All this talk about 58 vs 62. I dont get the interchangeablity. Please help

[chinook]

I always thought that an AU-58 coin was one that possessed strong luster and no distracting marks, but had a slight bit of wear.

 

Likewise an MS-62 was a coin that had impaired luster or noticable marks in prime focal areas, with no wear.

 

I dont understand how a coin could receive both grades as both definitions appear to be mutually exclusive. Even aside from the most obvious criteria of wear, if a coin has noticable marks it would be graded at the lower end of the given grade. For example if a true AU coin had noticable marks or inpaired luster wouldnt it grade as 53 or 55? And if a true UNC coin had no distracting marks and strong luster wouldnt it grade 64+? It just seems to me that AU-53 or 55 is more interchangeable with MS-61 or 62. And AU-58 moreso with MS-64. I think if technical grading were to carry a heavier weight then we would not have these sort of discussions.

 

I know this pertains more with market grading than technical grading, but I am trying to find out at which point market grading has a greater influence than technical grading. Does it have to do with the absolute rarity of a coin, or with the condition rarity? Or is it really all just about the Benjamins?

[DaveG]

Although I'm no expert, I understand that that it's not about marks or luster, but the "slight bit of wear", as in "is that wear from circulation or just a bit of cabinet friction."

[Tradedollarnut]

A long time ago, I bought a first generation holder AU58 1938-D walking liberty half. The high points were discolored, but the field luster was full and flowing. I couldn't see any friction, but I assume it was there.

 

A decade later, it regraded MS64. Certainly that's the correct grade to my line of thinking. The microscopes are gone from the grading room - coins are now graded at a distance of a few feet. Hard to see the touch of friction from that distance.

 

Grading 'standards' may not have changed, but the procedures certainly have!

[James_OldeTowne]

An AU-58 coin does have wear, and an MS-60, or 61, or 62 does not have wear. The grades are NOT interchangeable.

 

Now, whether the value of particular issue in either grade is interchangeable or not is a wholly separate, but related issue. I say related, since obviously, one determines the value of a coin based mostly on its grade, but I have yet to see even a single published grading standard that states or implies that "has wear" and "does not have wear" are interchangeable terms.

 

Furthermore, I checked around, and was not able to find a single price guide with an "AU-58" column whose values are ever higher than those in the "MS-62", or even the "MS-60" column.

 

(((Grading 'standards' may not have changed, but the procedures certainly have!)))

 

I would want my grading company to announce this then. If I had been the owner of the "AU-58" that you then got into an "MS-64" holder due to changing grading procedures by the same company, I would be mad as heck not to have been informed by that grading company that some of my coins are no longer correctly graded!

 

James

[DaveG]

tradedollarnut:

 

My understanding is that the discoloration of the high points is the first sign of "wear", or at least that's the first set of graders thought.

 

(Although it sounds like the second set of graders thought it was a sign of "cabinet friction" and not actual "wear.")

[DonHeath]

Chinook,

 

This may sound dumb, heck it may even BE dumb, but to me, the AU grade range is still primarily about remaining luster. How "about uncirculated" is it? I don't think so much of marks limiting grade in AU as luster. To me, a coin with very few marks and 25% luster remaining is low AU, and a coin with a few marks and 90% remaining luster is high AU. In that sense, a coin with 99% luster and a few marks might be called either high AU or low MS.Ignoring extreme examples that might be used to refute my point, marks are primarily useful in grading uncs, and it is quite possible to have an au-50 coin with NO marks. I don't care much for baggy coins in any grade below MS60 or above MS63. JMO

 

In that sense, a coin might be called AU-58 because it has exceptional luster for a circ, or MS-62 because it has subdued luster, but not quite subdued enough to call it circ.

[Tradedollarnut]

Well stated!

[chinook]

Don,

 

I hear what your are saying. I guess my confusion is that I have always factored marks into my grading. In the way I grade, a coin with booming luster, just a trace of wear, and lots of chatter would never get a 58 from me. It would just be too ugly.

Maybe I am just old school

[bigd5]

Ok, now we're getting down and dirty!

 

Tradedollarnut makes an excellent point about the arm's length grading of our era. This is a huge point to remember and is quite accurate.

 

I think you see different interchangeable aspects of au/58-ms/63 depending on different series. SLQ's and most gold series come to mind where you can very frequently experience an au/ms toss up with a number of coins.

 

My feeling is the whole thing comes down to the mint luster. On one of these toss up au/ms coins If it seems full, the coin is going to get MARKET graded at a mint state number. If the luster seems broken, that au grade is probably going to come in.

