Please guess and discuss the grade of this matron head large cent

[MikeInFL]

Attached below is an uncertified large cent I purchased at FUN. For me, this is a difficult coin to grade and thought it might be a good one to discuss....

 

Please assign a grade to the following coin, and, if you so choose, please provide your rationale:

 

 

 

Have fun....Mike

[ldhair]

I want to say VF something. Looking at star 2 makes me think I could be undergrading it. Nice cent.

[CarolinaCollector]

It looks a lot like my VF-30. Nice coin.

[TomB]

I am going to be laughed at, but the coin looks like an EF, and perhaps even an EF45, which has a terrible strike. There appear to be substantial flowlines around the lettering on the reverse and the stars on the obverse. Additionally, the fields are very clean and do not exhibit the scruffiness that is often found on more circulated copper. Lastly, the areas of the coin that are not the highpoints appear to exhibit very little wear, which makes me think they saw little circulation. I will go out on a limb and guess EF45. Is this an N3, N5 or N9?

[Denver Dave]

 

I know nothing of the large cents, so I'm just guess by the ware...

 

Appears to have quit a bit of Pocket History, so I would go 25/30...

 

The die cracks on the Obverse and the filled "A's" on the reverse are very interesting...

 

Do they collect these by Die Varieties also...?

[ldhair]

After a bit of study I'll say it's EF as well.

[bsshog40]

I will have to go with a VF20-VF25. There doesn't seem to be enough hair details above the coronet to hit VF30 and the rev leaves don't seem to have enough details for a VF30 either.

[123cents]

I'll guess VF-35. Very nice large cent.

[Hoot]

F15 details, VG10 net, EAC. The coin has a lot of circulation evidence and wear, which one might naturally expect, and is netted to VG for the spots of corrosion (star 5, 8, back of Liberty's hair, possibly also the L in LIBERTY) and the color problems on the reverse.

 

Love them matron heads!

 

Hoot

[realone]

i am just a grading beginner but xf seems the way to go on this one, very original, sweet.!

[WoodenJefferson]

1829 Large Letters BN G-23 F-35 VF-150 EF-250 55-500

1829 Large Letters RB - - - - - - 63-2500 64-5500 - -

1829 Medium Letters BN G-75 F-275 VF-600 EF-1100 55-4000

 

I have no way of distinguish between large and medium letters, much less the grade of this Coronet. Those are dealer prices btw, so I'll just stick a VF-35 on it, 1/2 the way between Very Fine a Extra Fine...like riding the fence.

[1798CentCollector-migratio]

Mike,

 

EAC 15 Net VG 12. Very light corrosion or roughness Stars 5, 8, L in LIBERTY. Discoloration or roughness evident in several in reverse letters and scratch above C in CENT. Overall the fields and portrait are exceptionally nice and clean for the grade.

[bigmoose-migration]

TomB is correct as usual.This coin is a 45 or 50 coin with a terrible strike. Probably EAC net 40 overall.

[construct]

Boy, I would have missed that one! I was busy looking at hair detail and such and coming up with a 20-25 grade. I should have noticed the color. No decent 20 would have those reddish patches in the protected areas. How embarassing!

[Hoot]

The disparity in the answers in this thread speak clearly of the different approaches of EAC and market grading. And indeed, there are also subtle differences in approaches to EAC grading that can come into play. I'm going to try to cover these issues. One important fact to set straight from the beginning, however, is that EAC grades are not simply stricter market grades. Through time on both this board and others, I've seen a fair bit of confusion over this issue, and the assumption is in error. EAC and market grading approaches begin in different places, and I'll try to explain this below.

 

The point of departure for EAC grading is assessment of the detail depicted for the subtype of the coin. Note that this is not remaining detail or detail imparted as struck - just the detail of the subtype. (I'll explain this more fully below.) The point of departure for a market grade is the overall preservation of the coin as struck. The latter is what most of us are used to, and it's what price guides such as Greysheet, Red Book, Coin Values, etc., are based on.

