Options
What is the difference between a coin grading AU-55 and AU-58?
Insider2
Posts: 14,452 ✭✭✭✭✭
While this is a simple distinction for many of you it appears some members may have difficulty distinguishing the difference between these two grades. Let's all help them out. I'll bet there are plenty of "lurkers" who would appreciate your responses.
Please be specific with regard to luster, strike, marks. originality, eye-appeal, and anything else you can think of.
Please keep this part of your answer separate: Does a coin's value come into play. Are some 55's bumped to AU-58 because they are worth close to MS money?
Thanks for posting!
0
Comments
3 points? Better luster, strike, fewer marks, originality, and/or eye-appeal?
Yes.
Why wouldn't lurkers who want to know just go to the grading guide and look it up? Why is 2nd hand subjective interpretation better than source material:
Per PCGS: AU-58 Only the slightest friction on the highest points. Full mint luster.
AU-55 Full detail with light friction on the highest points. Considerable luster remains.
As per your 2nd question. In my experience, it is more likely for an AU-58 to be bumped to a 61 based on market value than a 55 to be bumped to a 58.
I’ll take a shot.
A solid AU-58 looks like a 62 or 63 with very light rub.
An AU-55 has a bit more wear and begins to show more signs of circulation such as marks, luster breaks, etc.
There is no doubt that market grading (which is what the TPG’s have been doing for many years) incorporates the value of coins into the overall grade.
The market was able to determine a coins value long before market grading. The key is the expertise of the grader or graders, that includes knowing what coins are worth.
Part of the problem is probably that the TPG's aren't all that consistent. So, nailing it down ain't all that easy.
But to me, an AU-58 LOOKS uncirculated at arms length. There should be (nearly) full luster, and any rubs require at least close inspection, if not magnification.
AU-55 is just a little worse than that.
That said, I have 58's that I'd call 55, and 55's I'd call 58. I haven't sweated the difference too much....well, until 58's suddenly became "the hot thing", and prices took off....
Coins labeled "AU-53" or "AU-55" are really EF.
There is only one About Uncirculated condition and that usually corresponds to "AU-58."
AU is a unitary grade, just as is MS-70. It is a strict point at which a coin is no longer "uncirculated." Definition: Faint trace of wear or abrasion on the highest points of design and/or disturbance of the original field luster. Source of the abrasion is immaterial. Mechanical damage is not considered.
For example, it was once popular to call a coin "BU Rub" or "Uncirculated with Cabinet Friction." Nonsense. All such pieces are AU at best.
it is fully realized that those wedded to printed labels, grade inflation, price/market "grading" and other aberrations will find the above funny and useless. The coin is "the coin" and real value is in the item and not the holder.
AU-58. The coin has excellent eye appeal and has only a slight hint of circulation.
AU-55. The coin has average to excellent eye appeal and has obvious light circulation.
about a mile
...a 55 with a green bean = WTF
...a 58 with a green bean = Nice!
...a 55 with a gold bean = meh
...a 58 with a gold bean = game changer
I'm guessing you can find a lot of AU-58 and they would have the eye appeal of 53, 55 and 58.
The same could be said for AU-55s, but far fewer would look like 58s. I don't think I've ever seen a 53 that looked much better than a 53, but it can probably be found.
Guess what I'm trying to say is there is a lot of variability in the eye appeal in AU grades.
In my book, an AU58 is a coin that shows wear that requires a bit of looking to recognize. It is there, however, and surface texture and luster in these areas is impaired. An AU55 should show wear that almost anyone can see. An AU53 shows wear that a novice can see and an AU50 has wear that your grandma with cataracts can see.
Of course, application of this has wandered off a bit, especially during the last 10 years. Loads of coins with a trivial bit of wear are being market graded as MS62 or so, rarely as high as MS63. At the same time, coins with more and more wear are showing up in 58 holders. It's no big deal, as long as you understand what the definition of is is.
My version of the truth appears to be a few thousand years more current than Roger's version of the truth. Since there are no standards, I suppose each is equally valid.
Sometimes the 58 has a few less horrible scratches.
If the luster on a coin is broken at the known high points, the coin is AU. Plain and simple. The AMOUNT and degree of that wear will always have a speculative nature to it for us collectors.
Rub a dub dub. How much wear in the tub?
It depends...............
Pete
A 58 is a 64 with a bit of rub.
A 55 is a 63 w/ rub
Guess what this one is.
I have a different opinion than our host.
My Saint Set
This is what often goes thru my mind:
AU58 - Looks mint state at first but upon close inspection I see where there is enough rub to knock it down.