 

This situation can become excessively argumentive and technical grading diehards will stomp their feet and rant and rave (ok, maybe not quite so dramatic), how that's not the way things should be, but it does seem to be the way things are being done right now. Right or wrong is fodder for another thread.

[Tradedollarnut]

This situation can become excessively argumentive and technical grading diehards will stomp their feet and rant and rave (ok, maybe not quite so dramatic), how that's not the way things should be, but it does seem to be the way things are being done right now. Right or wrong is fodder for another thread.

 

Yup .... see the other thread!

[DonHeath]

There are lots of MS62 dippers with zero luster that the services just couldn't find wear on. I like the AU62 coins better.

[jom]

I just think it comes down to "what's it worth" to the individual. Is an AU58 (technical) really worth LESS than a dullard MS62 piece? I don't think so but others will....to each their own I guess.

 

jom

[Oldtrader3]

IMHO, (aside from the Heritage dime) I think that grading gold, particularly Indian gold is tricky and is a major issue. Most of these circular AU58 vs. MS62 discussions seem centered on Indian gold. Personally, I feel that many people have trouble grading Indian gold, particularly the inclused designs. I am lately seeing many indians in TPG holders that I disagree with the grading of. Many of these "MS62" coins are (for me) are just flat overgraded.

[James_OldeTowne]

I don't really disagree with much that has been stated in this thread, in the context of coin collectors overall. However, there's a huge difference when a coin is certified to grade one way or another. The whole point of certification is to provide a reliable, unchanging and consistent set of grading parameters for those of us not experienced enough to discern between "discoloration" and "wear". That is the point at which the two grades are mutually exclusive.

 

The "market grading" excuse simply does not work as long as grading services, including NGC, continue to actually use both grades. The very fact that a service has both grades at it's disposal implies that the both grades must be different.

 

And the market agrees. As I have tried to carefully point out, there is not a single pricing reference that I can find which indicates value columns in AU-58 and MS-62 as being equal. So trying to use the "market grading" excuse to allow the $37,000 grading discrepancy discussed in the other thread flies in the face of ALL the reference materials available to coin buyers and auction bidders.

 

Most dangerous of all, continuing to excuse these kinds of grading discrepancies is unfair to those of us who participate in the coin market, because it makes it impossible for us to make sound and logical decisions when bidding on any coin within the AU-58 through MS-62 grade range. It is also unfair to grading companies in the long run, because accepting shoddy grading practices leads to loosening standards, which defies the whole need for grading services.

 

Why would we want a grading company to add more confusion to an already difficult part of the grading scale??

 

It is much more productive to simply admit that one of the two grades (AU-58 and MS-62) assigned by PCGS to the 1798 dime was wrong. That way, at least we would have something to learn from. And if PCGS came forward proactively to admit that grading standards have changed, think of the amount of heartache and headache they would save their customers!

 

Pretending that a problem does not exist is self-defeating, and does nobody any good. I can't imagine why anyone would want to excuse a $37,000 grading discrepancy, when that in fact is what PROFESSIONAL grading purports to rectify.

 

James

[Tradedollarnut]

And if PCGS came forward proactively to admit that grading standards have changed, think of the amount of heartache and headache they would save their customers!

 

Both services have admitted that they graded too tight in the early years.... something along the lines of "we've seen more coins now and can grade to the full range". And certainly the method of grading has changed - less loupe and more arms length assessment of the coin as a whole.

[etexmike]

A very interesting thread as well as informative.

 

Several different views but all valid points.

 

That was a revelation to me about the change in grading practices.

 

That is one of the reasons to hang around these threads. The information that is here for the taking.

 

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

 

etexmike

[jom]

IMHO, (aside from the Heritage dime) I think that grading gold, particularly Indian gold is tricky and is a major issue. Most of these circular AU58 vs. MS62 discussions seem centered on Indian gold. Personally, I feel that many people have trouble grading Indian gold, particularly the inclused designs. I am lately seeing many indians in TPG holders that I disagree with the grading of. Many of these "MS62" coins are (for me) are just flat overgraded.

 

Well, with the incuse (especially the $5) there is the problem with just plain UGLY coins being slabbed. It's not the fault of the services they get dipped out junk from submitters. There is a glut of these on the market that NGC has graded and it makes it look as if many coins are "overgraded" when in fact they are just ugly AU and MS pieces.

 

jom

[James_OldeTowne]

(((And if PCGS came forward proactively to admit that grading standards have changed, think of the amount of heartache and headache they would save their customers!

 

Both services have admitted that they graded too tight in the early years.... something along the lines of "we've seen more coins now and can grade to the full range". And certainly the method of grading has changed - less loupe and more arms length assessment of the coin as a whole.)))

