Options
Guess the grade ($2 1/2 Indian)
jwitten
Posts: 5,077 ✭✭✭✭✭
This one is tricky. 1908 was the first year of mintage, and the full details on the eagle's shoulder had not been added yet, so you really can't grade based on that. Even top pop coins are smooth there. Also, this one is dirty/toned. I love the look personally, but tougher to grade possibly. Still plenty of luster showing though. If you have seen the grade posted elsewhere for this one no cheating or spoilers 
It is graded by ICG. 
7
Comments
My YouTube Channel
Like the look a lot, but these are tough to grade and I have trouble putting a number on them. I will say 62 or 63.
From the picture I would have guessed high AU. But I am thinking you have a dirty 62.
58
58
58 ish...
55
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
58
AU58
AU55. Nice looking original toned coin.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
Can't figure them out yet.
I'm gonna go high and say 63?
Assuming the little line on the obverse is planchet?
Coincidently, I just bought my 1st 2 1/2 a couple of days ago & I have no idea what I'm doing.
My Saint Set
Nice 62, don't like toners but on gold sometimes they look good. This one is natural and attractive, congrats!
The whole worlds off its rocker, buy Gold™.
tough to grade...au55/8. nice coin
ICG 63 plus or minus.
58/62
55 or 58
55 Good lookin coin @jwitten
I think ICG got this one wrong.
Here is the only xf45 in coinfacts for comparison
Wow! That's conservative grading on ICG's part. CAC would give that coin a gold sticker, if they reviewed ICG graded coins.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
I was going to say AU-53. I very much like that piece.👌🏻
Edited to say I still think it’s an AU. I don’t agree with the grade assigned.
Are you guys kidding?
@jwitten said: "I think ICG got this one wrong."
I think the additional coin you posted is wrong.
Now, let's salvage this discussion. Please, KEEP ALL COMMENTS strictly about the OP's ICG graded coin.
Grades range from MS-62 down to XF-45.
Anyone wish to defend their opinion. Eventually I will post mine too.
BUMP! No opinions?
No one is bashing a grading service here! There are examples of OVER-GRADED, UNDER-GRADED, and "CORRECTLY-GRADED" coins in every TPGS slab.
If we cannot write about a coin from a TPGS, because it is against the rules @Heather please close the discussion.
I looked up the coin. I was one of the graders. There were THREE DIFFERENT OPINIONS on this coin and the final grade assigned by our finalizer is on the slab.
Remember, "eye-appeal" is an important part of the over-all "COMMERCIAL" grade.
Hard to grade from the pictures obviously, but I sure see lots of luster.
My YouTube Channel
What were those three different opinions?
Were the spots and toning considered negative eye appeal?
What were the three different opinions? And are you saying that the coin was under-graded, due to negative eye-appeal?😉 If you don’t feel it was under-graded, do you think that the posted XF45 1908 was over-graded?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
My Saint Set
My opinion for AU at minimum: Tons of luster present. All the dots present on the headband (dots disappear first with wear, zigzag pattern next). Good detail still showing on eagle's wing. (remember, all 1908's have no detail on the top of the wing/shoulder.)
More of my reasons for AU at MINIMUM. Check out these PCGS graded examples of other dates. There are not as many pictures to compare now that they have taken a lot away, so this is what is available:
1909 AU55 (notice the dots are gone, zigzag still present)
1910 xf45 (dots basically gone, zigzag barely visible):
1911 xf45 (notice the dots are gone, zigzag barely visible)
Shall I go on? lol
How often do three different professional graders each give the same coin a different grade? How would you ever know which one got it right? I guess the grade comes down to the opinion of the individual grader.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
Skip, you are killing us with these tight grades, please loosen up a little!
Some coins lend themselves to considerably more uniform agreement than others. And even if we don’t like it, often there isn't a single “right” grade.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I'm going to post the three grades after we have heard form members with a defense of their opinions. It's an image. No one can be wrong - just some will be more in agreement with the norm. The best coins to discuss have been graded by several different services as that may help establish what an acceptable "norm" might be.
