Barber dimes - which one is AU58 versus MS63? 0

[kbbpll]

One of these coins is AU58 and the other is MS63. I thought it might be an interesting experiment to see if members can match the grade to the coin. Seller images.

[GoldFinger1969]

Not familiar with Barbers at all, but gonna say the top one is the AU58.

[JKK]

I'd also guess the 1892 as the 58. The 1900 seems a weaker strike, and it has more tonish (my term for toning that looks to me like tarnish), which is likely to fool the eye. On the 1892, the cheek, neck, and high point darkness must be the touch of wear the graders were thinking about.

[Coinbuf]

Both look like sliders, AU one day MS the next.  Without being able to tip in the light the 1892 rev has more field disturbance and that is often a sign of circulation so I'll say PCGS called that one the AU.

[kbbpll]

19 minutes ago, Coinbuf said:

Both look like sliders, AU one day MS the next.  Without being able to tip in the light the 1892 rev has more field disturbance and that is often a sign of circulation so I'll say PCGS called that one the AU.

Yes, I guess that's the definition of "slider". What impresses me is the 4 grade difference between the two coins (and corresponding price). I purchased the AU one. I'll wait a bit longer before revealing the answer. It's also a good pair to note the subtle reverse design changes going to 1900.

[RWB]

I could argue that there's only one "grade" difference - the others being merely arbitrary numbers - but I won't.

Personally, I prefer the one in the middle. (The bottom coin has lost a serif, maybe in a fight? -- Hope it didn't hurt too much....)

[Coinbuf]

Dealers love those AU63's, really easy to talk down when buying and just as easy to talk up when selling.

[Just Bob]

I think the 1892 is the MS, and the 1900 is the AU.

Edited to add: I doubt I would have ever caught the differences in the design on these, but ever since you pointed it out in your earlier post, the differences stand out clearly. Now, that is the first thing I look for on dimes of this era.

Edited April 20, 2020 by Just Bob
Edited to add comment

[bsshog40]

1892 au, 1900 ms

[kbbpll]

19 hours ago, Just Bob said:

I doubt I would have ever caught the differences in the design on these

Yeah, I've beat that horse pretty hard on here. The transition varieties are fun for me and pretty obscure (and not well or accurately documented). I think there's more to be found, and I hardly ever look at quarters or halves, which have the same thing going on during the 1900-1901 period.

The 1892 is AU58. Almost everyone picked it. In hand there may be more field disturbance (and wear?) on the obverse that doesn't show in image. Better strike and less toning than the MS 1892s I looked at. It seems to have a fairly crazy die clash on the obverse, in the ribbons, possibly below the bust and chin (or die chips?), and the O from the reverse clashed behind the ear, which is something I've not seen before. The black spot of course is a bit distracting. Thanks for all the comments.

[Henri Charriere]

DISCLAIMER: THIS IS NOT AN ATTEMPT TO REVIVE A DORMANT THREAD!

My take is far more aggressive:  I believe this to be a trick question.

If you were to ask any person at random who knows nothing about coins, which was the better coin -- my wife, a non-collector, is a prime example -- that person will instinctively point to the coin without toning or tarnish. The cleaner looking coin.

It would defeat the whole purpose of the "experiment" if the answer appeared obvious, and in this regard, the OP succeeded in getting his point across -- even mentioning aspects I was wholly unaware of

[For a light-hearted look at this matter, see my post, "How One Line-up Was Conducted," on the Off-Topic thread.]