then, logically, for ALL practical purposes, There are no standards
In actuality, what we really have is a general trend without consensus. Grading is always evolving, and trying to teach it, is possible, but messy. Understanding the history of grading is important as it informs you about much of the built-in bias in the market, and this is useful. But, graders today have to grade coins consistent with 2019 trends to be relevant. Wishing it to be different seems futile. We aren't going back there..... not that we ever really were there at any point in numismatic history.
@Insider2 said:
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?
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.
shows you just how much the tpg's have been fooling us.
how have they been fooling us?? just because PCGS says a coin is AU58, AU55 or MS62 should mean nothing to you, to me or to anyone else. what you know from experience and what you learn going forward are what should matter, then you won't "fool yourself" by believing the insert when your brain is telling you something else. if you look at a PCGS coin and the insert says MS62 but your eyes see breaks in the luster what do you do??
I've read through the thread and not sure why we keep spinning on this. The difference between an AU58 and an AU55 is the amount of luster. Are people suggesting there can be wear without loss of luster?
In theory the difference is mostly in the amount of luster remaining with wear playing a minor role.
In actuality I think it depends on the day of the week that the coin arrives at the grading service and the mental attitude of the majority of the graders on that day. Today a 55 is a 58, tomorrow a 58 is a 55.
Learn to grade (not so easy to do) and buy the coin, not the slab.
Part 2 -
Yes, I think a coin's value come into play sometimes when assigning the grade.
it's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide
@ReadyFireAim said: "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.
I suggest you continue to read comments on this thread because what you have posted is totally incorrect!
I feel AU58 was a MS65 or better coin that now has a slight bit of wear on the highest points of the coin causing loss of luster on those areas. An AU55 was a MS63-MS64 coin that now has a slight bit of wear on the high points causing a loss of luster. An AU53 was a MS61-MS62 coin that now has wear on the high points causing loss of luster and an AU50 was an MS60 or a higher grade AU coin that has more wear and loss of luster.
Member of LSCC, EAC, Fly-In Club, BCCS Life member of ANA
@BryceM said:
If the standards aren't followed.........
then, logically, for ALL practical purposes, There are no standards
In actuality, what we really have is a general trend without consensus. Grading is always evolving, and trying to teach it, is possible, but messy. Understanding the history of grading is important as it informs you about much of the built-in bias in the market, and this is useful. But, graders today have to grade coins consistent with 2019 trends to be relevant. Wishing it to be different seems futile. We aren't going back there..... not that we ever really were there at any point in numismatic history.
Bingo! Yes, for ALL practical purposes, There are no standards But this is mostly true for XF+ and higher coins.
Only a little change has occurred in grades below XF. Additionally, collectors are allowed to have strict personal standards that do not conform to what has been going on for decades.
As for the rest of your post,.. Teaching grading is extremely easy if a student has an open mind and is not colorblind. What I believe/teach is to start students with actual, strict, and provable characteristics on coins. After they learn what friction, roll rub, weak strikes, originality, cleaning, etc. look like, it is much easier to understand the commercial grading system and "back-off" the obvious actual condition of the coins they examine. It is better to know the MS graded coin you are buying is AU or cleaned than being ignorant. That way a knowledgeable student becomes similar to a "sticker service."
Will change to the old strict standards take place? Probably not in my lifetime if at all. Nevertheless, "detail" grading has emerged again and that is exactly how the old "technical" grading system formulated in the 1970's worked. So progress is being made as we circle back.
Furthermore, until a coin's commercial value is separated from its grade, the folly will continue. Separate the two, apply easy to define strict standards, and the number of folks who agree about a grade will skyrocket!
Grading a coin is a very simple process! Pricing a coin as a respected, successful, professional takes a lifetime of experience! If you cannot price a coin accurately, or don't have a good eye for attractiveness, you'll never understand what is found on many TPGS labels.
@ColoradoCoinGuy said:
I feel AU58 was a MS65 or better coin that now has a slight bit of wear on the highest points of the coin causing loss of luster on those areas. An AU55 was a MS63-MS64 coin that now has a slight bit of wear on the high points causing a loss of luster. An AU53 was a MS61-MS62 coin that now has wear on the high points causing loss of luster and an AU50 was an MS60 or a higher grade AU coin that has more wear and loss of luster.
Thanks! I never thought of it in this way. I really like this. PM me if you want credit when this concept is expanded and appears in print one day!
Furthermore, until a coin's commercial value is separated from its grade, the folly will continue. Separate the two, apply easy to define strict standards, and the number of folks who agree about a grade will skyrocket!
What is the usefulness of grading if the assigned grade doesn't correlate to value? Serious question. Apart from academic pigeon-holing of an extant coin population, I see no practical use for it.
Furthermore, until a coin's commercial value is separated from its grade, the folly will continue. Separate the two, apply easy to define strict standards, and the number of folks who agree about a grade will skyrocket!
What is the usefulness of grading if the assigned grade doesn't correlate to value? Serious question. Apart from academic pigeon-holing of an extant coin population, I see no practical use for it.
Simple. J.Q. Public usually has no idea what the value of a coin is. So he looks it up someplace. Oops, all 65's are not the same, many times $$$ different. Many successful professionals who buy and sell coins know the difference. From what I read, the label is a flawed guide, otherwise there would be no need for stickers. I'll get serious, lets stop grading coins and put a price on a label and the date it was appraised.
Anyone can learn to appraise the condition of a stinking piece of metal! Asking them to put a realistic price on it regardless of its actual condition of preservation is impossible to teach. Coins that were once graded in the XF/AU ranges that are now considered MS because they are worth MS money did not become better coins.
@keets said: Are people suggesting there can be wear without loss of luster?
yes, that is my take on the thread. also, I have to agree with Insider's take above.