 

tradedollarnut, could you please link this information? I think it would be invaluable to publicize this fact!

 

James

[jom]

Sooo...they are "arms length" grading now, eh? Is this the reason wiped hairlined coins are now all of a sudden becoming Gems? Just like the "good" old days....

 

jom

[Wihlborg]

 

John

[EZ_E]

I just think it comes down to "what's it worth" to the individual. Is an AU58 (technical) really worth LESS than a dullard MS62 piece? I don't think so but others will....to each their own I guess.

 

jom

 

Why is no one touching this issue? TPGS's are as much as a pricing service than anything. This means that in the current market, a sweet AU 58 coin is worth more to the collector than a dull MS 60/61.

 

Any further comments along these lines?

[jom]

This means that in the current market, a sweet AU 58 coin is worth more to the collector than a dull MS 60/61.

 

Without question it is TO ME. Especially in the series I collect. What others think...I dunno.

 

jom

[James_OldeTowne]

The thing is that there are many collectors who, given the choice between AU-58 and MS-60, they would still choose the MS-60! And that is because many issues are available with slight wear or more, but with no wear are extremely rare. The most obvious examples that come to mind are the 1884-S and the 1892-S Morgan dollars. Sliders are common, and NO Morgan collector that I've ever known would prefer the AU-58 over the MS-60 (much less an MS-62) no matter how phenomenal the eye-appeal of the slider, because what makes the MS-60 so appealing is the underlying fact that it has no wear at all - an extreme rarity in the series.

 

So, it is just not fair to your fellow collectors to pretend that the AU-58 is ever interchangeable with an UNC grade.

 

Again, I am in total agreement with the frequent case of valuing an AU-58 over an MS-60/62 for eye-appeal, and have done that many times myself. But that's a question of value, not grade.

 

James

[jom]

Like I said, I wasn't sure what others do. Hell, even if I collected Morgans I'd still try to own the eye-appealing AU58. I suspect the coin takes a huge jump in price at MS0 and I'd avoid that if I could....

 

jom

[Oldtrader3]

James has a point. I too believe that scarcity has to be part of the equation. On more common coins, I would sometimes pick a pretty AU coin over the lower MS grades. It just depends on my goals and objectives.

 

Example: I just bought a MS62 Indian Quarter Eagle. The reason was that I looked had at several MS62 coins and this was the only one that I felt was really MS. Secondly, most date/MM's of Indian Quarter Eagles are fairly scarce in all MS grades, 62 and above.

[jom]

I think scarcity IS the issue. Because a rarer date will have FAR less AU examples that are "flashy" than a common date. I can find you a lot of nice 11-P $10 Indians in AU but finding an 11-D $10 or 09-O $5 is like finding a needle in a haystack.

 

To add to the problem is what you mentioned. Many of these are getting graded MS anyway so the supply of graded AU "flashy" coin diminishes even further.

 

jom

[EZ_E]

Great replies!

[dryfly-migration]

newbie here!!!! what an outstanding,relavent topic. IMHO and I am certain to draw critisism for saying this as a newbie but grading always translates to monetary value. A common morgan with a touch of " cabinet friction " over the eye will most assuredly receive a lower grade than that of a Key Date that has a noticable rub on the breast, especially in the key dates. I have seen this all to many times ( every time ) with raw coins and very often in slabs. Now Que the tape to "flat strikes are typical of O mints "

 

Bottom line of this rant, if you are selling the coin, the grade will always be a "62"

if you are buying the coin, it is an AU.

if you love the coin, it doesn't matter.Peace

 

oh btw dryfly is a fly fishing ref, my other passion ( I know, who cares )

[Oldtrader3]

Dryfly: That is kind of the point. Before TPG grading, many dealers doted on "my coin MS, your coin AU". Many dealers would always downgrade your coin and upgrade theirs to make more money. This is one of the reasons that ANACS, NGC and PCGS got started.

[EZ_E]

newbie here!!!! what an outstanding,relavent topic. IMHO and I am certain to draw critisism for saying this as a newbie but grading always translates to monetary value. A common morgan with a touch of " cabinet friction " over the eye will most assuredly receive a lower grade than that of a Key Date that has a noticable rub on the breast, especially in the key dates. I have seen this all to many times ( every time ) with raw coins and very often in slabs. Now Que the tape to "flat strikes are typical of O mints "

 

Bottom line of this rant, if you are selling the coin, the grade will always be a "62"

if you are buying the coin, it is an AU.

if you love the coin, it doesn't matter.Peace

 

oh btw dryfly is a fly fishing ref, my other passion ( I know, who cares )

 

 

.

Dryfly, you certainly don't sound like a newbie to me!! Great post and I hope to hear more from you!