradation will sustain markets.]

 

This is a difficult topic, especially since my photographic skills are not perfect. Still I'd like to open up a discussion with this first coin. If there is interest I will post others and give more opinions.

 

NGC graded this 1857 half eagle MS-63+. Obviously I liked it because I bought it in a Heritage auction. Here are my photos followed by the Heritage photos, which actually look more like the coin does "in hand."

 

 

Heritage photos

 

 

To begin. There is no rub on the design devices. They have full Mint State sharpness. The issue for RWB and perhaps some others is the appearance of a rub in the fields. For those PCGS fans out there, I can tell you that the coins graded MS-63 and 63+ in PCGS holders are the same as this piece. They are no better, just a bit more expensive.

 

The cartwheel luster on this piece is not broken. It goes all the way around the coin on both sides when you swirl it in the light. Both sides have bright luster. This is not a "satin finish" coin. If this were a "satin finish" coin, the "rub" would be far less obvious.

 

So what say you? Is this a Mint State coin? If not is a piece with no "rub" but bags marks instead better? I can tell you that I have some AU-58 graded gold coins with "rub" similar to this, but when you swirl them under the light, the luster is dull and no longer there. These AU's are not "C coins" they are "B+" coins and one of them has a CAC sticker for those who totally believe in them.

 

So let the comments begin. If there is interest, I'll post more. If not, well this will go to the bottom of the pile.

 

 

 

[Nutmeg Coin]

Strike, luster, surface preservation level, eye appeal, marks types of impairment all go into reasonable valuation levels. Usually hairlines are treated severely on the grading scale, depending on how bad they are. Personally I don't buy the crazy valuations as you get into the gem levels and above. There are always trade-offs. Do you want to pay highly competitive money as you move up the grading scale or a nice decent price for a nice decent coin? If you look at some of the rarities auctions in recent history, the collectors did not realize the profits they were expecting. On no motto $5 Libs. and $10 Libs. certainly they are hard to find at this grade level and above.

[physics-fan3.14]

Without seeing a coin like this in hand, it is very difficult to make that judgement. The real tell is the way that the light interacts with the fields. In my experience, when there is actual rub in the fields, it is fairly obvious - the friction will abrade the luster, and the oils from fingers will tone the coin differently. However, if there are only marks, scrapes, and dings from abrasions in a bag, there should still be an underlying amount of luster (and the coin will be technically Uncirculated).

 

This becomes slightly more difficult lower in the 60, 61, and 62 grades (and I would be far more concerned about misdiagnosing an AU as a 61 than a 63+). When you get to the 63 grade, there should be a sizeable amount of undisturbed area in the fields - there needs to be a sufficient cleannes of the fields, and the luster needs to be strong enough to support an actual 63 grade. For a technical 63, and actual wear in the fields should be obvious.

[DaveG]

I haven't read Roger's comments (I must have overlooked the thread), but I think it's very difficult to compare half eagles (especially no motto coins) to double eagles.

 

The double eagles would most likely have spent a lot more time in bank vaults than would no motto half eagles, as a result of which the double eagles would have been much more likely to pick up abrasions and bag marks (sort of like Morgan dollars).

 

I would think that a "typical" MS-63 double eagle (depending on the year of its mintage) would be much more likely to be "baggy" and show signs of rub on the high points than a "typical" MS-63 no motto half eagle.

[RWB]

The coins illustrated are quite nice and seem to be accurately graded. I don;t see any disagreement. The problem as I see it is more toward large gold, especially double eagles (as mentioned in the quote). These seem to be consistently overgraded when compared to other coins of similar size, and when compared to descriptive standards. (There are exceptions - and these are available for the same price as the dogs.)

 

PS: Wow! My initials in a thread title!

[RWB]

To clarify some of precious comments:

 

Despite claims otherwise, double eagles and eagles were subject to similar damage during manufacture. If one calculates the forces impacting coins from the moment of striking until they come to rest in a receiving box, and allow for the hardness of the alloy, there is little difference between a DE and a Morgan dollar. (I have the calculation someplace.....)

 

In sacking and shipment, DEs were handled much more carefully than dollars, and came from Mint bags in excellent condition. Many of the high-end DE we see came from bags that simply sat in vaults or were purchased over the counter at a mint or the Treasury in Washington. The place where DEs got circulated was in interbank transfers in Europe. Custom was to open the bags and count the coins. Clerks handled and stacked every coin. This happened repeatedly and created wear and abrasions that were similar to, but not identical with, commercial circulation.