AU55 - Nice coin but the rub is seen at first glance.
I go with the technical definition @CaptHenway taught me. Take a coin, close your eyes, open them and look at the coin. If your first impression is that the coin is UNC but upon inspection has some minor rub, it is an AU58. In practice those end up in 62 or 63 holders
These days, a 58 is an unc with a trace of wear on a coin's high points, except for some Capped Bust Halves, where I find grading to be more difficult and inconsistent. Look at the hair on a Barber coin, the detail of the eagle's head on a Seated coin. A 55 is an attractive coin with a bit more obvious wear than a 58.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
AU 58 - basically a slider.
AU 55 - Choice AU
Years ago you had to hunt to find the rub on the AU-58, and the coin had good to great eye appeal. Those coins were worth as much or more than an MS-60 IMO. I paid Unc. Money for them. On the AU-55 it was obvious that the coin was rubbed, but it still looked nice. Today, the AU-55s have become the old AU-58.
One grading interval...
And, that's about the best one can say!
There's a reason that "text only" grading guides are bound to fail. Write paragraphs of words, describe each grade the best you can, and STILL hardly anyone will know what you really meant.
Just about everyone learns grading by LOOKING at lots of coins.
Some AU58 bust halves back in the day were later cracked and resubmitted coming back with MS62 or MS62 grades. I haven't really heard of that happening with AU55 coins.
peacockcoins
This👇is the Visual Difference Between AU-58 and AU-55 - According to PCGS PhotoGrade 🤓👍
They say that a Picture is Worth 1000 Words...😉
AU-58 Morgan Dollar:
AU-55 Morgan Dollar:
Stuart
Collect 18th & 19th Century US Type Coins, Silver Dollars, $20 Gold Double Eagles and World Crowns & Talers with High Eye Appeal
"Luck is what happens when Preparation meets Opportunity"
Unfortunately, IMHO, this says virtually nothing as it is too simplistic. I've seen banged up coins with full original mint luster. XF-45's have "considerable" mint luster. With so little description, some may think there is not much difference between a coin grading 55 and 58!
It's an opinion, don't you know. I had an ICG Bust 50c graded AU55, your very company, that went 58PL at NGC. \
This PCGS AU55 went 58 at NGC: https://i.imgur.com/ieERkvA.jpg https://i.imgur.com/3QmNgY7.jpg
@shish replied: "A solid AU-58 looks like a 62 or 63 with very light rub."
Nope, this answer would be marked as incorrect on the basic grading correspondence course. Please think about your answer and imagine how beat up a coin grading MS-63 looks like. This is one reason I posted that the definition supplied by a member above is too simplistic.
This is a decent beginning. Here is the problem. Before you can learn how things are in the real world, it is best to deal in the world of a classroom. There are definitions and the "ideal" that are not influenced by opinion. In a classroom setting an AU-58 does not ever look anything like an AU-55. An AU-55 does not ever look like an AU-58. Au-58's are not MS. When you have this type of foundation, you will be able to assign a personal grade that cannot be argued with except by ... That's because a coin is what it is.
Then you are ready to learn "real world" grading (AU's called MS for example). Now you are only 1/3 of the way to becoming a commercial grader. You'll need to learn the value of a coin so that you can see why the professionals at a TPGS or a sticker company reach their opinion and that is the one that matters the most!
@RogerB posted this nonsense and in this case, it is not just my opinion: "Coins labeled "AU-53" or "AU-55" are really EF." He further stated: "There is only one About Uncirculated condition and that usually corresponds to "AU-58." Again, a very misinformed opinion of a grading system that has been around for decades.
IMO, this part of his post is excellent and I may steal it one day in a class: "AU is a unitary grade, just as is MS-70. It is a strict point at which a coin is no longer "uncirculated." Definition: Faint trace of wear or abrasion on the highest points of design and/or disturbance of the original field luster. Source of the abrasion is immaterial. Mechanical damage is not considered."
Unfortunately, this comment belongs in a classroom setting as it no longer applies to the commercial coin market as ruled by the TPGS's.
Let me ask this. (If I make any sense).
To me, on a mythical grading continuum, a coin that is now an AU-55 was at some point, (if only momentarily), an AU-58. So where ever that line lies, there MUST be 58's that are almost 55's, (and look "significantly like" 55's), and by the same token, 55's that have just passed from being 58's, (and look "significantly like" 58's).
On the other hand, some propose, and your statement seems to back, that 55 and 58 are entirely different animals. As if a coin with certain qualities, (strike, luster, marks, whatever), never had a chance at 58...they were destined to drop from MS to 55. "A 58 does not EVER look anything like a 55".
