Huzzah it crossed: 1738-Mo 8 Reales in PCGS AU-55

Senator32 · December 16, 2019 11:43AM

I still think its a 58 but happy to have it in my PCGS set.

TwoKopeiki · December 16, 2019 11:56AM

Nice. Congrats!

Boosibri · December 16, 2019 11:57AM

Pretty crazy colors on that pillar!

mvs7 · December 16, 2019 12:05PM

Very nice!

bidask · December 16, 2019 12:32PM

Huzzah indeed !

Yorkshireman · December 16, 2019 1:05PM

I like it!!

MilkmanDan · December 16, 2019 2:02PM

I used to own a 1740 with a very similar look to that one. It was a 64, but I would have rather paid 58/55 price for it! Congrats.

bidask · December 21, 2019 2:21PM

@Senator32 said:
I still think its a 58 but happy to have it in my PCGS set.

Hey Insider or anyone else ........What’s the difference in the grades of these two coins ?

WCC · January 2, 2020 12:04PM

I'd guess the market grade of the lower coin was penalized somewhat due to the dark toning areas.

Insider2 · January 2, 2020 1:25PM

What’s the difference in the grades of these two coins?

Best to ask the folks who graded them but I'll post an opinion from just the unmagnified images.

The difference is "5" points that includes AU-50, 53, and 55. Obviously, in this day and age the color of the toning is going to be a major factor in the final grade. The surfaces on the AU-50 appear scruffy and dirty. It probably has just a slight more wear. It needs to be completely stripped to even out the color as it tones back.

The AU-55 appears to have much nicer fields, and fantastic color whether it is natural or not. It's too bad there is no AU-57 grade - YET! Much of the luster (missing on the 50) is due to the reflection from the toning. That's probably why the AU-50 looks dull and this looks higher than AU-55.

Senator32 · January 2, 2020 1:56PM

To follow up on that...here is an animated GIF showing off the luster before it was crossed to PCGS. Super strong luster is key to the 55-58 grades: https://imgur.com/eu151ZW

-Larry

TwoKopeiki · January 2, 2020 2:59PM

@Senator32 said:
To follow up on that...here is an animated GIF showing off the luster before it was crossed to PCGS. Super strong luster is key to the 55-58 grades: https://imgur.com/eu151ZW

-Larry

Nice. Looks like the reverse held it back a tad

Bob13 · January 2, 2020 4:18PM

Wow - that video really shows the coin in a good light. I agree with 2K - based on the obverse looks like plenty of luster for a 58 grade.

As an aside - I see the WINGS sticker in the video. Any think it adds value?

Senator32 · January 2, 2020 5:15PM

@Bob13 said:
As an aside - I see the WINGS sticker in the video. Any think it adds value?

Others will have their own opinions, but I think the world coin market needs a company to keep the TPGs in check even more than they do with CAC on US coins. Due to the variety of coins and massive span of years, it makes sense that training graders to be consistent is much harder than, say, a Morgan dollar you will see 10,000 times per week. I have seen a large percentage of world coins woefully mis-graded by both PCGS and NGC...so I think there is a market for WINGS, but they still have work to do to make the market value them like CAC. Also, I like Lance (the owner of Wings) and have found him to be a great coin dealer and I respect his opinion on a graded world coin. Anywho, just my 2 cents

Boosibri · January 2, 2020 5:27PM

@Bob13 said:
Wow - that video really shows the coin in a good light. I agree with 2K - based on the obverse looks like plenty of luster for a 58 grade.

As an aside - I see the WINGS sticker in the video. Any think it adds value?

I don't think that there is anything to indicate that WINGS adds value to the sales price of coins in the market today. May in the future, who knows.

bidask · January 2, 2020 7:40PM

@WCC said:
I'd guess the market grade of the lower coin was penalized somewhat due to the dark toning areas.

The AU 50 is Fully original with terrific surfaces and original luster... you can see in hand .....

Best to ask the folks who graded them but I'll post an opinion from just the unmagnified images.

The difference is "5" points that includes AU-50, 53, and 55. Obviously, in this day and age the color of the toning is going to be a major factor in the final grade. The surfaces on the AU-50 appear scruffy and dirty. It probably has just a slight more wear. It needs to be completely stripped to even out the color as it tones back.

The AU-55 appears to have much nicer fields, and fantastic color whether it is natural or not. It's too bad there is no AU-57 grade - YET! Much of the luster (missing on the 50) is due to the reflection from the toning. That's probably why the AU-50 looks dull and this looks higher than AU-55.

Compare the details within the crowned shield ..... the lions and castles ...

I think the AU 50 is better struck and has less wear !

WCC · January 2, 2020 8:34PM

@bidask said:

@WCC said:
I'd guess the market grade of the lower coin was penalized somewhat due to the dark toning areas.

The AU 50 is Fully original with terrific surfaces and original luster... you can see in hand .....

Best to ask the folks who graded them but I'll post an opinion from just the unmagnified images.

The difference is "5" points that includes AU-50, 53, and 55. Obviously, in this day and age the color of the toning is going to be a major factor in the final grade. The surfaces on the AU-50 appear scruffy and dirty. It probably has just a slight more wear. It needs to be completely stripped to even out the color as it tones back.