 

Lots of repatriated US DE and E have this bank circulation wear - and thus are not uncirculated.

[DaveG]

Clerks handled and stacked every coin.

 

 

Is it just me or does this sound very much like what would have happened during "commercial circulation?"

[physics-fan3.14]

Lots of repatriated US DE and E have this bank circulation wear - and thus are not uncirculated.

 

I agree: wear is wear - if a coin exhibits wear, then it is circulated. It doesn't matter where that wear came from, whether that be a bank teller, a shop counter, some lady's purse, or friction from a cabinet.

[Afterword]

Perhaps the terms circulated and uncirculated, if it does not matter where the wear comes from, are misleading and confuse the matter and should be changed to wear and no wear. It is questionable to say cabinet friction is circulation, but reasonable to say it is wear.

 

Or does the grading process for TPGs involve distinctions between types of wear that rely on the terms circulated and uncirculated? It is noted in a post above that the wear displayed by bank circulation differs from that of commercial circulation. Are cabinet wear and counter wear also distinguishable from commercial circulation?

 

 

 

 

 

[RWB]

The standard definition of "uncirculated" is "without wear."

 

There is no distinction made about the presumed source of wear. European (or American) bankers didn't care - it was all about count and weight.

[Afterword]

The standard definition of "uncirculated" is "without wear."

 

There is no distinction made about the presumed source of wear. European (or American) bankers didn't care - it was all about count and weight.

 

 

 

 

 

So why do the TPGs grade the coins in question as MS, when they should be AU? Especially, if the wear is as obvious has what you say.

[coinman_23885]

This is why I sold most of my gold, especially the less rare pieces. The lower grade "uncirculated" coins usually have rub as RWB and you note, and the higher grade pieces - even through MS65 - are often baggy and unattractive. To me, for most of the common dates, I would need a solid to high end MS66, MS67, or better for me to find it eye appealing and it is too much money for me now to spend on common coins without anything special going for them.

[RWB]

You would have to ask the businesses that authenticate and grade coins. But listen very carefully to any replies.

[CaptHenway]

Where was RWB's comment originally made? I must have missed it.

[BillJones]

This is why I sold most of my gold, especially the less rare pieces. The lower grade "uncirculated" coins usually have rub as RWB and you note, and the higher grade pieces - even through MS65 - are often baggy and unattractive. To me, for most of the common dates, I would need a solid to high end MS66, MS67, or better for me to find it eye appealing and it is too much money for me now to spend on common coins without anything special going for them.

 

You must be very exacting, or you have not been able to find to the right sources for attractive gold coins. I've never been in the position where I sold my coins because they were not esthetically pleasing to me, but then again I can be quite satisfied with smooth original coin in EF-45 or AU. I've been in your position for modern (1936 an up) Proof coins, but not for old gold.

 

Check out my gold type set and let me know whether or not my coins are mostly pleasing to you.

 

[BillJones]

The coins illustrated are quite nice and seem to be accurately graded. I don;t see any disagreement. The problem as I see it is more toward large gold, especially double eagles (as mentioned in the quote). These seem to be consistently overgraded when compared to other coins of similar size, and when compared to descriptive standards. (There are exceptions - and these are available for the same price as the dogs.)

 

PS: Wow! My initials in a thread title!

 

Okay, let's look at a couple double eagles.

 

This 1873 double eagle is a Type II, which is tough as nails to find in true Mint State. You can find these coins in AU fairly easily, but MS-63 is hard, MS-64 is very hard and anything better than that is virtually impossible. This one is graded MS-63.

 

 

I bought this in a Heritage auction and paid quite bit under the Gray Sheet "bid" price for it. There was a CAC approved coin in the same auction, which also went for less than "bid," but I like this one better.

 

This 1876-S double eagle was graded AU-58 by our hosts. It was my #1 Type II double eagle type coin before I bought the MS-63. I still have it because I think that nice looking gold is a good "investment."

 

 

[Conder101]

So why do the TPGs grade the coins in question as MS, when they should be AU?

Because the market wants MS coins and will pay MS money for coins with very slight wear. So the TPG's market grade coins with "rub" as MS.

