Is it time for an AU59 grade?

cameonut2011

For ultimate slider coins?

3keepSECRETif2rDEAD

...it’s time for a blunt and a bath

291fifth

No new grades are needed. What is needed is a better definition of what constitutes each existing grade.

shish

No new grades are needed. Instead focus on improving the consistency and accuracy of the graders.

ernie11

Nope.

topstuf

60 is crappy enough.

Namvet69

Please sir, 60 is not crappy. It's just a number. It's a gateway number into slabomania. I'm not so sure the + designation is necessary. IMO. Peace Roy

CaptHenway

Please see my last comment in this thread/

https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1010866/my-recommendation-to-pcgs#latest

Cougar1978

No - the grading scale is complex enough and AU and CH AU fills the bill. Frankly I wonder if AU 53 and AU 58 sb dropped.

messydesk

We already have AU59. it's called AU58+.

cameonut2011

@messydesk said:
We already have AU59. it's called AU58+.

But we could have a 10 division scale that mirrors the original expanded MS range: AU50, AU50+, AU53, AU53+, AU55, AU55+, AU58, AU58+, AU59, and AU59+.

topstuf

How many REAL noticeable divisions really ...belong... in the AU grade?
There's 4 now. Seems 3 would do it.
50, 55, 58

????????

BillJones

No. It’s time to re-establish the standards for AU-58.

RogerB

No. It is simply time to recognize "AU" as a dividing point between uncirculated and circulated, then apply it strictly and consistently to "grading" coins.

Preferably, "AU" should be a unitary grade - that is, a single designation and point of demarcation. Any coin or medal with more than the slightest trace of wear or disturbance of field luster, should be EF or some other designation as part of a continuum.

DHeath

There is a strategy for estimating the amount of work for software developers in a particular use case based on the Fionacci sequence. Players are given cards based on the sequence (i.e. 1,2,3,5,8,13,21,34, etc.). They are allowed to play one card as their own estimate of the work. As the complexity grows, it is easier for members of the team to estimate the difference between 21 and 34 units of work than it is to estimate the difference in 1 and 2. The bigger gap makes this more useful. The card are tallied and an estimate is given.

It seems the inverse is true in coin grading. It is easier to see the difference in 20 and 25 than it is to see the difference in 67 and 68. If repeatability and consistency are the goal, perhaps there should be fewer buckets and not more.

golden

No.

ARCO

No, if the coin is AU58 and looks fantastic, like it is an MS64 with a few molecules missing from some highpoint on the coin, the market will set the proper price for that coin.

Check out the Heritage archives, a whole lotta choice AU58 coins have sold higher than MS62-63 coins. Once you get to MS64 that grade wins out all the time.

DIMEMAN

Good grief! Why not just use all 10 grades of AU and have point 1-9 and a plus. That would give you about 200 grades of AU!!!

Unknown

This content has been removed.

ricko

It is time for real, measurable, repeatable standards. Not for expanding the 'great, gray abyss' of opinion we now endure. Cheers, RickO

Treashunt

If really nice, I call them AU-63

mr1931S

No. It is simply time to recognize "AU" as a dividing point between uncirculated and circulated, then apply it strictly and consistently to "grading" coins.

Preferably, "AU" should be a unitary grade - that is, a single designation and point of demarcation. Any coin or medal with more than the slightest trace of wear or disturbance of field luster, should be EF or some other designation as part of a continuum.

I agree with this.

Insider2

@ARCO said: "No, if the coin is AU58 and looks fantastic, like it is an MS64 with a few molecules missing from some highpoint on the coin, THE MARKET WILL SET THE PROPER PRICE FOR THAT COIN."

P R I C E = Problems

The market will set the PRICE on the coin no matter what. Graded, not graded, correctley-graded, over-graded, under-graded, slabbed, raw, damaged, attractive, ugly,yours, mine, etc.

As soon as folks realize that UNTIL an organization sets a reliable, precise, easy to understand and apply, unchanging STANDARD [**true technical grading that was devised, and used very sucessfully to describe the condition of preservation of a coin pre-ANACS in CO and ANA Grading Guide] there will never be a standard and the debate will continue on-and-on- and on.