Which would you say is most correct? (Honest question....my stance could certainly be wrong, though I don't recall reading an "official" grading guide that makes the two (or 4) AU grades somehow off of the wear continuum).
Another good beginning but too simplistic. Let's see who can get more specific. While I examine a coin, at the same time I can voice exactly what is going through my mind by the second until I decide on a grade. That's the kind of detailed definition of both grades I'm trying to pull out of everyone.
I'm NOT A KNOW IT ALL. I'm trying to pin down some great answers for the members who wish to learn or refine their grading. @RogerB posted an excellent answer above that can be added to in order to be complete.
Otherwise, except for a few extreme bloopers so far, there are only generalities listed. I'm sure most of you know what an AU-58 looks like. Tell the rest of us in full detail.
This is true. One reason for this is the folks who wrote the ANA's grading guide combined the number of marks on a coin with the amount of lost detail. This has forever screwed up the grading of coins - especially in the AU range.
In an ideal system (true technical grading), once a coin was considered to have friction wear and drop out of the MS grade, the ONLY thing that could lower its grade (except for the folly of Net grading) was an additional loss of design because of friction wear. Because of what the ANA guide has done (AU Typical & AU Choice), folks are often conflicted as to what grade to put on a coin. If they have a very worn (details of a 50) yet virtually mark-free coin with high eye appeal, they are inclined to grade it in the 55 to 58 range. Conversely, take a coin with a tad of true circulation on the high points and add lots of bagmarks (AU Typical = 50), then it cannot be graded 58. It is either a 50 or you make it a 60 or 61.
To be continued.
In medical school when someone pimped us for answers like this we called it the “Guess what I’m thinking” game.
. Yes, you can learn from such exercises but I always found it tedious. It’s much simpler and just as useful for you to tell us what you’re thinking and then we can discuss it to see if we agree or disagree. Once I realized that the oracle on the mountaintop didn’t always know, I generally tuned out.
Sorry. Not my style of learning. Good points in the last post though.
It’s probably less confusing for beginners now to just look at grades as points on a continuum of valuation. “I grade it more valuable than a typical XF but less valuable than a typical MS62....... therefore, for this one AU55 sounds about right.”
All MS has the same amount of wear = none.
All AU have same amount = trace
All XF have same amount = a little
And so on.
The numbers are not for measuring "friction" type wear.
(Luster is "friction" type of wear)
My Saint Set
In medical school when someone pimped us for answers like this we called it the “Guess what I’m thinking” game.
. Yes, you can learn from such exercises but I always found it tedious. It’s much simpler and just as useful for you to tell us what you’re thinking and then we can discuss it to see if we agree or disagree. Once I realized that the oracle on the mountaintop didn’t always know, I generally tuned out.
POTD material, essentially the same thing I have seen the OP tell others.
AU58 --- most often just with luster breaks that can be difficult to see, but they are there.
AU55 --- clear rub that can be seen with a glance.
both can be difficult to discern in a picture.
Amount of luster.
8 Reales Madness Collection
Actually, I think the distinction is pretty clear. AU-58 must have the "slightest friction" as opposed to "light friction" and full mint luster as opposed to "considerable luster. As another poster mentioned, a 55 has luster breaks while a 58 doesn't. As another poster mentioned, a 55 has obvious friction damage while a 58 has friction damage that you have to look closely to see.
I fully agree as not only have some AU55's become AU58 as even AU58+.
And on a series like $10 Indians AU50, AU53, and AU55's have become AU58's in the last decade.
You need to move across the pond as that's the way the serious collectors grade over there!
Hmmmm, I purchased an 04-S Barber Half in a 53 6 or 7 years ago at the FUN show. Upgraded to 55 on the 1st try. I believe it would have upgraded to 58 on another try and wish I had tried it. Anyway I wholesaled it to a dealer for 58 money($11,500).
The 1 thing I hated to see on AU58's is a lot of bagmarks or scratches. There seem to be more of these graded that way today. Here is the way my thoughts go on the AU grades:
AU58 Full luster, a hint of rub with minimal marks.
AU55 Full luster, a hint of rub with some distracting marks,etc. or luster slightly impaired with minimal marks.
AU53 Slightly impared luster with distracting marks.
AU50 Light overall wear with just enough luster to make the grade, a few distracting marks acceptable but not always present or Reasonable luster with a lot of distracting marks.
they say dip my au58 and it will become a ms63.. dont dip and dab
Interesting thought exercise.