 

As a point of clarity before I get too far along, I think it's important to illustrate the idea of subtype vs. type. To do this, think of the 1794 cents, and grab your Red Book, if necessary. There are no less than three subtypes of this cent - the head of '93, the head of '94, and the head of '95. Each of those subtypes are well understood in terms of their traits, particularly their potential details, within the realm of the Liberty Cap type. Understanding subtypes is broad knowledge, and gives some common ground for evaluating details for any of the varieties, errors, etc., within the subtypes. This is legitimate, as the subtypes are quite different in their potential for details, while differences in the varieties requires vastly more specific knowledge and is less common ground among EAC collectors as a point of departure for evaluation of the detail of any given coin.

 

On to EAC grading... EAC grading has two camps of thought. The first, and the most traditional and widely practiced, is that the details grade begins with details of the subtype - period. The second camp is that the details grade begins with the details of the issue (date on the coin) and/or variety (Sheldon or Newcomb variety). This makes the water a little murky. What is practiced most widely, and makes EAC as close to "standard" as it can possibly get, is that details are details for the subtype; this is what instructors at the ANA's EAC courses and the (same instructors) at the EAC convention courses will tell you. This traditional approach to EAC grading is why there are some varieties with no high details grades in the EAC camp. I want to emphasize that, strictly speaking, this is where all EAC grades begin.

 

Now, some people (including some high-end dealers) in EAC know the varieties and all of their attributes so well, that they can begin each grade with what may be known from the condition census of the variety. Unfortunately, this places all the rest of EACers at a disadvantage and makes the playing field uneven since the knowledge required is too specific and full of nuance. Many (most) would claim that this is not the intent of the EAC grade. The EAC details grade should convey the content of the details regardless of initial strike and surface conditions. Again, this latter practice is the only approach to EAC grading that levels the playing field.

 

In addition to the details grade, surface conditions are conveyed by the S (scudzy), A- (average minus), A (average), A+ (average plus), and C (choice) condition attributes. So, if a coin is poorly struck, it may have only EF40 details to begin with, but may be choice for the grade due to surface conditions/preservation. In addition, a person may also assign BN, RB, and RD, and describe conditions such as "full Mint luster," "streaky planchet," "porous," etc., etc. Such descriptors further identify the conditions of the coin's surface, but still, the details are the details.

 

Market grading is replete with the notions of conveying strike, luster, hits (including placement), wear, planchet conditions, and an understanding of what any single variety or issue may look like on average, all boiled down into a single grade. (Even split grading of the obverse and reverse is abandoned by most graders and collectors.) Is there any wonder why there's so much contention over market grades? The strike of a coin is veritably immaterial with a market grade, but may only shift a final grade by a little bit - e.g. a fully lustrous but weakly struck 1926-S buffalo nickel may get graded 64 instead of 65. This creates a greater sense of "art" than substance. EAC is simply the other way around.

 

The strict EAC grading approach is better, IMO, than "looser" interpretations that begin with understanding variety characteristics. But no matter what approach one may take to EAC grading, assignment of the grade is all about information content and conveyance, and not about market judgment. To illustrate, certain varieties (such as the one Mike posted) are nearly always weakly struck; also die states of pieces within a variety vary considerably in terms of details imparted by the strike; e.g., for many early dates, late die state pieces will have half of one side weakly struck and the other half with strong details. The market supports the value for varieties and dies states based on demand. The more that people collect varieties or die states, the more valuable a certain coin may be based on its variety attributes and/or characteristics of strike. Relative rarity only enters in to value when competition drives the prices up for coins of a certain variety or die state. So, the matter of value has a way of taking care of itself based on market demand. Thus, a coin like the matron head that Mike has shown, which comes with a weak strike, is supported in value more on the basis of demand and the understanding of variety collectors than strictly its grade. Other good examples would be the 1799 varieties (most of these pieces are horrible looking and expensive) or the 1804 die states (a somewhat common single variety but with wildly different die states, all of which are valuable); also, the S48 starred reverse 1794 cent is typically a horrible looking coin but exceedingly valuable.