The AU-55 appears to have much nicer fields, and fantastic color whether it is natural or not. It's too bad there is no AU-57 grade - YET! Much of the luster (missing on the 50) is due to the reflection from the toning. That's probably why the AU-50 looks dull and this looks higher than AU-55.

Compare the details within the crowned shield ..... the lions and castles ...

I think the AU 50 is better struck and has less wear !

I am going by the appearance from the images where the first coin looks noticeably "better". I presume the AU-50 is your coin, so you will know it's actual appearance.

I have seen many coins from this series (mostly in NGC holders) where the wear doesn't match the assigned grade. Usually, the coin has presumably been penalized based upon the TPG's perception of it's market acceptability. I say presumably because I assume they are applying a US centric standard, since non-US collectors don't seem to care about the numismatic minutia incorporated into TPG grading.

Sometimes it's for an old cleaning, an example being the 1756 Peru 4R I referenced which I think is either AU-53 or AU-55 by wear but is graded XF-45 Other times, apparently the coin is "too dark", such as on a 1767 Bolivia 8R Heritage sold previously.

Then other times, I don't know why the assigned grade was given. Even though it's the primary design I collect, my grades on submissions are usually off. I agree with you on the strike opinion. Going by auction descriptions, many of these coins supposedly have a full strike. Very few higher grade coins actually have FULL DETAIL.

TwoKopeiki · January 2, 2020 8:52PM

AU grades at PCGS are mostly a function of luster.

bidask · January 2, 2020 10:39PM

@TwoKopeiki said:
AU grades at PCGS are mostly a function of luster.

Why is that ?

Insider2 · January 3, 2020 10:07AM

@bidask said:

@WCC said:
I'd guess the market grade of the lower coin was penalized somewhat due to the dark toning areas.

The AU 50 is Fully original with terrific surfaces and original luster... you can see in hand .....

Best to ask the folks who graded them but I'll post an opinion from just the unmagnified images.

The difference is "5" points that includes AU-50, 53, and 55. Obviously, in this day and age the color of the toning is going to be a major factor in the final grade. The surfaces on the AU-50 appear scruffy and dirty. It probably has just a slight more wear. It needs to be completely stripped to even out the color as it tones back.

The AU-55 appears to have much nicer fields, and fantastic color whether it is natural or not. It's too bad there is no AU-57 grade - YET! Much of the luster (missing on the 50) is due to the reflection from the toning. That's probably why the AU-50 looks dull and this looks higher than AU-55.

Compare the details within the crowned shield ..... the lions and castles ...

I think the AU 50 is better struck and has less wear !

It's virtually impossible to tell wear from strike weakness in the images. Besides, the technical condition of each coin does not matter in the coin market. One coin is a wonderfully colored beauty and the other is a DOG! Sorry

Insider2 · January 3, 2020 10:16AM

@bidask said:

@TwoKopeiki said:
AU grades at PCGS are mostly a function of luster.

Why is that ?

I should think that would seem to be a very silly question from such an advanced collector but I'd like to know if it is true. If true (I don't know), it's because it is the way they do things.

bidask · January 3, 2020 1:09PM

@Insider2 said:

@bidask said:

@WCC said:
I'd guess the market grade of the lower coin was penalized somewhat due to the dark toning areas.

The AU 50 is Fully original with terrific surfaces and original luster... you can see in hand .....

Best to ask the folks who graded them but I'll post an opinion from just the unmagnified images.

The difference is "5" points that includes AU-50, 53, and 55. Obviously, in this day and age the color of the toning is going to be a major factor in the final grade. The surfaces on the AU-50 appear scruffy and dirty. It probably has just a slight more wear. It needs to be completely stripped to even out the color as it tones back.

The AU-55 appears to have much nicer fields, and fantastic color whether it is natural or not. It's too bad there is no AU-57 grade - YET! Much of the luster (missing on the 50) is due to the reflection from the toning. That's probably why the AU-50 looks dull and this looks higher than AU-55.

Compare the details within the crowned shield ..... the lions and castles ...

I think the AU 50 is better struck and has less wear !

It's virtually impossible to tell wear from strike weakness in the images. Besides, the technical condition of each coin does not matter in the coin market. One coin is a wonderfully colored beauty and the other is a DOG! Sorry

Dog ! .... ouch ... 😊 ... the coin is wonderful .

I have never heard that technical wear does not matter in grading pillars ! ?

Insider2 · January 3, 2020 1:37PM

@bidask said: "I have never heard that technical wear does not matter in grading pillars! ?

Of course, it's not a "dog." I was exaggerating to make a point when comparing both coins. It just needs some loving care to fix it.

As you know, excluding (hold my nose and bite my tongue) "______net grading," friction wear is the major way coins decrease in grade from MS. Unfortunately, at the AU/Unc level, friction wear is treated differently - either accounted for (technical) or very often ignored (commercial). So, as I posted, technical condition is ONLY important in the classroom when learning to grade. In another decade, none of this will matter as all the old dinosaurs who learned MS = No trace of wear will be dead.

asheland · January 3, 2020 1:51PM

Crazy nice!

bidask · January 3, 2020 6:49PM

Here is another “dirty dog”.

Forget about the details .

I bought this one from a Ponterio auction in 2006 .

Huzzah it crossed: 1738-Mo 8 Reales in PCGS AU-55

Comments

What’s the difference in the grades of these two coins?