• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

GRADE POSTED! In my opinion, an exemplary bit of grading... (Guess the Grade)

Started by James_OldeTowne,

46 posts in this topic

RGT

RGT

Posted
Posted

Since James hasn't revealed the grade yet, I'll state my first impressions. I would call the coin an AU58, but I know the services give a pass to these sometimes with the light friction on the high points so I wouldn't be surprised to see it in an MS62 holder. I don't think it would go higher than that though with the obverse marks. The reverse looks full MS and better than MS62.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
James_OldeTowne

James_OldeTowne

Posted
  • Author
Posted

The cool thing about a coin like this is the nice spread of grade guesses it can elicit. The NGC grade is MS-61, and in my opinion, the grade is pinpoint accurate. The surfaces are wholesome and original, and show no evidence of cleaning, yet the coin does display hairlines. How can that be 893scratchchin-thumb.gif?

 

The problem is that often, it is automatically assumed that hairlines are caused by some kind of cleaning process. In this happy instance, such was not the case. The hairlines are not the parallel, or regularly spaced abrasion lines that would normally be associated with some kind of wiping motion. Instead, they are randomly scribbled across the surfaces; in effect, they are really hairline scratches.

 

I suspect this coin was stored loosely with other coins for sometime after entering circulation, and the constant rubbing motion against other coins caused not only the hairlines, but the peculiar texturing of the highpoints that several folks have mentioned. It is technically an UNCirculated coin, but it is not "mint state", and as denoted by the grade of MS-61. Yet it would be unfair to drop the grade into the AU range.

 

I think it's the kind of coin that Tradedollarnut has discussed before, whereby he might call it an "AU-61", or perhaps "MS-58". My image is not that good (I was in a hurry), but the color and luster are adequately represented. As some folks noted, it has some slightly prooflike characteristics that cause a little contrast between the fields and devices, but overall, it's a frosty coin.

 

Thanks for the great discussion that this coin elicited.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MBA101

MBA101

Posted
Posted

That was very cool, and a great write-up. Reminds me of the 1820 Bustie that I have that has similar characteristics....maybe a post for this weekend...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tradedollarnut

Tradedollarnut

Posted
Posted

Oops I missed by 2 points.......... no wonder my coins look nicer too me than others

 

I missed by two points as well, but it has more to do with there being no way to consistently grade unc/proof coins off an image than anything else. The coin could just as easily have been MS62, 63, or 64 from what we could see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WoodenJefferson

WoodenJefferson

Posted
Posted
In case anyone cares, I shot and posted a new image of the subject coin.

 

Where are these new images?

 

Anyways, would I change my opinion after the grade was posted?

 

What I stated:

 

~From what I can see in the image leads me to believe it graded out as MS-62. There is the slightest of polish on the eagles head and wing tips, no wear, and I see no wear on Ms. Liberty's knee and thigh. There is still lots of lustor left in the fields but the contact marks may have held it back.

 

Very nice contrast between the devices and the fields on both sides, that frosty appearance indicates a well stuck example. A handsome coin James.~

 

Nope!

wink.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WoodenJefferson

WoodenJefferson

Posted
Posted
The new image simply replaced the existing image in the opening post. Sorry I didn't make that clear!

 

Well, that's what I figured, but I could not remember that far back as to what I originally looked at, so you gotta take better care of the feeble James. grin.gif

 

The new images show a bit more detail in the fields and the overall frosty appearance. Either set of photos still capture this as a very nice example from that year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing