Here is the thing...Again, the geniuses who wrote the ANA Grading Guide combined PMD and wear into each category of circulated coins. Because of this both marks AND wear affect (for example) the AU grades. A beat up AU-58 (just a touch of friction) coin rates AU-50 (typical). So marks alone can lower a grade. A mark free coin with more wear than the usual AU-58 may be bumped up a lot due to eye-appeal.
Note that the Sheldon Grading system that became the basis for the true "Technical Grading System" used in Washington ,DC does not deal AT ALL with PMD in the circulated grades!!!!! It is too bad the ANA did not adopt the precise "archival" system used in DC for internal records at their authentication service.
BTW, the first TPGS, INSAB, did. Grade the coin strictly so it would always grade the same forever (as long as it stayed in the same condition) and let the value of that coin be established by professionals according to the up's and downs of the commercial coin market.
@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?
You are CORRECT. If we put a MS coin in a device that slides it back and forth over fine grain emery. We can stop the process at the top end and bottom end of each grade until we reach Poor.
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.
With respect, I think it's more of a numismatic urban legend. Suppose you have the marks of a 64, the luster of a 68, and some light friction? It's going to 58 not 55.
@Insider2 said:
Here is the thing...Again, the geniuses who wrote the ANA Grading Guide combined PMD and wear into each category of circulated coins. Because of this both marks AND wear affect (for example) the AU grades. A beat up AU-58 (just a touch of friction) coin rates AU-50 (typical). So marks alone can lower a grade. A mark free coin with more wear than the usual AU-58 may be bumped up a lot due to eye-appeal.
Note that the Sheldon Grading system that became the basis for the true "Technical Grading System" used in Washington ,DC does not deal AT ALL with PMD in the circulated grades!!!!! It is too bad the ANA did not adopt the precise "archival" system used in DC for internal records at their authentication service.
BTW, the first TPGS, INSAB, did. Grade the coin strictly so it would always grade the same forever (as long as it stayed in the same condition) and let the value of that coin be established by professionals according to the up's and downs of the commercial coin market.
While I believe this is all true, it does make me pine for the old 5 point coarse grading system.
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.
With respect, I think it's more of a numismatic urban legend. Suppose you have the marks of a 64, the luster of a 68, and some light friction? It's going to 58 not 55.
There's more than one way to get to a 58.
[In my ever humble opinion.]
I think the premise to me is that a 65 can't wear down to a 58. JMHO.
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.
With respect, I think it's more of a numismatic urban legend. Suppose you have the marks of a 64, the luster of a 68, and some light friction? It's going to 58 not 55.
There's more than one way to get to a 58.
[In my ever humble opinion.]
I think the premise to me is that a 65 can't wear down to a 58. JMHO.
See Insider's post.
I think it is hard for a 62 or maybe even a 63 to end up as a 58 because of the bag marks. But I think a 65 could end up anywhere because you can always wear it down a little bit more.
I don’t agree with those who say that an AU58 is any one specific unc. grade with rub.
An AU58 should be barely shy of an unc. coin (of any grade) and I see no good reason why an MS coin of any numerical grade can’t become an AU58.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
LOL...you are preaching what I posted but don't want to acknowledge it!
@Insider2 said:
Here is the thing...Again, the geniuses who wrote the ANA Grading Guide combined PMD and wear into each category of circulated coins. Because of this both marks AND wear affect (for example) the AU grades. A beat up AU-58 (just a touch of friction) coin rates AU-50 (typical). So marks alone can lower a grade. A mark free coin with more wear than the usual AU-58 may be bumped up a lot due to eye-appeal.
Note that the Sheldon Grading system that became the basis for the true "Technical Grading System" used in Washington ,DC does not deal AT ALL with PMD in the circulated grades!!!!! It is too bad the ANA did not adopt the precise "archival" system used in DC for internal records at their authentication service.
BTW, the first TPGS, INSAB, did. Grade the coin strictly so it would always grade the same forever (as long as it stayed in the same condition) and let the value of that coin be established by professionals according to the up's and downs of the commercial coin market.
@amwldcoin said:
LOL...you are preaching what I posted but don't want to acknowledge it!