 

In the EAC courses taught by the ANA and at the EAC conventions, the people who attend typically start out being fairly divergent of grade opinions. This is particularly true for people who have taken the regular market grading courses (the ANA's grading U.S. coins). By the end of the course, however, people are typically much closer to one another in grade opinion, and the instruction has begun to take effect in each person's assessment of "details ... net ... surface." Grading practice is irrespective of variety in these courses, and only subtype is considered as a point to launch from for grading any single coin.

 

As an aside, the advanced course started with much tighter consensus of grades than the introductory course, as most people had gone through the drill. The "refresher" course or "mini" course had much wider grade opinions, but again, primarily due to the influx of market grading.

 

That said, there is always divergence of opinion. Sometimes a person just likes a given coin and it strikes a chord - that person will grade the coin high. Other times, a person will hate a coin and hammer the grade into the dirt! In each case, the modality of grades in the class speak more to the "true" EAC grade of the coin (still fuzzy), while the biases can be set aside in good humor. And good humor there is, with comment such as, "Looks like you bought that coin Mark!" or "Oh jeez, I guess hated that one!". So it goes, and it's what makes the class, EAC grading, and interaction with fellow copper enthusiasts fun.

 

One last note is worth stating. A peculiarity of the EAC and market grading approaches is that many of the grades converge on the low end and on the very high end. An EAC member who tracks EAC and market grades, and a person with whom I've taken a couple of EAC courses and correspond with, has tracked this phenomenon for a few years. Convergence of the low end of grades may make some intuitive sense and requires no explanation, but for the high end, the phenomenon becomes more complex. In sum, it's the grades of MS64 RD or RB and higher that tend to converge at the high end. The grading services place a lot of BN coins in Mint State holders, and these never get graded higher than MS60 EAC, and typically get graded AU55 or less. In EAC grading, color can indeed affect grade, particularly the net.

 

I hope this explanation helps.

 

Hoot

[lkenefic]

Mike...nice coin. I see the flow lines to which TomB refers. Also, the reverse has a mushy strike indicative [i think] of a late die state...I'm looking at the A's in STATES and AMERICA. I think this piece would have a commercial grade of VF35 [i don't think it would go XF due to the wear in the hair] with no qualifiers. EAC graders will notice the corrosion spots [red ones on the obverse] and the dark [dirt??? not vertigris???] on the reverse. Also the hit in between the "O" in ONE and the "C" in CENTS but I don't think they'll be as hard on this series as they are on the Braided Hairs...I'd say an EAC grade of VF20/net F15...maybe 15/12 but I don't thisnk the EAC graders would go lower than that. Nice coin...I like it!!

[mgoodm3]

I would have said F12 based on the overall lack of detail. But then again sounds like lack of detail isn't unusual with this one.

[MikeInFL]

This is a difficult coin to grade unless you are familiar with the vareties of the 1829 large cent -- although there are a few clues to the sharp eyed...

 

This coin seems to be saying two things at once -- the look of the coin is one with Fine details, but there seems to be luster left in the protected areas and the fields and rims for the most part are free of circulation marks one would expect in a coin that saw enough circulation to wear down this much.

 

As many of you have pointed out, this coin is very weakly struck. This is very typical of 1829 N-3 large cents. Depending on your perspective the coin can be graded in two very divergent ways....

 

One way is to simply judge the coin for the details it has remaining. Call it "details grading", and it is irrespective of the strike of the coin. A coin struck with only Fine details is only a Fine coin, even if it has evidence of only the slightest high-point rub. For the most part, this is the way that EAC grades.

 

Another way is to judge the coin for the amount of wear it has undergone. Call it "wear grading", and it takes into account a weakly struck coin. A coin struck with the details of a Fine coin with only the slightest high point rub will be considered AU. For the most part, this is the way TPGs grade, although they will often market-grade the coin down for a weak strike.

 

As an aside, it seems to me that EAC grading wants to have it both ways, annointing the earlier types with the benefit of the doubt, but not the later dates, the present example incuded.

 

TPG grading, from my perspective, is all over the place on this. Sometimes they seem to catch a weak strike, other times they ignore or miss it. Adding to the confusion, the one-grade-fits-all market grading that the TPGs practice takes into account many different factors, so it is difficult to tell just how well they do at this. I have examples where they seem to have gotten it right, and others where they were horribly wrong.