[Afterword]

So why do the TPGs grade the coins in question as MS, when they should be AU?

Because the market wants MS coins and will pay MS money for coins with very slight wear. So the TPG's market grade coins with "rub" as MS.

 

 

 

 

 

And, for some reason or reasons undisclosed, they do not simply adjust the standards of grading (officially) to explain this behavior? That they would make no attempt to justify these actions, I find puzzling.

 

In effect, however, they are distinguishing between types of wear. Much as they distinguish between types of cleaning in regards to older coins.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Afterword]

"Because the market wants MS coins and will pay MS money for coins with very slight wear."

 

 

 

 

 

 

How do the TPGs profit from this significantly enough to justify deliberate inaccuracies in coin grading?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[BillJones]

"Because the market wants MS coins and will pay MS money for coins with very slight wear."

 

 

 

 

 

 

How do the TPGs profit from this significantly enough to justify deliberate inaccuracies in coin grading?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Crack-outs depend upon upgrades. I have known of instances where the same coin was submitted five or six times to get an AU turned into a Mint State piece. One coin that comes to mind, because it is of great interest to me, is the 1854-D Three Dollar Gold Piece which goes up considerably if the grade becomes MS. Today the population reports for this coin are distorted in the AU grades (too high) because the same pieces have been submitted multiple times.

 

This is very delicate area for the grading services. One reasons why grading services become second tier or even "third world" certification services is that they are "too easy" when it comes to grading.

 

 

 

 

[Walkerfan]

Coins that have rub are usually rather apparent to me, whether they come from general circulation or from a bank cashier's drawer.

 

My biggest concern is---how do graders possibly differentiate between mint scratches and marks versus post-mint scratches and marks---i.e. staple scratches, etc.

 

I don't think that they can---even if they occur years later.

 

Thoughts?

[Afterword]

"Because the market wants MS coins and will pay MS money for coins with very slight wear."

 

 

 

 

 

 

How do the TPGs profit from this significantly enough to justify deliberate inaccuracies in coin grading?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Crack-outs depend upon upgrades. I have known of instances where the same coin was submitted five or six times to get an AU turned into a Mint State piece. One coin that comes to mind, because it is of great interest to me, is the 1854-D Three Dollar Gold Piece which goes up considerably if the grade becomes MS. Today the population reports for this coin are distorted in the AU grades (too high) because the same pieces have been submitted multiple times.

 

This is very delicate area for the grading services. One reasons why grading services become second tier or even "third world" certification services is that they are "too easy" when it comes to grading.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You make the TPGs sound desperate.

[RWB]

Individual exceptions abound. I am concerned about general trends among large numbers of coins.

 

(PS: Of the two DE pictured, I'd not go more than MS62 on the first and AU is reasonable on the second. But if one goes through many DE that look like the AU, they will be found in plastic labeled "MS-XX" of some sort.)

[BillJones]

You make the TPGs sound desperate.

 

In the area of U.S. classic coins, the TPGs are in what a marketing expert would call "the mature market phase." Many of the gradable coins have been certified which leaves the "no grade" pieces which can now get into "no grade" holders. The market for grading "fresh" raw classic coins is declining and has been for a while. And yes, changing standards encourage resubmissions for grading and crack-outs.

 

This is why the TPGs are putting so much effort into placing special labels on new modern issues, and concepts like "first strike." They are also getting into more foreign coins as well as tokens and medals.

 

[BillJones]

Individual exceptions abound. I am concerned about general trends among large numbers of coins.

 

 

You will have to talk to some really active gold dealers on that one. My interest in double eagles took a big drop after I finished all of the types.

 

I can tell you that the situation with them was worse before third party grading. Back in the mid '80s dealers were calling just about anything "Uncirculated." After completing the classic 12 piece gold type set, I tried to go back and buy the earlier double eagle types. Pieces that looked they had been attacked with an ice pick were called "BU." I eventually came up with the theory that if a double eagle had a rub in the field, all you needed to do was to punch it with an ice pick to hide that fact and call it "Unc."

 

Perhaps you will like this MS-63 double eagle better, RWB. I own it because of the date and its connection to the 1896 presidential campaign which featured William Jennings Bryan's free silver campaign. The double eagles are big, heavy and soft and much more prone to marks than the Morgan Dollar.