I'll return to the discussion tomorrow - once they are gone. Goodnight all!
I disagree. I think that posting additional (potentially relevant) coins can provide perspective and be quite useful. Grading in a vacuum is almost certainly a poor method.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
All PCGS pictures to compare are gone (for now). I think comparing other coins already graded by the top two grading companies is a GREAT way to get a feel for a coin's condition though. I may see if I can find some xf45 that are CACed just for the heck of it.
So my guess is looking better and better
What about that line from the 2nd star to the "L"?
PMD or Planchet?
What defines weak hit in an incuse coin w/ bad/textured planchet?
My Saint Set
I'm not sure if that is planchet or marks, but either way, I think this coin should be high AU to low MS. It graded XF45, which is crazy, in my opinion.
I would give it a 55+/58
Impatient, I must have struck a nerve with my guess. Gotta give me some time to respond, I'm a single dad pulling a 13 hour shift today.
"From the picture I would have guessed high AU. But I am thinking you have a dirty 62."
I am not a gold guy and have little knowledge in gold coins and grading. I find that I normally grade too tough on the guess the grade posts. My first thought seeing the photo was AU55 or better. There is a lot of luster flashing which tells me it is above XF. After seeing the slab grade I will stick with my original AU55 as a minimum grade.
Because of my past GTG experience of guessing low on gold and because of the explanation given by the OP and because the coin was not in the top two holders, I made an assumption (make an asssss of me) that it may have graded MS and with the marks, nothing higher than 62.
But lets drop the assumption and get back to the fact that this coin in my opinion is a solid AU because it has too much fine detail present and too much luster present to be XF. I think the tone is making it appear more worn than it is. I might not be a fan of the toning and "eye appeal" but I did not net grade my guess. I grade a technical solid AU55.
I would like to hear your argument, in this case defense, as to why this coin is XF. If you net graded it then say so and tell me what you think the base technical detail grade is.
...is it just me or does any one else picture @Insider2 as Patches O’houlihan from the movie Dodgeball???
This is one of the more interesting and educational threads. I graded it as being an AU55 based on the remaining fine detail and the luster remaining. My first thought is the graders must have seen a problem that isn't showing up in the pics and then silently net graded it. Now I'm leaning toward the fact the graders just got it wrong as sometimes happens with all grading services. There's a reason our host has a reconsideration service. As others have pointed out, the 1908 quarter eagle is missing all feather details at the top of the wing. This was corrected in the later issues. I'm guessing the grader may have been thrown off thinking that the feather details were worn off when we know that they were never there. I'm anxiously awaiting Insider2's thoughts on this coin. What were the three grades assigned by the graders at ICG? Which grade did you assign and why? Did the graders get together to discuss the coin in the hopes of reaching a consensus or did each grader work independently? Thanks for any insights into the grading process at ICG.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
I'm with CHD, when I first saw the coin I thought AU53, so yes, I think ICG got it wrong, but I really can't see that as an MS graded coin.
--- I find it interesting that some members claim to see "luster" in the pictures when we tend to acknowledge that luster can be the most difficult thing to show in an image. in the case of this coin, luster is the key factor. the shoulder area which is claimed to have no detail in MS coins looks to me to just have wear. an in-hand inspection would show luster breaks there and throughout the coin. I assume that is primary in the ICG assessment.
TTT for Insider2.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
I can be a brat at times, so OP, thanks for removing the PCGS (?) images (for now).
@MFeld said: "I disagree. I think that posting additional (potentially relevant) coins can provide perspective and be quite useful. Grading in a vacuum is almost certainly a poor method."
I disagree! Every coin is graded one-at-a-time. I call that a vacuum even though the grade opinion is being formed from the "universe" (non-vacuum) of the individual grader's experience. Additionally, IMO, when we are discussing one coin, the ONLY TIME sticking more coins on the thread helps IS NEAR THE END of the discussion so that we can either continue writing about the original coin (based on these new examples) or pick apart the new examples. The reason I believe this is that members like me often join a discussion in the middle and start posting about the wrong coins.