It sounds like most folks on here think this way:
AU58 Full luster, a hint of rub with minimal marks.
But, it also sounds like many of these coins now reside in 61 or 62 holder.
I have 58's from both services, slabbed >15 years ago, that don't meet this criteria.
(Yeah I know - 'No CAC for me!')
So, how do we judge and value the coins in 58 holders that don't meet our 'personal criteria'
for a what 58 should be? Boycott such coins, buy them as 53's (assuming you can convince the seller
it's not worth 58 money)? Or buy them as 58's, because 'real/old school' 58's command 63 money?
Consider me a pimp
who wants to learn what others think FIRST! That's because I KNOW WHAT I THINK and IMHO the state of numismatic education in this country is pathetic!
PS You should be one of the folks here that know things change. Some folks here were around in the 60's. It is a lot different now but it is sad that with all the information available today, most folks I encounter are misinformed. So much so that I often think of giving up and enjoying more free time. Some aspects of grading are should be very simple to understand and apply. Ms-70 for example, but even that has been corrupted because tiny mint-made DEFECTS that remove it from perfection are allowed on a 70 by some.
As for your last paragraph, putting a value on a coin is one of the hardest things for most of us (not in the "commercial trenches" on a daily basis) to do.
Your point is well taken, when I think of a series like Morgan dollars where AU-58's look more like MS-65. However for my favorite series, LSD's, I stand by statement because MS-63's are not usually beat up.
One thing I know for sure is that your statement below is true.
"Then you are ready to learn "real world" grading (AU's called MS for example)."
I'm convinced that the TPG's have been grading coins that have light rub, smooth mark-free fields, and original luster mint state. In fact, NGC president Mark Salzburg said exactly this at an registry luncheon many years ago. Therefore the TPG's definition of MS is not accurate because it states that even MS-60 coins have no trace of wear.
The vast majority of AU-55 coins have enough high point wear, and or luster breaks, such that they are easy to identify as circulated coins. In addition, AU-55 coins will typically have more marks than AU-58 examples.
What are the numbers for????
This: "Luster is "friction" type of wear" is NOT TRUE. Luster is the reflection of light from a surface. Any type of "wear" will change its appearance because the surface changes.
Yes....That's what I said
AU stands for Almost Uncirculated.
It is AU if it's a 50 or a 58+
Same amount of relatively even removal of the surface. (which effects luster)
XF is Extra Fine
It is XF if it is 40-45
It's just missing more of the surface than AU
The numbers say how much other damage is there that is not associated with evenly distributed friction.
Like how baggy it is.
Evenly distributed damage & luster = letters
Not evenly distributed damage & strike = numbers
My Saint Set
@ReadyFireAim said: "The numbers say how much other damage is there that is not associated with evenly distributed friction. Like how baggy it is. Evenly distributed damage & luster = letters. Not evenly distributed damage & strike = numbers.
So the difference between an VF-20, VF-25, VF-30, and VF-35 is due to how much damage is there? Are you one of those copper collectors who drops the actual grade of a coin to something it is not (net grading) because of damage?
AU55 to AU58 to me the difference is amount of luster and wear mostly...
My YouTube Channel
@shish said: "I'm convinced that the TPG's have been grading coins that have light rub, smooth mark-free fields, and original luster MS. In fact, NGC president Mark Salzburg said exactly this at an registry luncheon many years ago. Therefore the TPG's definition of MS is not accurate because it states that EVEN MS-60 COINS HAVE NO TRACE OF WEAR. The vast majority of AU-55 coins have enough high point wear, and or luster breaks, such that they'll are easy to identify as circulated coins. In addition, AU-55 coins will typically have more marks than AU-58 examples."
That's a good breakdown of the two grades. However, Salzburg's statement is 100% accurate. Even MS-60 coins should have no trace of wear. This is the long held and published standard. Now, just because this is not followed in the "real world" of the commercial coin market does not alter the "classroom definition" or make it invalid. It just proves that the standard is not followed.
All VF coins have the same amount of wear that appears smooth and to have been removed by friction.
Whether it is a 20 or a 35 depends on scrapes, nicks & other stuff that are displaced material not worn off.
Therefor a AU55 or a AU58 both have the same amount of wear. (material removed)
I start at MS and go down AU > XF > F....etc. until I find the proper amount of uniformly removed material.
Then I go left on the scale 70 > 69 > 68...etc. until I find the right amount of damage from contact.
Then add or subtract market grading like tone/eye appeal.
I'm not into net grading anything.
I like a lot of cleaned coins also.
My Saint Set