@Insider2 said:
Here is the thing...Again, the geniuses who wrote the ANA Grading Guide combined PMD and wear into each category of circulated coins. Because of this both marks AND wear affect (for example) the AU grades. A beat up AU-58 (just a touch of friction) coin rates AU-50 (typical). So marks alone can lower a grade. A mark free coin with more wear than the usual AU-58 may be bumped up a lot due to eye-appeal.
Note that the Sheldon Grading system that became the basis for the true "Technical Grading System" used in Washington ,DC does not deal AT ALL with PMD in the circulated grades!!!!! It is too bad the ANA did not adopt the precise "archival" system used in DC for internal records at their authentication service.
BTW, the first TPGS, INSAB, did. Grade the coin strictly so it would always grade the same forever (as long as it stayed in the same condition) and let the value of that coin be established by professionals according to the up's and downs of the commercial coin market.
@MFeld said:
I don’t agree with those who say that an AU58 is any one specific unc. grade with rub.
An AU58 should be barely shy of an unc. coin (of any grade) and I see no good reason why an MS coin of any numerical grade can’t become an AU58.
You may have the mantle, I can't carry the fight any longer. LOL.
Any novice reading the experts on this thread will be left feeling that either there are no standards whatsoever or that the standards are contrary to the published guidelines.
@jmlanzaf said:
Any novice reading the experts on this thread will be left feeling that either there are no standards whatsoever or that the standards are contrary to the published guidelines.
As I've been following this thread, I can't help but think of all the comments in previous threads that I've seen posted here criticizing the grading of others, as if there are easily understood guidelines to follow.
A coin doesn't wear from a 58 to a 55 to a 53......etc
actually, that's exactly what it does.
this has been a very informative thread, not only because it attempts to explain what defines the AU grades but for what it tells me about how other collectors view(and misunderstand) just how to technically grade.
--- the distinction is luster and determining if there are any "breaks" in the luster at the high points of the design due to light rub/friction. no amount of marks, whether from a less than full strike or PMD, determine the AU58 grade from MS grades. remember, luster is caused by metal flow, so even a less than full struck coin will have luster resulting from metal flow. as the breaks or absence of luster becomes greater/more noticeable the grade moves downward: AU55, AU53, AU50, etc.
the confusion, I think, is that as a group we become so entrenched in the Mint State grades and looking at a coin with full luster that we then tend to grade everything by contact marks. if you reference the PCGS grading standards you'll understand this.
--- for Mint State grades the primary concern is contact marks, how many and their location.
--- starting with the AU58 grade and moving lower the primary concern is luster.
--- after that, the determinent seems to be loss of additional luster and amount of actual wear.
--- it is interesting to note that below MS60 PCGS stops referencing contact marks and hairlines. they do, however, continue to stress luster and wear.
please don't suppose that I understand how to grade fully and that I consider myself a crack grader. I tend to grade instinctively or reflexively, judging mainly by what I have explained above. like Sly Stone wrote so many years ago, Sometimes I'm right and Sometimes I'm wrong........................I am Everyday People.
This is a rather insightful thread as it highlights the huge disparity in how people think grading works. If Keets is no expert, I'm a few rungs below him when it comes to being a grader. Funny, virtually all of us probably think we know how grading is supposed to work, more or less. Likely, most of us are wrong on at least a significant part of it.
The general addresses the troops prior to the invasion. He says, "Soldiers, I'm sorry to tell you, but we've looked at this situation and half of you will probably be dead by tonight." Every person in the unit looks at the guy next to him and thinks "poor sucker." Sure glad it's not me.
@jmlanzaf said:
Any novice reading the experts on this thread will be left feeling that either there are no standards whatsoever or that the standards are contrary to the published guidelines.
As I've been following this thread, I can't help but think of all the comments in previous threads that I've seen posted here criticizing the grading of others, as if there are easily understood guidelines to follow.
I hear you. But there are SUPPOSED TO BE guidelines and a reasonable range of standards. I think it is pretty clear in most cases if you look at the Photograde pictures. But if you read this thread it seems chaotic.
The PCGS description of 58, 55 and 53 is pretty clear and (I would think) pretty easy to understand. If you look at a few coins or just the photograde pictures, I think it is pretty clear...well, I THOUGHT it was pretty clear until reading this thread. Even Insider2 who is a professional grade has been all over the place on here.