I'll post my final comments first so members do not need to read further unless they wish.
This coin was graded XF-40 and AU-50 with the end result XF-45. IMO, this coin is AU-50 Max; and I would sell/price it as an AU. I was the low grader. All TPGS's have a "review" tier if you disagree with the grade.
This is a no compromise truly mint state 1908 $2 1/2 compliments of Heritage Auctions:
Now let's talk about the OP's ICG coin.
These coins are often weak at the tip of the eagle's shoulder; however they can be found with hints of the feather scallops Judging for the loss of luster all over the surface of the OP's coin, anyone who posts that the OP's coin is MS needs to either take a grading class or find a knowledgeable mentor. They are extremely uninformed! Even with the very liberal grading standard used today: Many coins: formerly graded as AU are now graded in the low MS range, the OP's coin is NOT EVEN CLOSE!
NOTE: In defense of those folks, Incuse Indians are difficult to grade. If you look at just the reverse images in my favorite grading guide (Grading Coins by Photographs) each coin from VF-30 to AU-55 looks like the feather detail is as complete as the TRUE MS coin reverse I've posted above. The ANA Grading guide images are slightly better for this series. The descriptions in both books are much better guides.
Let's consider the amount of wear and the remaining amount of original mint luster on the OP's coin. I'd use "very much" to describe it both of these.
Old obsolete Sheldon standard (decades old, pre-gradflation, and pre-TPGS) for XF-40: "Only the slightest trace of wear. or of rubbing, is to be seen on the high points." Imagine how much original mint luster would be on a coin that looked this way - almost all." However, we cannot grade coins this strictly anymore. Grading has "evolved." Folks know more today.
Old obsolete ANA general standard (decades old, pre-gradflation, and pre-TPGS) for XF-45: "Has LIGHT overall wear on the coin's highest points. All design details are very sharp. Mint luster is USUALLY SEEN only in the protected areas of the coin's surface..." ANA specific description for XF $2 1/2 Indian:
Obv: Light wear on cheekbone, headdress, and headband.
Rev: Light wear on shoulder, head, neck, and breast.
Surface: Part of the luster may be present.
By this definition, the OP's coin has more than "light wear" to me. As for the remaining luster, as I posted already, very much. To get to an ANA AU, the coin can ONLY HAVE a "trace" of wear.
Now lets break down the individual attributes Of the OP's coin:
Luster: original yet slightly impaired by dirt, wear, and brown toning.
Marks: many small.
Strike: normal.
Eye Appeal: rather attractive.
So, based on my interpretation of light wear, I'm still personally an "out-of-step" XF-40 "dinosaur" who would still sell the coin as AU. Therefore, I'll agree that AU-50 or 53 might be a "better COMMERCIAL grade" for the coin that is more in line with the other CU members.
Now shall we discuss the Indian images that were removed at my request?
darn I was going to say AU50
what was the actual weight and what is up with the off striking.
Just was wonders what was your expectation prior to submission of the coin. Like Rick says in hand is important.
Grader had the coin in hand and has more experience and expertise then most of us here on the boards. You also had coin in hand.
?
Best place to buy !
Bronze Associate member
skinner and much more of the Neat freak type
Best place to buy !
Bronze Associate member
Just to stir the pot a bit, I received a $2 1/2 Indian ICG AU55 today with MUCH less luster than my xf45....
Perhaps those fools over there are learning something. Hand 'em all high grades and make everyone happy!
I've got to say, I've been very pleased with almost everything I've sent in for grading to yall. Most have come back right along where I thought they should be, except this 1908
I was planning to send it to PCGS to get another opinion, but someone already bought it.
Unfortunately, that someone wasn't me... :-/
Successful BST transactions with: SilverEagles92; Ahrensdad; Smitty; GregHansen; Lablade; Mercury10c; copperflopper; whatsup; KISHU1; scrapman1077, crispy, canadanz, smallchange, robkool, Mission16, ranshdow, ibzman350, Fallguy, Collectorcoins, SurfinxHI, jwitten, Walkerguy21D, dsessom.