AU58 Gold Question

Pedzola

The other AU58 thread got me thinking. Hoping someone can help me understand grading better.

AU58-graded gold coins come in a broad range of "eye appeal." Some are beautiful sliders with just a hint of rub, and others look totally beat up.

I am thinking of $10 and $20 libs in particular. These seem to suffer more than others. There are a ton of 58's that look totally trashed, many with CAC stickers. Why are these really beat up coins graded 58? Why aren't they graded lower?

In MS grades, a $20 lib in 65 will be generally clean and beautiful, and as you move down the grades they have more and more hits. There is a pretty clear correlation. The more marks, the lower the grade.

But then you get to 58. I understand the concept of AU vs MS with regards to wear. But why are coins that look like they've been used for target practice allowed the highest AU grade?

I don't want to trash anyone's coins so I'm not going to include pics - but I assume many of you know what I'm talking about.

Why?

jom

Here's my best take:

1) Some coins made at the the mint are gems (MS65 and up). If these got into circulation and with a little rub they look very nice at AU58
2) Other coins at the mint are crappy, bag marked, bad strike etc. etc. When these get into circulation they also obtain a little bit of rub but even with the grade of AU58 they aren't particularly nice.

The probability of gem coins to plain UNC's getting into circulation is certainly the same...but in most cases (depending on year made) the mint made the average looking coin more often than gems. Therefore, most likely you'll see more "average" AU 58s then ones that look like a gem with wear.

As to why aren't the "average" coins lowered to AU55 or whatever: My guess is that the grade is to account for the amount of wear not whether the coins is more gem-like or not. Just my thoughts....

jom

Mr_Spud

I see the same with the MS gold coins too. I remember hearing the explanation of gold being a softer metal is more prone to getting bag marks and the graders are more forgiving than they are with silver coins when they assign the grades.

jmlanzaf

Because anything below MS is 90% graded on wear. An XF45 isn't meant to be prettier than an XF40, it's just not as worn. The same with 50/53/55/58.

Read the grading guidelines:

https://www.pcgs.com/grades

PeakRarities

@jmlanzaf said:
Because anything below MS is 90% graded on wear. An XF45 isn't meant to be prettier than an XF40, it's just not as worn. The same with 50/53/55/58.

Read the grading guidelines:

https://www.pcgs.com/grades

Well said, and this is exactly why it doesn’t always pay to be a grade snob. For me, grade comes after eye appeal, color, and strike.

Here’s the obverse of my XF45 (pcac) Kellogg

And here’s the obverse of a 58 (NGC) on coinfacts

scubafuel

The grading services mostly just look at degree of wear below the MS grades. Which is a mistake, imo, but is an opportunity for collectors.

Crypto

The part most people miss is that wear affects the surfaces as well and not just the high points/details. mint surface preservation and the types of original luster and how it presents from the mint while how they are impacts with friction are variables hard to generalize.

mcarney1173

winesteven

Steve

GoldFinger1969

@Pedzola said:
I am thinking of $10 and $20 libs in particular. These seem to suffer more than others. There are a ton of 58's that look totally trashed, many with CAC stickers. Why are these really beat up coins graded 58? Why aren't they graded lower?

Probably graded on a curve. Fewer Liberty DEs at each grade and year relative to Saints.

In MS grades, a $20 lib in 65 will be generally clean and beautiful, and as you move down the grades they have more and more hits. There is a pretty clear correlation. The more marks, the lower the grade.

Yup, graded on a curve and the dropoff in numbers is larger than for Saints meaning subconsciously a grader or buyer is going to be a bit more forgiving.

But then you get to 58. I understand the concept of AU vs MS with regards to wear. But why are coins that look like they've been used for target practice allowed the highest AU grade?

Again, if they WERE circulated they should be AU....but with some coins it's not the case where the AU-58's look better than a low-60's MS coin, especially on eye appeal at first glance.

pmh1nic

@scubafuel said:
The grading services mostly just look at degree of wear below the MS grades. Which is a mistake, imo, but is an opportunity for collectors.

100% agree. While wear is important surface imperfections can be more important with respect to eye appeal. With the grading of AU as it is you can have an AU-53 coin with more wear with minimal distractions as far as dings looking much better than an AU-58 with less wear but beat up. If wear is the only consideration you can have a huge gap in eye appeal between two 58 coins.

Jacques_Loungecoque

@DeplorableDan said:
Well said, and this is exactly why it doesn’t always pay to be a grade snob. For me, grade comes after eye appeal, color, and strike.

For me it’s not so much a prioritization of characteristics and superlatives, but a general reconciliation of all of the above. A coin has to ”make sense” to me as a whole. With that said, I totally get your meaning.

I suppose it all comes down to why one is acquiring coins. Something of a sliding scale for joy & pleasure to a pure profit motive. However, ultimately these don’t have to be mutually exclusive.

Jacques_Loungecoque

@winesteven said:

Steve

A GREAT example. When I look at that piece I see pure perfection.

winesteven

@Jacques_Loungecoque said:

A GREAT example. When I look at that piece I see pure perfection.

Thanks, but here’s the True View, which shows why it was not graded MS.

Steve