If that were ever done, there would still be TPGS's. Only the prices we pay for coins with certain numbers would be adjusted. Then we can all argue about PRICES; yet 95% of us would be able to understand and agree on the coin's grade which would remain the same over time as long as the coin did not deterriorate further in the slab.

Insider2

@mr1874 said:
No. It is simply time to recognize "AU" as a dividing point between uncirculated and circulated, then apply it strictly and consistently to "grading" coins.

Preferably, "AU" should be a unitary grade - that is, a single designation and point of demarcation. Any coin or medal with more than the slightest trace of wear or disturbance of field luster, should be EF or some other designation as part of a continuum.

I agree with this.

Are you from England?

topstuf

I'm starting PAP
I am having stickers printed. It stands for "Pretty As a Picture"
Thus it will probably cover about the top 9% of all coins as to the extent of....... EYE APPEAL
I'll also BUY the coins that meet the standards.

.....unless I don't have the money at the time but I'll issue a "first dibs" commitment.

Zoins

@messydesk said:
We already have AU59. it's called AU58+.

I wonder why AU59 wasn't used instead of AU58+?

Zoins

@cameonut2011 said:
For ultimate slider coins?

I thought the ultimate sliders were graded MS?

johnny9434

no but will keep the 58

ms70

For those who have never seen this, maybe it will clear things up:

https://www.pcgs.com/grades

Insider2

@ms70 posted: "https://www.pcgs.com/grades"

Question asked; question answered. Thanks!

messydesk

@Zoins said:

@messydesk said:
We already have AU59. it's called AU58+.

I wonder why AU59 wasn't used instead of AU58+?

So do I. As well as XF48, AU52, AU54, and AU56. One reason might be that it is easier to justify the distribution of the populations as they currently are, with only a small percentage of coins being +-graded at any given grade level. Otherwise, you'd expect a more even distribution among the new grades. It would probably also introduce too much angst into the market.

Colonialcoin

While we are at it how about a good-4+, Fine-19, XF-42-!

Insider2

More grades in the intermediate range might be nice. XF-40 is a great coin! Unfortunately, I feel it has become too easy for this grade to be ignored and the XF-45 grade is used instead.

In ancient times, at the first TPGS, a plus actually was used to convey a very exclusive group of coins. At the time, dealers used the + grade for coins in the top half of a segment. We used it only for the true "liners" that an experienced professional might grade a point higher when the coin was seen again or one that he/she had to puzzle over for too long to be fair to the coin, the seller, and the buyer.

For example, determining a coin was XF something is fairly easy to do. All the XF's occur on a non-existent scale of XF-40, 41,42,43, etc. all the way to XF-49. At 50, they become AU. We used the + sign ONLY for coins that could be graded "49" one time and 50 the next. It added to the *precision** and "archival" nature of the "true" technical grading system used before the ANA move to CO and continued at the first TPGS at INSAB.

DIMEMAN

I like it (not) when I see a coin graded MS65+++. What the heck is that!!!!!

Colonialcoin

@DIMEMAN said:
I like it (not) when I see a coin graded MS65+++. What the heck is that!!!!!

An AU!

CCGGG

I think the AU 50, 53, 55, 58 destinations are fine just the way they are... Even those grades can get the elusive plus (+) sign added to them. Oh, by the way, it seems to me that the + sign simply means it's going to cost you more.

jabba

People are too obsessed by grades by the coin not the plastic

BUFFNIXX

There are too many au grades now as it is, 58, 55, 53, and 50, so we add a 59?? that is what 58 is supposed to be used for.

cameonut2011

@BUFFNIXX said:
There are too many au grades now as it is, 58, 55, 53, and 50, so we add a 59?? that is what 58 is supposed to be used for.

For all of the PQ 55s now in 58 holders.

BUFFNIXX

@cameonut2011 said:

@BUFFNIXX said:
There are too many au grades now as it is, 58, 55, 53, and 50, so we add a 59?? that is what 58 is supposed to be used for.

For all of the PQ 55s now in 58 holders.

Do not understand this, please amplify.

davewesen

not AU59, but AU60, AU62 and AU64

there are definitely some AU58's that I would rather have than a MS60,MS62, MS63