Luster is created during the striking of a coin when metal flows from the center outwards under the pressure of the strike, creating microscopic flow lines that reflect light at certain angles. Wear, even slight as in a case of cabinet friction, damages these flow lines, creating luster breaks and separating what is considered a mint state coin from an AU. The amount of luster lost dictates the difference between various AU grades.
@ColoradoCoinGuy said:
I feel AU58 was a MS65 or better coin that now has a slight bit of wear on the highest points of the coin causing loss of luster on those areas. An AU55 was a MS63-MS64 coin that now has a slight bit of wear on the high points causing a loss of luster. An AU53 was a MS61-MS62 coin that now has wear on the high points causing loss of luster and an AU50 was an MS60 or a higher grade AU coin that has more wear and loss of luster.
Thanks! I never thought of it in this way. I really like this. PM me if you want credit when this concept is expanded and appears in print one day!
I don't think this is quite accurate per published standards. If you think Morgan dollars, the biggest reason you drop fron 65 to 64 to 63 is bag marks. Bag marks are not friction wear. The standard for 58 to 55 to 53 is increasing friction wear and loss of luster.
I should be able to rub a65 to a 58. If I keep rubbing the coin it will drop to 55 then 53.
I feel AU58 was a MS65 or better coin that now has a slight bit of wear on the highest points of the coin causing loss of luster on those areas. An AU55 was a MS63-MS64 coin that now has a slight bit of wear on the high points causing a loss of luster. An AU53 was a MS61-MS62 coin that now has wear on the high points causing loss of luster and an AU50 was an MS60 or a higher grade AU coin that has more wear and loss of luster.
thoughts like this are more the problem than the explanation.
@Insider2 said:
I suggest you continue to read comments on this thread because what you have posted is totally incorrect!
Good thing I don't collect anything below MS.
Agree, just make sure they are Mint State because when it is time to sell...
One of the best suggestions I ever got was to try and sell a coin. It was an eye-opening experience. You may wish to get an offer on some of your MS coins. Just get the offers, you don't need to sell them. Then start a discussion.
@keets said: I feel AU58 was a MS65 or better coin that now has a slight bit of wear on the highest points of the coin causing loss of luster on those areas. An AU55 was a MS63-MS64 coin that now has a slight bit of wear on the high points causing a loss of luster. An AU53 was a MS61-MS62 coin that now has wear on the high points causing loss of luster and an AU50 was an MS60 or a higher grade AU coin that has more wear and loss of luster.
thoughts like this are more the problem than the explanation.
Perhaps I missed something in that post. I read it like this:
Take a coin that looks like an MS-65 and put a little rub on it and that's what an AU-58 looks like. An AU-55 has a tad more wear and more marks.
@Insider2 said: @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.
Salzburg is a town in Austria. Salzberg is a grader in Florida. @MrEureka lost a buck to me on this.
Otherwise, per Coltrane. "Talking about music grading is like dancing about architecture"
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
To me, and none of the TPG services, an AU58 is an MS67 or better coin that was slid across the desk. Or more to the vernacular of today's world, an MS 67 with cabinet friction.
Sure it is too simple but to prevent a pointless rant I leave it at that.
@insider2 said:
Perhaps I missed something in that post. I read it like this:
Take a coin that looks like an MS-65 and put a little rub on it and that's what an AU-58 looks like. An AU-55 has a tad more wear and more marks.
You understood what I was trying to say exactly.
@jmlanzaf said:
I don't think this is quite accurate per published standards. If you think Morgan dollars, the biggest reason you drop fron 65 to 64 to 63 is bag marks. Bag marks are not friction wear. The standard for 58 to 55 to 53 is increasing friction wear and loss of luster.
I should be able to rub a65 to a 58. If I keep rubbing the coin it will drop to 55 then 53.
I agree with your reasons for the differences between Morgans at MS65,MS64, and MS 63. More bags marks as the grade goes down. But I disagree with wear being the only reason for the differences in the AU grades.
If I have a MS66 1881-S Morgan dollar and put it by its self in my pocket and carry it around for a few weeks, it now may have just a slight bit of wear on the high points and a loss of luster. I call it an AU58
If I take a MS61 1881-S Morgan dollar and put it by its self in my pocket and carry it around for a few weeks, it now also may have just a slight bit of wear on the high points and a loss of luster. But I would not call it a AU58, to me it would be at best an AU53. Both of these coins have the same amount of wear and luster loss, but I would grade them differently because of the other issues (marks, hits, etc.)
Member of LSCC, EAC, Fly-In Club, BCCS Life member of ANA
Interesting idea! After some reflection, this is similar to what we did before TPG's. We were much more focused on the value than the grade. I remember going through auction lots and comparing grades with my friend which helped us learn to grade. However most of our discussions were regarding how much we were willing to bid.
"From what I read, the label is a flawed guide, otherwise there would be no need for stickers. I'll get serious, lets stop grading coins and put a price on a label and the date it was appraised."
@jmlanzaf said:
I don't think this is quite accurate per published standards. If you think Morgan dollars, the biggest reason you drop fron 65 to 64 to 63 is bag marks. Bag marks are not friction wear. The standard for 58 to 55 to 53 is increasing friction wear and loss of luster.
I should be able to rub a65 to a 58. If I keep rubbing the coin it will drop to 55 then 53.
I agree with your reasons for the differences between Morgans at MS65,MS64, and MS 63. More bags marks as the grade goes down. But I disagree with wear being the only reason for the differences in the AU grades.
If I have a MS66 1881-S Morgan dollar and put it by its self in my pocket and carry it around for a few weeks, it now may have just a slight bit of wear on the high points and a loss of luster. I call it an AU58
If I take a MS61 1881-S Morgan dollar and put it by its self in my pocket and carry it around for a few weeks, it now also may have just a slight bit of wear on the high points and a loss of luster. But I would not call it a AU58, to me it would be at best an AU53. Both of these coins have the same amount of wear and luster loss, but I would grade them differently because of the other issues (marks, hits, etc.)
That is really not what the standards say [see earlier post]. A 61 or 62 with just a tiny bit of friction should be a 58, technically. Now, do some of them end up at 55 because they are just sooo many marks? Probably.
But if you buy my argument about the MS65 coin, it doesn't really matter whether you believe that it applies to 61 through 63 coins. Because the OP claimed a 53 was a 61 with a little wear and a 58 was a 65 with a little wear. At the very least, a 53 could be a 65 with a little extra wear.
Not all 58's are beautiful. I think it is something of a risky numismatic legend to say that "58s are 65s with a rub".
When discussing pornography, Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart once said "I can't define it but I know it when I see it." I feel the same way with AU55 and AU58.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
@PerryHall said:
When discussing pornography, Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart once said "I can't define it but I know it when I see it." I feel the same way with AU55 and AU58.
Good analogy, Perry. Quite true.
Pete
"I tell them there's no problems.....only solutions" - John Lennon
@jmlanzaf said: "I don't think this is quite accurate per published standards. If you think Morgan dollars, the biggest reason you drop fron 65 to 64 to 63 is bag marks. Bag marks are not friction wear. The standard for 58 to 55 to 53 is increasing friction wear and loss of luster. I should be able to rub a 65 to a 58. If I keep rubbing the coin it will drop to 55 then 53."
Please allow me to pile on. Thankfully, @ColoradoCoinGuy (I suspect he must be a former TPGS grader or a Professor of Numismatics) posted this: "I agree with your reasons for the differences between Morgans at MS65,MS64, and MS 63. More bags marks as the grade goes down. But I disagree with wear being the only reason for the differences in the AU grades."
This is correct. It is covered in Basic Coin Grading 101.
For that reason my friend JML , what you have posted above about the AU grades 58, 55, 53, 50 is too simplistic and misinformed. I think the confusion is because of this FACT: Circulated coins are MOSTLY graded by the amount of details remaining. Therefore, it might be very easy to fall into the ERROR you have posted: "I should be able to rub a 65 to a 58. If I keep rubbing the coin it will drop to 55 then 53." Since a coin with virtually no marks will look very attractive when it is worn down to a 50/53, the "look" of the coin will push it into the 55/55+ grade (value). Additionally, marks come into play for circulated coins also. The ANA has seen fit to combine wear and marks - typical & choice.
Is this not exactly what I posted about my feelings of how AU grades should be but stated in descriptive verbage?
@Insider2 said:
Please allow me to pile on. Thankfully, @ColoradoCoinGuy (I suspect he must be a former TPGS grader or a Professor of Numismatics) posted this: "I agree with your reasons for the differences between Morgans at MS65,MS64, and MS 63. More bags marks as the grade goes down. But I disagree with wear being the only reason for the differences in the AU grades."
The answers so far defining the differences between a 55 and a 58 are all very good, but what this thread needs are some visual aids to help make the definitions a little more understood.
Here are four PCGS Bust Halves with CAC stickers that will hopefully help make the difference clearer.
@drddm said:
The answers so far defining the differences between a 55 and a 58 are all very good, but what this thread needs are some visual aids to help make the definitions a little more understood.
Here are four PCGS Bust Halves with CAC stickers that will hopefully help make the difference clearer.
Dave
Thanks for that!
My unsolicited commentary:
Since they are all BEAUTIFUL coins, with few if any marks, I hope we can put to rest some of the claims that "AU-58 equates to MS-??, and AU-55 equates to MS-??" Yeah, the existence of a poorly placed mark, or an extremely clean coin, could influence the grade a little....(like ALL circulated coins!!)...but it seems to me that the degree of WEAR is still the main determinant of AU grade.
Added: Going to quietly drop this here. I really think too much "philosophy" is being introduced here.
Let me try to clarify some of my OP. When a coin goes from MS to uncirculated, I feel that it does it in the manner I described in my OP. Once a coin is in a circulated grade, AU58 down to Poor1, the grade changes are mostly determined by wear. So and AU58 can go to a AU 55 when it gets a little more wear, it could then go to a AU53 with yet a little more wear, then to a AU50 then a XF45 etc. The AU grades are transition grades taking coins form MS to circulated grades. The coin pics posted by @drddm are all great coins and I have no disagreement with the grades or stickers, but I bet none of them would have started out when they came out of the mint bags or kegs or whatever they were initially stored in from the Mint as an MS61 coin, those coins started life as GEMs.
With my 81-S Morgan dollar example. If both the MS61 and MS65 each receive the same amount of wear and luster loss and some of you think they should then both be called AU58, would you pay the same money for either one? Or would you only want the former MS65 coin, at the AU58 price, as it should have much better eye appeal. (I know there is not much spread in prices for 81-S at this grade). My point is that these two AU58s are not equal.
@keets said; apparently there is confusion as to what the terms bag marks, rub, cabinet friction, contact marks and unstruck planchet flaws mean.
With regards to Planchet flaws. Many 20's and early 30's buffalo nickels were weakly struck. You can find coins slabbed MS65 that have marks, usually in the center of the buffalo or in the Indians hair, yet the coin has full luster. This is because those planchet hits were not removed during the striking of the coin. These should not effect the grade, at least from what I was taught. When one of these coins is lightly circulated it would be considered AU58 even when it appears there are many "hits" on the coin. This is were knowledge of particular coins is important when grading. But what happens when one of those Buffalo Nickels got lucky, because of a slightly thicker planchet of whatever, and is fully struck. No planchet marks are visible. A nice GEM coin. Now that coin is lightly circulated and should become a AU58, but if you compare it to all the other AU58 Buffs that were weakly struck it stands out as superior and I think that is when the TPGS call it a MS62 because it deserves more money. So all this boils down to some AU58 could have what appear to be hit/contact marks but they might really be unstuck planchet flaws which, I believe, don't affect the grade.