@BryceM said:
I agree with @keets on this. Weird, right?
This is a rather insightful thread as it highlights the huge disparity in how people think grading works. If Keets is no expert, I'm a few rungs below him when it comes to being a grader. Funny, virtually all of us probably think we know how grading is supposed to work, more or less. Likely, most of us are wrong on at least a significant part of it.
The general addresses the troops prior to the invasion. He says, "Soldiers, I'm sorry to tell you, but we've looked at this situation and half of you will probably be dead by tonight." Every person in the unit looks at the guy next to him and thinks "poor sucker." Sure glad it's not me.
What is confusing/distressing/curious to me is how much general differences there are in a generic AU definition. What I mean is that I think it is harder to assess DIFFERENT COIN SERIES, especially in mid-circulated grade. If you haven't looked at a lot of old copper, the difference between, for example, a VF-20 and a VF-25 would not be obvious even if you are comfortable with the difference for a Morgan dollar. For MS grades, judging things like strength of strike can be difficult in a coin series you are not familiar with.
But 58/55/53 progression should be easier to find common ground. You have minimal wear with no loss of detail. A 53 is the first time you have significant wear (high point flatness) so separating it out from 55/58 should be easy with the exception of very weak strikes in some series that could be flat. A 58, BY DEFINITION, has almost no wear with full luster. A 55 has a bit more wear and luster breaks. It should be harder to tell a 58 from a 60 than a 55, I would think.
If nothing else, this thread is proof of why we NEED TPGS's. Otherwise, every raw coin sale would end in fisticuffs over whether the coin was a 55 or 58. [jk]
the most difficult thing for me is to identify the first places where luster will be lost, the highest points of the design. on some series it is very easy for me but for others very hard. Washington Quarters seem to fool me easiest.
@keets said:
the most difficult thing for me is to identify the first places where luster will be lost, the highest points of the design. on some series it is very easy for me but for others very hard. Washington Quarters seem to fool me easiest.
There are two useful books to use as a guide. You probably don't need them. Making the Grade and the NCI Grading Guide. The easiest way to see rub on a coin is to go into a dark room and examine it using a florescent light. The rub will jump out in that type of light! That is why we are told NOT TO USE IT FOR GRADING! LOL.
Well, now that I am completely confused I do feel like I can tell the difference between a 55 and a 58 now ( a lil more rub and less luster). Problem is I don't know how I got to the 58 to begin with but I believe it was a 62 with some teeth marks.
At least for 5 cent coins a breakdown in my mind would be something along the lines of:
Luster: a 58 should have darn near full mint luster. A 55 can afford to be a bit toned over.
Marks: hits on a 58 should really be de minimis, like bag marks on an UNC coin. A 55 will show dings that would occur in circulation.
Stike: I don't think factors into the equation. I've owned a number of super hammered 55 coins.
Originality: should be strong on both. Coins lacking originality should be kicked down to 53.
I think the issues of eye appeal and market grade are intertwined. Although I do think it is more likely for a superior 58 to market grade to 62 than it is for a superior 55 to market grade to 58. Hard to quantify, just a gut feeling
@greatcoineye said:
I think the issues of eye appeal and market grade are intertwined. Although I do think it is more likely for a superior 58 to market grade to 62 than it is for a superior 55 to market grade to 58. Hard to quantify, just a gut feeling
I think THIS would have been a good topic of discussion...and probably what the OP had in mind to begin with. But the question initially posed was so nebulous, and the responses that were praised (and chastised) were so far afield, that I think it got lost.
@greatcoineye said:
At least for 5 cent coins a breakdown in my mind would be something along the lines of:
Luster: a 58 should have darn near full mint luster. A 55 can afford to be a bit toned over.
Marks: hits on a 58 should really be de minimis, like bag marks on an UNC coin. A 55 will show dings that would occur in circulation.
Stike: I don't think factors into the equation. I've owned a number of super hammered 55 coins.
Originality: should be strong on both. Coins lacking originality should be kicked down to 53.