 

[BillJones]

My biggest concern is---how do graders possibly differentiate between mint scratches and marks versus post-mint scratches and marks---i.e. staple scratches, etc.

 

 

When it comes to most scratches it is irrelevant whether they got there in the mint after the coins were struck, or outside the mint after they were issued. Scratches are scratches no matter where they occurred, and they lower the grade. The fact that a scratch happened at the mint as opposed to the same scratch outside mint does not make a difference in the grade.

 

Other stuff like staple scratches and especially graffiti are another matter. Staple scratches are often in straight lines, and since they usually occurred after the coin was taken in as a collectors' item, they are often bright and fresh looking. Of course they can age over time, and yes, coin doctors have ways to darken them, sometimes effectively. Graffiti usually has some logic or order to it, and since it is intentional, is of greater concern to collectors.

 

[Afterword]

"This is why the TPGs are putting so much effort into placing special labels on new modern issues, and concepts like "first strike." They are also getting into more foreign coins as well as tokens and medals."

 

 

 

 

 

These actions make good business sense. Officially changing the grading standards makes good business sense. Deliberately grading coins inaccurately does not.

 

So perhaps the inaccurate grading in this case is a result of multiple crack-outs and eventual grader error and not deliberate on the part of the TPGs.

 

 

[coinman_23885]

 

You must be very exacting, or you have not been able to find to the right sources for attractive gold coins. I've never been in the position where I sold my coins because they were not esthetically pleasing to me, but then again I can be quite satisfied with smooth original coin in EF-45 or AU. I've been in your position for modern (1936 an up) Proof coins, but not for old gold.

 

Check out my gold type set and let me know whether or not my coins are mostly pleasing to you.

 

I must not be looking in the correct places as I do find your coins to be pleasing. For about a year, I started collecting Liberty Head quarter eagles with a long term goal of completing a date/mint mark set with the keys in XF/AU or better and the more common pieces in mint state. I also toyed with the idea of doing a set of St. Gaudens double eagles (but excluding the ultra rarities). Most of the mint state pieces were overgraded and/or extremely baggy until the very high grades (and more than I wanted to spend on very common coins). The exceptions I saw usually had CAC stickers at an exorbitant premium. Your 1927 Saint looks very nice for MS65 and far better than the stuff I was seeing.

 

Do you have any recommendations on gold dealers? For the rarer stuff, I do know Doug Winter is great, but for the more common issues, I would like to know if there are reliable sources.

[BillJones]

Do you have any recommendations on gold dealers? For the rarer stuff, I do know Doug Winter is great, but for the more common issues, I would like to know if there are reliable sources.

 

 

I could give you some dealer names, but that is not to say that the coins they might be offering will please you. The trouble is when you are a dealer is that not every coin you handle is going to pleasing. You have to make the deals that stand a chance of making money for you.

 

Some dealers try to get nice coins as often as they can. Other dealers mostly offer off quality material, sometimes at appropriate prices and other times at prices that are way too high. The bottom line for the collector is that you have to go to shows or auctions and sort out the material yourself.

 

An alternative is to work with a specialist dealer who will filter the good material to you, but his prices will probably be a bit higher. BUT you should look at it this way. Going to shows and viewing auction lots yourself is expensive. If you have the relationship with a specialist dealer or two who will do that for you, you can save on that expense.

 

As a general comment, the Liberty Head quarter eagle series is deceptively tough. If you look at the mintages, all of them have some scarcity, even the "common dates." Two things work in your favor. First, beyond type collecting, they are not very popular, in part because they are the size of dimes. Most collectors seem to like bigger coins. Very few collectors aspire to put together a date and mint set of them because there are so many coins, and the rarities are expensive and are "stoppers" for many collectors. Second the Liberty quarter eagles did not get that much use so higher grade coins are available, although includes the nice AU coins. Still once you start to get into the dates in the 1800s, the number of pieces offered at any one time is small. It takes years of searching.

 

The common date St. Gaudens double eagles are fairly easy, but you have to be selective. As our favorite controversial coin dealer, Laura from Legend, has observed, the grading for these coins is all over the place. You have to look at a lot of coins to find the ones you like, and the best way to do that is to go to a lot of shows.

 

[coinman_23885]

Thank you for everything. It is much appreciated.