Flame away.
Member of LSCC, EAC, Fly-In Club, BCCS Life member of ANA
@TommyType had photos of PCGS grading for AU Morgans. I agree with how they defined each grade. However to my eyes each of these coins had to have started out as a higher grade MS coins. They don't show any photos of what an MS61 Morgan would look like when it had "Only the slightest friction on the highest points. Virtually full luster." If they would call that former MS61 coin AU58 would you prefer it over the pictured AU58 coin? Would you pay the same price for either coin?
Member of LSCC, EAC, Fly-In Club, BCCS Life member of ANA
@ColoradoCoinGuy said: @TommyType had photos of PCGS grading for AU Morgans. I agree with how they defined each grade. However to my eyes each of these coins had to have started out as a higher grade MS coins. They don't show any photos of what an MS61 Morgan would look like when it had "Only the slightest friction on the highest points. Virtually full luster." If they would call that former MS61 coin AU58 would you prefer it over the pictured AU58 coin? Would you pay the same price for either coin?
Agree with your thought process. (Both here, and your previous post).
Quick and dirty answer is that ALL AU-58's are not of the same desirability OR value. (Same could be said of any VF-20, or MS-63).
I would even say it's possible that a "beat up 61" that had some 58 worthy wear might even be downgraded to 55! We see that all the time in just about any circulated grade, and call it being "quietly net graded". (At least I call it that).
My point in posting the picture I did was to point out that the PRIMARY consideration for 58 vs. 55 (vs. 53, etc), is WEAR. I disagree quite strongly with the contention, posted much earlier in this thread, that "an AU-58 looks nothing like an AU-55". Sure they can look very similar! The difference is a small amount of WEAR and LUSTER LOSS between the two grades.
Agree with @TommyType that once you are into circulated grades, and all AU grades are in the circulated grade realm, wear becomes the primary factor in the coins grade.
Member of LSCC, EAC, Fly-In Club, BCCS Life member of ANA
As a side note, as a long time lurker and a person with not many posts.
How do you get that bar next to other people's text when you are referring to their posts in your posts?
Thanks
Member of LSCC, EAC, Fly-In Club, BCCS Life member of ANA
@ColoradoCoinGuy said:
As a side note, as a long time lurker and a person with not many posts.
How do you get that bar next to other people's text when you are referring to their posts in your posts?
Thanks
Hit the word "Quote" at the bottom of the post, and it will auto-magically put the post you are quoting at the top of the reply box.
(Unfortunately, it suspiciously looks like you are tagging their post, like "Agree", but it's an entirely different operation).
The Pope, who started collecting early Argentine silver as a child, believes that the 70-point grading scale is an insidious assault against simple human joy and happiness promulgated by agents of Lucifer and/or his unwitting agents. Officially, he has stated nothing more than that while micro-grading is an abomination, it's of a merely mega-venial nature. It won't keep you out of Heaven and is not worthy of a papal encyclical.
He grieves for those afflicted.
In private conversations, he has been known to point to John Albanese's picture on the wall and ask "The Church didn't have to supply either of us with much of an education on this. When wasn't a slider a slider? When won't it be? How can someone be denied the comfort?" His voice sometimes cracks when he says this, yet who would know better when something can be shrugged off as a First-World problem? He is CAC collector member 9999 and has an 88% acceptance rate on Saints, Chuck Norris next, just easing past @tradedollarnut at an astonishing yet piddling 48%.
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
@drddm Thanks for your pics of your beautiful halves. I wish to comment that a CAC green bean on quality coins can often be attained on the same coin if regraded another level upward. As such, I would not place much emphasis on the bean factor when considering your pictures attempting to show differences between 55 and 58. And, if one considers JA's disregard for the middle AU grades, this might further erode the sticker meaning for your coins.
Seated Half Society member #38 "Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
@Insider2 said: @jmlanzaf said: "I don't think this is quite accurate per published standards. If you think Morgan dollars, the biggest reason you drop fron 65 to 64 to 63 is bag marks. Bag marks are not friction wear. The standard for 58 to 55 to 53 is increasing friction wear and loss of luster. I should be able to rub a 65 to a 58. If I keep rubbing the coin it will drop to 55 then 53."
Please allow me to pile on. Thankfully, @ColoradoCoinGuy (I suspect he must be a former TPGS grader or a Professor of Numismatics) posted this: "I agree with your reasons for the differences between Morgans at MS65,MS64, and MS 63. More bags marks as the grade goes down. But I disagree with wear being the only reason for the differences in the AU grades."
This is correct. It is covered in Basic Coin Grading 101.
For that reason my friend JML , what you have posted above about the AU grades 58, 55, 53, 50 is too simplistic and misinformed. I think the confusion is because of this FACT: Circulated coins are MOSTLY graded by the amount of details remaining. Therefore, it might be very easy to fall into the ERROR you have posted: "I should be able to rub a 65 to a 58. If I keep rubbing the coin it will drop to 55 then 53." Since a coin with virtually no marks will look very attractive when it is worn down to a 50/53, the "look" of the coin will push it into the 55/55+ grade (value). Additionally, marks come into play for circulated coins also. The ANA has seen fit to combine wear and marks - typical & choice.
Disagree. Respectfully.
You have become the Nit King.
Read the guidelines.
You are ignoring the reason for that post and reading it as a global answer. The OP said that a 53 was a 62 with a rub. My counterexample was simply to illustrate that a 53 could be a 65 with a lot of rub. I am not claiming that is the only way to arrive at 53. But it was a counterexample to the "simplistic and misinformed" (your terms) suggestion that one could characterize a 58 as 65 with a rub, 55 as 63 with a rub etc.
Kindly view my comment in context.
Query me this: what do you call a 58 with a little more rub? If the answer is 55, you agree with me. If you tell me that minor rub on a 58 drops it lower than 55, I'd like to see your credentials.