I think the issues of eye appeal and market grade are intertwined. Although I do think it is more likely for a superior 58 to market grade to 62 than it is for a superior 55 to market grade to 58. Hard to quantify, just a gut feeling
"toned over" should not be loss of luster unless heavy. Luster doesn't mean "white", it means "shiny"
@greatcoineye said:
I think the issues of eye appeal and market grade are intertwined. Although I do think it is more likely for a superior 58 to market grade to 62 than it is for a superior 55 to market grade to 58. Hard to quantify, just a gut feeling
I think THIS would have been a good topic of discussion...and probably what the OP had in mind to begin with. But the question initially posed was so nebulous, and the responses that were praised (and chastised) were so far afield, that I think it got lost.
Why don't you start a discussion and see where it goes?
Comments
Here is the thing...Again, the geniuses who wrote the ANA Grading Guide combined PMD and wear into each category of circulated coins. Because of this both marks AND wear affect (for example) the AU grades. A beat up AU-58 (just a touch of friction) coin rates AU-50 (typical). So marks alone can lower a grade. A mark free coin with more wear than the usual AU-58 may be bumped up a lot due to eye-appeal.
Note that the Sheldon Grading system that became the basis for the true "Technical Grading System" used in Washington ,DC does not deal AT ALL with PMD in the circulated grades!!!!! It is too bad the ANA did not adopt the precise "archival" system used in DC for internal records at their authentication service.
BTW, the first TPGS, INSAB, did.
Grade the coin strictly so it would always grade the same forever (as long as it stayed in the same condition) and let the value of that coin be established by professionals according to the up's and downs of the commercial coin market.
You are CORRECT. If we put a MS coin in a device that slides it back and forth over fine grain emery. We can stop the process at the top end and bottom end of each grade until we reach Poor.
It's not just Taco Tuesday, it's Bingo Night at the Primate House.
O-55 gets called and everyone not fearful of a 45+ calls "BINGO !"
With respect, I think it's more of a numismatic urban legend. Suppose you have the marks of a 64, the luster of a 68, and some light friction? It's going to 58 not 55.
There's more than one way to get to a 58.
[In my ever humble opinion.]
While I believe this is all true, it does make me pine for the old 5 point coarse grading system.
I think the premise to me is that a 65 can't wear down to a 58. JMHO.
The question is whether your microscopes have enough power to find out?
See Insider's post.
I think it is hard for a 62 or maybe even a 63 to end up as a 58 because of the bag marks. But I think a 65 could end up anywhere because you can always wear it down a little bit more.
I don’t agree with those who say that an AU58 is any one specific unc. grade with rub.
An AU58 should be barely shy of an unc. coin (of any grade) and I see no good reason why an MS coin of any numerical grade can’t become an AU58.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
LOL...you are preaching what I posted but don't want to acknowledge it!
He likes to pick at nits....
You may have the mantle, I can't carry the fight any longer. LOL.
Any novice reading the experts on this thread will be left feeling that either there are no standards whatsoever or that the standards are contrary to the published guidelines.
As I've been following this thread, I can't help but think of all the comments in previous threads that I've seen posted here criticizing the grading of others, as if there are easily understood guidelines to follow.
To me the difference is that I've cracked out a few 55s but never a 58.
A coin doesn't wear from a 58 to a 55 to a 53......etc
actually, that's exactly what it does.
this has been a very informative thread, not only because it attempts to explain what defines the AU grades but for what it tells me about how other collectors view(and misunderstand) just how to technically grade.
--- the distinction is luster and determining if there are any "breaks" in the luster at the high points of the design due to light rub/friction. no amount of marks, whether from a less than full strike or PMD, determine the AU58 grade from MS grades. remember, luster is caused by metal flow, so even a less than full struck coin will have luster resulting from metal flow. as the breaks or absence of luster becomes greater/more noticeable the grade moves downward: AU55, AU53, AU50, etc.
the confusion, I think, is that as a group we become so entrenched in the Mint State grades and looking at a coin with full luster that we then tend to grade everything by contact marks. if you reference the PCGS grading standards you'll understand this.
--- for Mint State grades the primary concern is contact marks, how many and their location.
--- starting with the AU58 grade and moving lower the primary concern is luster.
--- after that, the determinent seems to be loss of additional luster and amount of actual wear.