 

Back to the coin in question.... This coin has a terrible strike as expected given the variety, but obvious luster in protected areas around the stars and devices on the obverse, and to a lesser extent on the reverse. From a details perspective it seems to be in the Fine range, but the luster hints at a coin that has seen little true circulation. The coin looks to me to have been briefly in circulation, put away face down where it picked up the mottled toning/corrosion on the reverse, the made its way into a collector's hands who has cared for the coin by removing the reverse corrosion and brushing the coin to a light gloss. There's a fine planchet flake/lamination that runs from above star #4 through the tip of the coronet and up between stars #7 and 8. The lamination hasn't come apart, but it can be seen in the photos, and even better in these monstrous shots of the coin: huge obverse photo

 

The coin is raw and has not been graded by a TPG. This coin was purchased from a prominent EAC dealer who graded the coin VF 20+ details; Average; net VF 20.

 

I grade the coin, being more of a market-grader at heart, a VF/EF slider because of the presence of luster with net grade to VF 25 or 30 because of the spotting/corrosion/color issues.

 

The coin was purchased for a price consistent with its as-sold grade as published in CQR, and in-line with the price of a Fine coin per PCGS -- so yet again, the seeming difference between EAC and TPGs are made up when it comes time to price the coin.

 

So there's no right or wrong answer (not that there ever is when it comes to grading), but thanks to all for their guesses and discussion. Have fun....Mike

 

[michael]

typical weak strike as most all to all of this date really rare in au and above xf details reverse corrosion in letters and gently cleaned/washed in the past

 

 

 

net vf20-25

[1798CentCollector-migratio]

This is one of the more interesting and informative threads posted. Mike, thanks for getting the discussion started that led down this path. Great photos, (as always) and I wonder if you selected the 1829 N3 specifically to get the discussion going.

 

Hoot - your analysis and commentary on approaches to grading and the divergent cultures is first class . I hope you send a modified copy addressing the subject to our esteemed EAC club Penny Wise editor. I think the topic and your commentary would make a great piece for publishing in the journal. Maybe you can "borrow" Mike's photos.

[MikeInFL]

Mark is certainly welcome to use my photos, and yes, this coin was chosen to illustrate a point. Have fun....Mike

[Hoot]

Could be great fun! Thanks!

 

Hoot

[lkenefic]

Thanks Mike...as always...a very informative thread. I learned much by way of grading this very difficult series.

 

Thanks to all

 

Leo

[BillJones]

Sorry, but I agree with the EAC dealer who called it VF-20.

 

I recently purchased and sold a 1918/7-S quarter to a want list customer. Despite the fact that the coin was in an NGC VF-30 holder, it did have some mint luster hidden within the devices. VF-30 was the correct grade, and it's the only legitimate grade (in the present market) that this coin could be given.

 

This large cent has had some verdigris removed from the reverse, and as such I doubt that NGC or PCGS would grade it. I've been burned on five really nice copper coins in the past when I sent them in for grading. I'd be really gun shy about this one.

 

Some day I'll post pictures of body bag coppers. But since I don't want to get the boot from here, I'll have to tone done my rhetoric.

[MikeInFL]

This large cent has had some verdigris removed from the reverse, and as such I doubt that NGC or PCGS would grade it. I've been burned on five really nice copper coins in the past when I sent them in for grading. I'd be really gun shy about this one.

 

Thanks for your comments, Bill. I have extremely limited experience in submitting large cents for grading, but I've certainly seen much worse in PCGS and NGC plastic. I am undecided on sending it into a TPG for grading, so for now it resides in an airtite with the majority of my large cent collection. Should I send it in to a TPG, I will certainly let the forum know the results...

 

Some day I'll post pictures of body bag coppers. But since I don't want to get the boot from here, I'll have to tone done my rhetoric.

 

Please do, I'd appreciate it, and I suspect others would too.

 

Take care....Mike

[Longacre-migration]

F details. Nice coin!

[WoodenJefferson]

Longacre

 

Welcome to this side of the street...Mike, Hoot, the rest, learned significant information in this thread about early coppers and EAC

 

Thanks