The guidelines also maintain minor flatness on the high points for a 53 which is forbidden for a 55.
Are you implying that a 65 on bag marks with flatness on the high points is a 55? I know why JA had noticed all these C coins in holders.
Can a coin get a boost from eye appeal? Yes. That has little to do with my progression of rub. Even if it takes more rub to get a 65 down to 53 than a 63, I don't think it is reasonable to suggest that the 65 jumps over 53 straight to 50 or 45.
Let me summarize my point: An AU53 could be a 62 with a rub, it could also be a 65 with rub or a 64 with rub etc. The idea that you could characterize any of those grades with the simple aphorism "a single # is a single # with rub" is too simplistic. Not all 58s are 65 with rub. Not all 65s with rub are 58s.
@drddm said:
The answers so far defining the differences between a 55 and a 58 are all very good, but what this thread needs are some visual aids to help make the definitions a little more understood.
Here are four PCGS Bust Halves with CAC stickers that will hopefully help make the difference clearer.
Dave
Thanks for that!
My unsolicited commentary:
Since they are all BEAUTIFUL coins, with few if any marks, I hope we can put to rest some of the claims that "AU-58 equates to MS-??, and AU-55 equates to MS-??" Yeah, the existence
@drddm said:
The answers so far defining the differences between a 55 and a 58 are all very good, but what this thread needs are some visual aids to help make the definitions a little more understood.
Here are four PCGS Bust Halves with CAC stickers that will hopefully help make the difference clearer.
Dave
You have provided some wonderful coins, Unfortunately, IMO, it is best not to discuss coins slabbed by our host. I know we do it occasionally; but...
Note: I'm making no "between-the-line suggestion about any of the posted examples.
@ColoradoCoinGuy said: @TommyType had photos of PCGS grading for AU Morgans. I agree with how they defined each grade. However to my eyes each of these coins had to have started out as a higher grade MS coins. They don't show any photos of what an MS61 Morgan would look like when it had "Only the slightest friction on the highest points. Virtually full luster." If they would call that former MS61 coin AU58 would you prefer it over the pictured AU58 coin? Would you pay the same price for either coin?
There are AU58 and AU55 coins that became AU from the lower-end of the UNC. You won't see a lot of them, because they are generally dogs. Same reason you don't see lot of people with 60-61 grades if they can help it.
Here's one. Imagine it being a bust dollar - very similar grading approach.
@drddm said:
The answers so far defining the differences between a 55 and a 58 are all very good, but what this thread needs are some visual aids to help make the definitions a little more understood.
Here are four PCGS Bust Halves with CAC stickers that will hopefully help make the difference clearer.
Dave
Thanks for that!
My unsolicited commentary:
Since they are all BEAUTIFUL coins, with few if any marks, I hope we can put to rest some of the claims that "AU-58 equates to MS-??, and AU-55 equates to MS-??" Yeah, the existence
It's the degree of WEAR!!
AGREE AGREE AGREE
LOL, don't get ready for bed all fat and happy yet! Yes, in the specific case provided by those very "clean" POSTED EXAMPLES, it is the amount of wear (and condition of the surface) that dictates the grades.
PS You are wearing me out. I'll answer your long disagreement later. I think I like it. For now...
@DIMEMAN said:
Without going back and reading all the other reply's...here is my take on 55 and 58.
A 58 is a 65 or 66 with rub.
A 55 is a 64 with rub.
And a 53 is a 61 or 62 with rub.
A coin doesn't wear from a 58 to a 55 to a 53......etc...
Really?
So let's say I start carrying a 58 as a pocket piece. What's the next stop? 50? 45?
What do you call an AU58 when I've worn down the coin until the high points are flat?
That's off the wall. Sure if you wear it down the grade will change. I'm saying a coin had to be a 65 to start with before it could become a 58. I got this principle from David Lawrence years ago. I think he new what he was talking about.
Comments
If the standards aren't followed.........
then, logically, for ALL practical purposes, There are no standards
In actuality, what we really have is a general trend without consensus. Grading is always evolving, and trying to teach it, is possible, but messy. Understanding the history of grading is important as it informs you about much of the built-in bias in the market, and this is useful. But, graders today have to grade coins consistent with 2019 trends to be relevant. Wishing it to be different seems futile. We aren't going back there..... not that we ever really were there at any point in numismatic history.
I'm confident many here will agree that choice AU examples in many series represent a good value and give collectors a lot of bang for the buck.
In my opinion the grades of VF have the widest range of wear for any grade! I have no problem discerning the different VF grades in most series!
shows you just how much the tpg's have been fooling us.
how have they been fooling us?? just because PCGS says a coin is AU58, AU55 or MS62 should mean nothing to you, to me or to anyone else. what you know from experience and what you learn going forward are what should matter, then you won't "fool yourself" by believing the insert when your brain is telling you something else. if you look at a PCGS coin and the insert says MS62 but your eyes see breaks in the luster what do you do??
I've read through the thread and not sure why we keep spinning on this. The difference between an AU58 and an AU55 is the amount of luster. Are people suggesting there can be wear without loss of luster?
8 Reales Madness Collection
Part 1 -
In theory the difference is mostly in the amount of luster remaining with wear playing a minor role.
In actuality I think it depends on the day of the week that the coin arrives at the grading service and the mental attitude of the majority of the graders on that day. Today a 55 is a 58, tomorrow a 58 is a 55.
Learn to grade (not so easy to do) and buy the coin, not the slab.
Part 2 -
Yes, I think a coin's value come into play sometimes when assigning the grade.
it's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide
@ReadyFireAim said: "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.
I suggest you continue to read comments on this thread because what you have posted is totally incorrect!
Are people suggesting there can be wear without loss of luster?
yes, that is my take on the thread. also, I have to agree with Insider's take above.
