AU must mean almost undamaged
interesting, compared to the other thread of PCGS gems of this era, this is probably correctly market graded because UK collectors don't care as much about surfaces than details, and this has AU details. I think this is sophisticated country-specific grading by NGC. Doesn't mean I value scrubbed to hell coins, just that it's market reality.
I do think this is just what an AU50 looks like. Some luster in the protected areas and these large crowns of the time get a lot of heavy marking. I think what makes it most difficult to ignore is that it's likely been dipped. So instead of having the normal circulation with those marks and abrasions which I suspect would look totally normal for an AU coin we have everything blast white. I checked the NGC images on the off chance it was just harsh lighting but it's still an ugly coin really.
https://numismaticmuse.com/ My Web Gallery
The best collecting goals lie right on the border between the possible and the impossible. - Andy Lustig, "MrEureka"
If you take a picture of anything, and blow it up that large, it will look disgusting.
Sometimes I think that animals are smarter than humans, animals would never allow the dumbest one to lead the pack
I think a lot of it is lighting, but it does look bad. I’ll reserve judgement until I see it in hand.
I'm BACK!!! Used to be Billet7 on the old forum.
Horrid looking coin
Latin American Collection
AU50 is the closest you can get to a details grade without getting a details grade.
IG: DeCourcyCoinsEbay: neilrobertson
"Numismatic categorizations, if left unconstrained, will increase spontaneously over time." -me
I don't like that coin and the fact it was not bodybagged for (at least) cleaning.
I have been seeing such as of late. I was snuffed out of first place in a registry set by my competion
HE Bought at auction a similar awful coin graded 66 that I would have expected to find in a junk box.
Banged up. Spot removed , circulated action. Etc. Who is grading these things??. Sorry but I have seen them in both services holders. These were NOT nice coins! Meet the expert at shows are wincing when shown such.
My opinion / grading is getting worse not better and I have been submitting since the inception 1986!
My specialty is late pre-decimal GB silver and to a slightly lesser extent copper. Grading by the TPGs have been IMHO all over the map. Occ. high, occ. low, sometimes spot on, other times absolutely atrocious. Both of the majors have had huge misses that I would like to bring up at conference at a major show and hear their rationales on specific examples.
I too agree that on the OP coin even given the vagaries of photography is not deserving of the "AU 50" status.
"Cleaned, AU Details" would be too kind.
Almost Ungradable to 50% of collectors?
That's sad. What happened to the inspection dept?
Nothing wrong with the coin, scratches are only on the plastic
I previously did share this image of an AU details 1716 George II Crown graded by our host. While this may not be the ideal apples to apples comparison to the Young head Victoria Crown that is the subject of this thread, it does illustrate some significant level of subjectivity in terms of what might be preferred in a details grade.
As for the Victoria Crown, the picture is over exposed. It really looks as if the Young Head Victorian Crown had a tough life up through the time of being scrubbed beyond recognition. This coin in a straight graded holder is simply does not pass the straight face test... Not a good look for anyone.
So there are a couple of issues worthy to discuss besides straight grades that simply fail the straight face test.
The question that is not contemplated often enough is when and under what circumstances is it okay to compromise and buy a coin that might be missing the bells and whistles that are so highly prized? Depending on what you collect, there may be an adequate supply of quality for the grade for all the coins within the series. However that is simply not the case for many series that have rarities that are seldom seem and grossly underappreciated. I shared the 1716 George II Crown that was graded AU Details by PCGS again to help frame the question. And the question is whether one would at least be satisfied with a coin like this instead of never owning it at all.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
I see the word “scrubbed” being thrown around here a lot, but the Victoria crown is not scrubbed, it’s overdipped. Dipping typically does not earn a details grade, but when combined with wear and abrasions can result in an ugly coin. Scrubbing is a physical process that would result in concentrated parallel hairlines, which if severe enough are deserving of a details grade. Is the Victoria Crown chemically processed to the point of deserving a details grade? Debatably. But the 50 grade reflects a net; 50, like 60, is often a net grade for borderline details-worthy issues. A Seated Dollar with similar surfaces might might be found in this grade.
The George II Crown can’t really be judged from the TrueViews. There could concentrated hairlines underneath the patina that are not entirely visible in the photos. It’s also graded by a different grading service.
In sum, is the Victoria Crown an ugly coin that might be considered less visually appealing than the George II Crown? Sure. Is the grade on either coin abominable or incorrect? Not necessarily.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
I have to agree with the majority who say that this coin shouldn't have been straight graded AU50. It's extremely over dipped and may have been scrubbed non abrasively. In any event, it's been scrubbed chemically, at the very least, and should not straight grade for this reason alone. Harshly cleaned coins shouldn't straight grade. That's why we have details holders.
Not sure why the 1716 received a details grade but my guess would be the rim nick. I would straight grade the coin as an XF, but hard to tell with certainty from pictures.