--- it is interesting to note that below MS60 PCGS stops referencing contact marks and hairlines. they do, however, continue to stress luster and wear.
please don't suppose that I understand how to grade fully and that I consider myself a crack grader. I tend to grade instinctively or reflexively, judging mainly by what I have explained above. like Sly Stone wrote so many years ago, Sometimes I'm right and Sometimes I'm wrong........................I am Everyday People.
below MS60 PCGS stops referencing contact marks and hairlines
.
Example. PCGS AU58 1926S Mercury Dime.
.
Ken
I agree with @keets on this. Weird, right?
This is a rather insightful thread as it highlights the huge disparity in how people think grading works. If Keets is no expert, I'm a few rungs below him when it comes to being a grader. Funny, virtually all of us probably think we know how grading is supposed to work, more or less. Likely, most of us are wrong on at least a significant part of it.
The general addresses the troops prior to the invasion. He says, "Soldiers, I'm sorry to tell you, but we've looked at this situation and half of you will probably be dead by tonight." Every person in the unit looks at the guy next to him and thinks "poor sucker." Sure glad it's not me.
I hear you. But there are SUPPOSED TO BE guidelines and a reasonable range of standards. I think it is pretty clear in most cases if you look at the Photograde pictures. But if you read this thread it seems chaotic.
The PCGS description of 58, 55 and 53 is pretty clear and (I would think) pretty easy to understand. If you look at a few coins or just the photograde pictures, I think it is pretty clear...well, I THOUGHT it was pretty clear until reading this thread. Even Insider2 who is a professional grade has been all over the place on here.
What is confusing/distressing/curious to me is how much general differences there are in a generic AU definition. What I mean is that I think it is harder to assess DIFFERENT COIN SERIES, especially in mid-circulated grade. If you haven't looked at a lot of old copper, the difference between, for example, a VF-20 and a VF-25 would not be obvious even if you are comfortable with the difference for a Morgan dollar. For MS grades, judging things like strength of strike can be difficult in a coin series you are not familiar with.
But 58/55/53 progression should be easier to find common ground. You have minimal wear with no loss of detail. A 53 is the first time you have significant wear (high point flatness) so separating it out from 55/58 should be easy with the exception of very weak strikes in some series that could be flat. A 58, BY DEFINITION, has almost no wear with full luster. A 55 has a bit more wear and luster breaks. It should be harder to tell a 58 from a 60 than a 55, I would think.
If nothing else, this thread is proof of why we NEED TPGS's. Otherwise, every raw coin sale would end in fisticuffs over whether the coin was a 55 or 58. [jk]
the most difficult thing for me is to identify the first places where luster will be lost, the highest points of the design. on some series it is very easy for me but for others very hard. Washington Quarters seem to fool me easiest.
There are two useful books to use as a guide. You probably don't need them. Making the Grade and the NCI Grading Guide. The easiest way to see rub on a coin is to go into a dark room and examine it using a florescent light. The rub will jump out in that type of light! That is why we are told NOT TO USE IT FOR GRADING! LOL.
Well, now that I am completely confused I do feel like I can tell the difference between a 55 and a 58 now ( a lil more rub and less luster). Problem is I don't know how I got to the 58 to begin with but I believe it was a 62 with some teeth marks.
At least for 5 cent coins a breakdown in my mind would be something along the lines of:
Luster: a 58 should have darn near full mint luster. A 55 can afford to be a bit toned over.
Marks: hits on a 58 should really be de minimis, like bag marks on an UNC coin. A 55 will show dings that would occur in circulation.
Stike: I don't think factors into the equation. I've owned a number of super hammered 55 coins.
Originality: should be strong on both. Coins lacking originality should be kicked down to 53.
I think the issues of eye appeal and market grade are intertwined. Although I do think it is more likely for a superior 58 to market grade to 62 than it is for a superior 55 to market grade to 58. Hard to quantify, just a gut feeling
I think THIS would have been a good topic of discussion...and probably what the OP had in mind to begin with. But the question initially posed was so nebulous, and the responses that were praised (and chastised) were so far afield, that I think it got lost.
"toned over" should not be loss of luster unless heavy. Luster doesn't mean "white", it means "shiny"
Agreed; about 3 points worth of overall Quality, in one of the Infinite combinations of factors.
Stopped reading the thread here, as that was a good answer.
Unless it's a trick question?
Maybe i should read on, as i wouldn't want to miss any sophistry 😉
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Why don't you start a discussion and see where it goes?