I feel AU58 was a MS65 or better coin that now has a slight bit of wear on the highest points of the coin causing loss of luster on those areas. An AU55 was a MS63-MS64 coin that now has a slight bit of wear on the high points causing a loss of luster. An AU53 was a MS61-MS62 coin that now has wear on the high points causing loss of luster and an AU50 was an MS60 or a higher grade AU coin that has more wear and loss of luster.
Life member of ANA
Bingo! Yes, for ALL practical purposes, There are no standards But this is mostly true for XF+ and higher coins.
Only a little change has occurred in grades below XF. Additionally, collectors are allowed to have strict personal standards that do not conform to what has been going on for decades.
As for the rest of your post,.. Teaching grading is extremely easy if a student has an open mind and is not colorblind. What I believe/teach is to start students with actual, strict, and provable characteristics on coins. After they learn what friction, roll rub, weak strikes, originality, cleaning, etc. look like, it is much easier to understand the commercial grading system and "back-off" the obvious actual condition of the coins they examine. It is better to know the MS graded coin you are buying is AU or cleaned than being ignorant. That way a knowledgeable student becomes similar to a "sticker service."
Will change to the old strict standards take place? Probably not in my lifetime if at all. Nevertheless, "detail" grading has emerged again and that is exactly how the old "technical" grading system formulated in the 1970's worked. So progress is being made as we circle back.
Furthermore, until a coin's commercial value is separated from its grade, the folly will continue. Separate the two, apply easy to define strict standards, and the number of folks who agree about a grade will skyrocket!
Grading a coin is a very simple process! Pricing a coin as a respected, successful, professional takes a lifetime of experience! If you cannot price a coin accurately, or don't have a good eye for attractiveness, you'll never understand what is found on many TPGS labels.
Thanks! I never thought of it in this way. I really like this. PM me if you want credit when this concept is expanded and appears in print one day!
What is the usefulness of grading if the assigned grade doesn't correlate to value? Serious question. Apart from academic pigeon-holing of an extant coin population, I see no practical use for it.
Good thing I don't collect anything below MS.
My Saint Set
Simple. J.Q. Public usually has no idea what the value of a coin is. So he looks it up someplace. Oops, all 65's are not the same, many times $$$ different. Many successful professionals who buy and sell coins know the difference. From what I read, the label is a flawed guide, otherwise there would be no need for stickers. I'll get serious, lets stop grading coins and put a price on a label and the date it was appraised.
Anyone can learn to appraise the condition of a stinking piece of metal! Asking them to put a realistic price on it regardless of its actual condition of preservation is impossible to teach. Coins that were once graded in the XF/AU ranges that are now considered MS because they are worth MS money did not become better coins.
Luster is created during the striking of a coin when metal flows from the center outwards under the pressure of the strike, creating microscopic flow lines that reflect light at certain angles. Wear, even slight as in a case of cabinet friction, damages these flow lines, creating luster breaks and separating what is considered a mint state coin from an AU. The amount of luster lost dictates the difference between various AU grades.
8 Reales Madness Collection
I don't think this is quite accurate per published standards. If you think Morgan dollars, the biggest reason you drop fron 65 to 64 to 63 is bag marks. Bag marks are not friction wear. The standard for 58 to 55 to 53 is increasing friction wear and loss of luster.
I should be able to rub a65 to a 58. If I keep rubbing the coin it will drop to 55 then 53.
I feel AU58 was a MS65 or better coin that now has a slight bit of wear on the highest points of the coin causing loss of luster on those areas. An AU55 was a MS63-MS64 coin that now has a slight bit of wear on the high points causing a loss of luster. An AU53 was a MS61-MS62 coin that now has wear on the high points causing loss of luster and an AU50 was an MS60 or a higher grade AU coin that has more wear and loss of luster.
thoughts like this are more the problem than the explanation.
Agree, just make sure they are Mint State because when it is time to sell...
One of the best suggestions I ever got was to try and sell a coin. It was an eye-opening experience. You may wish to get an offer on some of your MS coins. Just get the offers, you don't need to sell them. Then start a discussion.
The difference is the price.
Perhaps I missed something in that post. I read it like this:
Take a coin that looks like an MS-65 and put a little rub on it and that's what an AU-58 looks like. An AU-55 has a tad more wear and more marks.
Salzburg is a town in Austria. Salzberg is a grader in Florida. @MrEureka lost a buck to me on this.
Otherwise, per Coltrane. "Talking about music grading is like dancing about architecture"
To me, and none of the TPG services, an AU58 is an MS67 or better coin that was slid across the desk. Or more to the vernacular of today's world, an MS 67 with cabinet friction.
Sure it is too simple but to prevent a pointless rant I leave it at that.
@insider2 said:
Perhaps I missed something in that post. I read it like this:
Take a coin that looks like an MS-65 and put a little rub on it and that's what an AU-58 looks like. An AU-55 has a tad more wear and more marks.
You understood what I was trying to say exactly.
@jmlanzaf said:
I don't think this is quite accurate per published standards. If you think Morgan dollars, the biggest reason you drop fron 65 to 64 to 63 is bag marks. Bag marks are not friction wear. The standard for 58 to 55 to 53 is increasing friction wear and loss of luster.
I should be able to rub a65 to a 58. If I keep rubbing the coin it will drop to 55 then 53.
I agree with your reasons for the differences between Morgans at MS65,MS64, and MS 63. More bags marks as the grade goes down. But I disagree with wear being the only reason for the differences in the AU grades.
If I have a MS66 1881-S Morgan dollar and put it by its self in my pocket and carry it around for a few weeks, it now may have just a slight bit of wear on the high points and a loss of luster. I call it an AU58
If I take a MS61 1881-S Morgan dollar and put it by its self in my pocket and carry it around for a few weeks, it now also may have just a slight bit of wear on the high points and a loss of luster. But I would not call it a AU58, to me it would be at best an AU53. Both of these coins have the same amount of wear and luster loss, but I would grade them differently because of the other issues (marks, hits, etc.)
