Options
I’m baffled - can someone x’plain to me how this is an AU50 coin?
KollectorKing
Posts: 4,820 ✭✭✭✭✭
0
KollectorKing
Posts: 4,820 ✭✭✭✭✭
KollectorKing
Posts: 4,820 ✭✭✭✭✭
KollectorKing
Posts: 4,820 ✭✭✭✭✭
KollectorKing
Posts: 4,820 ✭✭✭✭✭
Comments
For comparison purposes, here’s an N AU50 example:
It’s not. Not sure why you are baffled
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Agree, it is not.
Compromised holder?
Collector, occasional seller
Everyone needs to start cropping their screenshots.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
strong luster, weak strike
Here's a laughable and expensive example of my series (MS62)…...
https://www.ebay.com/itm/1867-TWO-CENT-PIECE-DOUBLED-DIE-OBVERSE-PCGS-MS-62-BN/264115387390?hash=item3d7e80fbfe:g:yrMAAOSwF5VcLR02:sc:USPSFirstClass!60084!US!-1
I'm confused as to why it is not.
I would reserve judgment until seeing it in hand. Early branch minted Walking Liberty Half Dollars are known for strike irregularities. If there is a lot of luster there, it would indicate a striking anomaly and not all wear; thus, a technical grade of AU50 may be reasonable. The coin would obviously trade at a discount regardless.
The loss of detail appears to be from strike and not wear. A MS62 need not have a strong strike and can have a mediocre strike. With that said, I agree that I'd like that one better in a 60 or 61 holder.
I'm still waiting for Marks reply...…..and strike rules in my book...………...
I don't care for weak strikes either, but if I was a grader, I would struggle to put the coin in anything other than a mint state holder (for your two cent piece) even if I thought it should have a lower value.
I have an MS63 BN CAC example of the 1867 DDO in a PCGS holder and it blows away the example that I previously posted.
For some strange reason I STILL don't like my DDO.
I would pass on that coin.... sure, likely strike and wear, but why buy, or even consider, a coin that one does not like...Cheers, RickO
That is wear and not a strike problem - unless both dies were filled with grease, or spaced too far apart, when that coin was struck.
It would appear to be wear to me. I would think that if it was a weak strike the sun and lettering would not have been so strong. Not my series, thank goodness.
Jim
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest....Abraham Lincoln
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.....Mark Twain
Ive seen a lot of walkers in old white anacs holders from this time period, especially the better dates , that are way overgraded by 1-2 grades easily. Had a 21-d that anacs called vf-25, it was so overgraded, it came back a 12 at pcgs.
the op coin might make 35 if lucky
That 67 ddo two cent piece is actually probably closer to a 62 than it appears , but strike is just awful!
My first thought was extremely weak strike...
My YouTube Channel
These coins come weakly struck and that is part of the problem when grading them. When the coins are still MS or even AU-58, it is easy to tell the actual amount of detail missing due to strike alone. Once the coins get more wear a true AU can look several points lower.
IMO, that's not the case here and this weakly struck coin is not close to AU! That is probably one reason it still resides in the ANACS slab as it would be worth more money if crossed into one of the top services.
If it was nice or strong for the grade it probably would have been cracked and in different holder long ago. I always think this when seeing an old holder after looking at the coin.
Obviously baffled by the slab grade, I'm sure.
Pete
If you are grading by surfaces, it is an AU coin. All the poor detail on Ms. Liberty's body and the corresponding areas on the eagle’s breast and right leg are flatly struck. When the coin was new, those are were shiny, but the detail was missing or mostly missing.
You have to look at the areas around the lettering on the edge of the design on both sides, and in the fields. There is luster in all of those areas although the fields do have some marks. It shows up best on the large picture of the obverse, but if you look at the fields on the reverse, you will see it there too.
You might not care for the lack of detail, which makes the coin look like an EF or even less to some who go strictly by design details, but the surfaces are consistent with an AU.
Now what it’s worth could be another story. I know that a lot of these early mint marked Walkers come weakly struck. I’ll leave to the specialist say if this one is worse than normal.
Weak strike, as others have noted. Look at the protected areas, plenty of original luster remaining.
Aercus Numismatics - Certified coins for sale
By wear it is an EF coin. Detail is also poor, but that does not alter the condition. (The only this "AU" about that coin is imagination.)
Looks as if this week's enhanced train wreck has made its appearance
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
BillJones said: "If you are grading by surfaces, it is an AU coin..."
NUTS! Oops! I disagree very strongly.
As I posted previously, not even close to AU IMH(not so this time)O.
Actually, an Extremely Fine coin (as this) can have plenty of original luster remaining. Unfortunately, many of you have become collectors in the last 20 years. Today, anything with a hint of reflected light inside the recesses of a letter has a shot at being called EF.
That makes coins like this look like AU's.
Weren't you advocating for grade inflation and changing standards only a few months ago in the grade inflation threads? What happened?
You
must be mistaken. I have no idea what you are talking about in this "snippy" little post. I hope you post where I made an error so the record can be corrected.
I am an advocate of strict grading practices that are extremely precise and unchanging. That way the 1804 dollar would still be graded as it was decades ago and only its price would have increased. Today, the folks with the money to buy these things understand the "gradflation" game. Nothing I write or do will return us to a strict grading system BECAUSE the definition of Mint State was changed by coin dealers - LONG AGO!
I like to think I'm a pretty good grading instructor because I was around at the beginning and have lived through the evolution of grading up until this very minute.
I take 100% credit for developing the "true" technical grading system (based on Sheldon) used for internal records to ID coins. I worked at the first TPGS. This was before the ANA Grading Guide was published and the ANA started the second TPGS in CO. This was before every other TPGS was a gleam in their founder's eye.
Therefore, I've lived through gradeflation. Coins that were graded by our host in 1986 are graded differently today. I attempt to grade using the same constantly evolving standards of today's coin industry - tight or loose depending on the coin market and the "importance" of the coin. LOL,
I'm not done learning either. Grade inflation is a fact I don't need to like or agree with it to teach folks how it is applied. The ANACS coin in this post is extremely overgraded. IMO, this was not due to gradeflation. This was a "mechanical error!"
Actually I should know this, being a Buffalo Nickel person.
But it really is rarer to find silver struck so poorly, as it is much softer than nickel.
Pete
Obviously the graders were having a bad day. Or this was the last coin they had to grade and they couldnt wait to bolt out the door and down to their local watering hole!
Here is a so-called pcgs ms66 1913 type one buffalo that is for sale on eBay now. No way would I give this an ms66.
same principle applies to the anacs WL gaff (or is it half) as to this buffalo nickel
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"