Life member of ANA
Interesting idea! After some reflection, this is similar to what we did before TPG's. We were much more focused on the value than the grade. I remember going through auction lots and comparing grades with my friend which helped us learn to grade. However most of our discussions were regarding how much we were willing to bid.
"From what I read, the label is a flawed guide, otherwise there would be no need for stickers. I'll get serious, lets stop grading coins and put a price on a label and the date it was appraised."
PCGS 58+
55 OGH
That is really not what the standards say [see earlier post]. A 61 or 62 with just a tiny bit of friction should be a 58, technically. Now, do some of them end up at 55 because they are just sooo many marks? Probably.
But if you buy my argument about the MS65 coin, it doesn't really matter whether you believe that it applies to 61 through 63 coins. Because the OP claimed a 53 was a 61 with a little wear and a 58 was a 65 with a little wear. At the very least, a 53 could be a 65 with a little extra wear.
Not all 58's are beautiful. I think it is something of a risky numismatic legend to say that "58s are 65s with a rub".
apparently there is confusion as to what the terms bag marks, rub, cabinet friction, contact marks and unstruck planchet flaws mean.
When discussing pornography, Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart once said "I can't define it but I know it when I see it." I feel the same way with AU55 and AU58.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
Good analogy, Perry. Quite true.
Pete
@jmlanzaf said: "I don't think this is quite accurate per published standards. If you think Morgan dollars, the biggest reason you drop fron 65 to 64 to 63 is bag marks. Bag marks are not friction wear. The standard for 58 to 55 to 53 is increasing friction wear and loss of luster. I should be able to rub a 65 to a 58. If I keep rubbing the coin it will drop to 55 then 53."
Please allow me to pile on. Thankfully, @ColoradoCoinGuy (I suspect he must be a former TPGS grader or a Professor of Numismatics) posted this: "I agree with your reasons for the differences between Morgans at MS65,MS64, and MS 63. More bags marks as the grade goes down. But I disagree with wear being the only reason for the differences in the AU grades."
This is correct. It is covered in Basic Coin Grading 101.
For that reason my friend JML
, what you have posted above about the AU grades 58, 55, 53, 50 is too simplistic and misinformed. I think the confusion is because of this FACT: Circulated coins are MOSTLY graded by the amount of details remaining. Therefore, it might be very easy to fall into the ERROR you have posted: "I should be able to rub a 65 to a 58. If I keep rubbing the coin it will drop to 55 then 53." Since a coin with virtually no marks will look very attractive when it is worn down to a 50/53, the "look" of the coin will push it into the 55/55+ grade (value). Additionally, marks come into play for circulated coins also. The ANA has seen fit to combine wear and marks - typical & choice.
Is this not exactly what I posted about my feelings of how AU grades should be but stated in descriptive verbage?
The answers so far defining the differences between a 55 and a 58 are all very good, but what this thread needs are some visual aids to help make the definitions a little more understood.
Here are four PCGS Bust Halves with CAC stickers that will hopefully help make the difference clearer.
Dave
AU55 Green CAC
AU55 Gold CAC
AU58 Green CAC
AU58 Gold CAC (Fully Prooflike)
Thanks for that!
My unsolicited commentary:
Since they are all BEAUTIFUL coins, with few if any marks, I hope we can put to rest some of the claims that "AU-58 equates to MS-??, and AU-55 equates to MS-??" Yeah, the existence of a poorly placed mark, or an extremely clean coin, could influence the grade a little....(like ALL circulated coins!!)...but it seems to me that the degree of WEAR is still the main determinant of AU grade.
Added: Going to quietly drop this here. I really think too much "philosophy" is being introduced here.
From a PDF (briefly) discussing PCGS grading:
It's the degree of WEAR!!
Let me try to clarify some of my OP. When a coin goes from MS to uncirculated, I feel that it does it in the manner I described in my OP. Once a coin is in a circulated grade, AU58 down to Poor1, the grade changes are mostly determined by wear. So and AU58 can go to a AU 55 when it gets a little more wear, it could then go to a AU53 with yet a little more wear, then to a AU50 then a XF45 etc. The AU grades are transition grades taking coins form MS to circulated grades. The coin pics posted by @drddm are all great coins and I have no disagreement with the grades or stickers, but I bet none of them would have started out when they came out of the mint bags or kegs or whatever they were initially stored in from the Mint as an MS61 coin, those coins started life as GEMs.
With my 81-S Morgan dollar example. If both the MS61 and MS65 each receive the same amount of wear and luster loss and some of you think they should then both be called AU58, would you pay the same money for either one? Or would you only want the former MS65 coin, at the AU58 price, as it should have much better eye appeal. (I know there is not much spread in prices for 81-S at this grade). My point is that these two AU58s are not equal.
@keets said;
apparently there is confusion as to what the terms bag marks, rub, cabinet friction, contact marks and unstruck planchet flaws mean.
With regards to Planchet flaws. Many 20's and early 30's buffalo nickels were weakly struck. You can find coins slabbed MS65 that have marks, usually in the center of the buffalo or in the Indians hair, yet the coin has full luster. This is because those planchet hits were not removed during the striking of the coin. These should not effect the grade, at least from what I was taught. When one of these coins is lightly circulated it would be considered AU58 even when it appears there are many "hits" on the coin. This is were knowledge of particular coins is important when grading. But what happens when one of those Buffalo Nickels got lucky, because of a slightly thicker planchet of whatever, and is fully struck. No planchet marks are visible. A nice GEM coin. Now that coin is lightly circulated and should become a AU58, but if you compare it to all the other AU58 Buffs that were weakly struck it stands out as superior and I think that is when the TPGS call it a MS62 because it deserves more money. So all this boils down to some AU58 could have what appear to be hit/contact marks but they might really be unstuck planchet flaws which, I believe, don't affect the grade.
Flame away.
Life member of ANA
@TommyType had photos of PCGS grading for AU Morgans. I agree with how they defined each grade. However to my eyes each of these coins had to have started out as a higher grade MS coins. They don't show any photos of what an MS61 Morgan would look like when it had "Only the slightest friction on the highest points. Virtually full luster." If they would call that former MS61 coin AU58 would you prefer it over the pictured AU58 coin? Would you pay the same price for either coin?
Life member of ANA
Agree with your thought process. (Both here, and your previous post).
Quick and dirty answer is that ALL AU-58's are not of the same desirability OR value. (Same could be said of any VF-20, or MS-63).
I would even say it's possible that a "beat up 61" that had some 58 worthy wear might even be downgraded to 55! We see that all the time in just about any circulated grade, and call it being "quietly net graded". (At least I call it that).
My point in posting the picture I did was to point out that the PRIMARY consideration for 58 vs. 55 (vs. 53, etc), is WEAR. I disagree quite strongly with the contention, posted much earlier in this thread, that "an AU-58 looks nothing like an AU-55". Sure they can look very similar! The difference is a small amount of WEAR and LUSTER LOSS between the two grades.
Agree with @TommyType that once you are into circulated grades, and all AU grades are in the circulated grade realm, wear becomes the primary factor in the coins grade.
Life member of ANA
As a side note, as a long time lurker and a person with not many posts.
How do you get that bar next to other people's text when you are referring to their posts in your posts?
Thanks
Life member of ANA
Hit the word "Quote" at the bottom of the post, and it will auto-magically put the post you are quoting at the top of the reply box.
(Unfortunately, it suspiciously looks like you are tagging their post, like "Agree", but it's an entirely different operation).
The Pope, who started collecting early Argentine silver as a child, believes that the 70-point grading scale is an insidious assault against simple human joy and happiness promulgated by agents of Lucifer and/or his unwitting agents. Officially, he has stated nothing more than that while micro-grading is an abomination, it's of a merely mega-venial nature. It won't keep you out of Heaven and is not worthy of a papal encyclical.
He grieves for those afflicted.
In private conversations, he has been known to point to John Albanese's picture on the wall and ask "The Church didn't have to supply either of us with much of an education on this. When wasn't a slider a slider? When won't it be? How can someone be denied the comfort?" His voice sometimes cracks when he says this, yet who would know better when something can be shrugged off as a First-World problem? He is CAC collector member 9999 and has an 88% acceptance rate on Saints, Chuck Norris next, just easing past @tradedollarnut at an astonishing yet piddling 48%.
@drddm Thanks for your pics of your beautiful halves. I wish to comment that a CAC green bean on quality coins can often be attained on the same coin if regraded another level upward. As such, I would not place much emphasis on the bean factor when considering your pictures attempting to show differences between 55 and 58. And, if one considers JA's disregard for the middle AU grades, this might further erode the sticker meaning for your coins.
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
Disagree. Respectfully.
You have become the Nit King.
Read the guidelines.
You are ignoring the reason for that post and reading it as a global answer. The OP said that a 53 was a 62 with a rub. My counterexample was simply to illustrate that a 53 could be a 65 with a lot of rub. I am not claiming that is the only way to arrive at 53. But it was a counterexample to the "simplistic and misinformed" (your terms) suggestion that one could characterize a 58 as 65 with a rub, 55 as 63 with a rub etc.
Kindly view my comment in context.
Query me this: what do you call a 58 with a little more rub? If the answer is 55, you agree with me. If you tell me that minor rub on a 58 drops it lower than 55, I'd like to see your credentials.
The guidelines also maintain minor flatness on the high points for a 53 which is forbidden for a 55.
Are you implying that a 65 on bag marks with flatness on the high points is a 55? I know why JA had noticed all these C coins in holders.
Can a coin get a boost from eye appeal? Yes. That has little to do with my progression of rub. Even if it takes more rub to get a 65 down to 53 than a 63, I don't think it is reasonable to suggest that the 65 jumps over 53 straight to 50 or 45.
Let me summarize my point: An AU53 could be a 62 with a rub, it could also be a 65 with rub or a 64 with rub etc. The idea that you could characterize any of those grades with the simple aphorism "a single # is a single # with rub" is too simplistic. Not all 58s are 65 with rub. Not all 65s with rub are 58s.
AGREE AGREE AGREE
You have provided some wonderful coins, Unfortunately, IMO, it is best not to discuss coins slabbed by our host. I know we do it occasionally; but...
Note: I'm making no "between-the-line suggestion about any of the posted examples.
There are AU58 and AU55 coins that became AU from the lower-end of the UNC. You won't see a lot of them, because they are generally dogs. Same reason you don't see lot of people with 60-61 grades if they can help it.
Here's one. Imagine it being a bust dollar - very similar grading approach.
8 Reales Madness Collection
LOL, don't get ready for bed all fat and happy yet! Yes, in the specific case provided by those very "clean" POSTED EXAMPLES, it is the amount of wear (and condition of the surface) that dictates the grades.
PS You are wearing me out. I'll answer your long disagreement later. I think I like it. For now...
Without going back and reading all the other reply's...here is my take on 55 and 58.
A 58 is a 65 or 66 with rub.
A 55 is a 64 with rub.
And a 53 is a 61 or 62 with rub.
A coin doesn't wear from a 58 to a 55 to a 53......etc...
Really?
So let's say I start carrying a 58 as a pocket piece. What's the next stop? 50? 45?
What do you call an AU58 when I've worn down the coin until the high points are flat?
That's off the wall. Sure if you wear it down the grade will change. I'm saying a coin had to be a 65 to start with before it could become a 58. I got this principle from David Lawrence years ago. I think he new what he was talking about.