@PeakRarities said:
OK ready? The Grades assigned by PCGS are.......
50
50
55
55
55
55
61
61
I put them in order from lowest to highest, but you would never be able to tell. Guess which one is my coin?
2-
In that particular Stack's auction, it was late on a weeknight and the auctioneer was ripping through lots, about 4 per minute. I graded the coin a solid 55, so I thought I got a screaming hot deal at the price I paid.
It's got some wear on the highest points, specifically the top half of the miter, but in my opinion the luster seems more than adequate for this issue to be called choice AU. I have 3/6 of the mormon issues, and I've seen the rest of them in hand. They just don't come cartwheel luster, and when the texture of the fields matches the texture inside the letters and protected areas, that indicates, to me at least, that this one didn't see all that much circulation.
You have all heard me express that pioneer grading is all over the place, and I don’t think that point could be better illustrated than it can here with this issue. Here’s a link to all APR’s recorded by PCGS, and some of you may draw your own conclusions . For me, I’m thinking the glove is looking awfully tight .
It’s really the surface quality and not so much the technical wear that brings that coin down. I wrote 53, but I don’t see it as higher than that. The fields are quite beat up.
Yes and no, there's a few things to consider there, . I guess if you want to be super strictly technical, but that's not how these have always been graded,
Planchet quality & strike - unstuck planchet observed on the other AU55 examples has that same roughness and texture.
Condition of the dies- Look at the surface texture inside the letters and the protected areas, these coins were not created equal all with uniform appearance. As the dies aged and got rustier, the coins had more pitting.
It's a little quarter eagle the size of a dime, and I took super close ups that are blown up to the size of a dinner plate. Mine also has the highest resolution photos, and none of the other ones have current true views to compare to.
I hate to argue, but that is not all unstruck planchet or die roughness. There are plenty of legitimate rough hits, and the slight shine to the surfaces is from an old cleaning. All coins are graded with surface quality in consideration, and this is no exception.
While I acknowledge there are some small scratches and abrasions near the date area and some other abrasions, the ONLY 55 that looks to have better surfaces is the last one, and if you look inside the letters and protected areas, its smooth and glossy. You can even see die polish lines, indicating an earlier die state. That coin simply looked much nicer when it came off the press.
I disagree, all four 55s have better surfaces. They simply have weaker strikes. They’re flat, but not mottled with (as many) hits. The first 55 looks the most free of marks. The last 55 actually has worse surfaces than at least a couple of the others, the reverse has some fairly significant lines and chatter in the fields (those are not die polish lines). The strike and color is nicer than the others through.
Ignoring strike and wear, the 8th coin looks to have the worst surfaces (borderline cleaned) of the bunch. The first coin looks very dipped out at best as well. The other five don’t seem that bad, all things considered.
And If we're going to punish a coin for as-struck characteristics like surface texture, then why not punish a weak strike? At that rate, shouldn't the other 50 and top 3 AU55s be held back to XF? The 1850 Moffat $5 is a good example of this, you can have two 58s that look completely different from eachother because of the surface texture and the die rust.
I am not saying that coins should be punished for as-struck characteristics, because the surface texture I am describing is not as struck. And regarding strike, that’s just not how grading on the modern Sheldon scale works. Weak strikes and die rust don’t matter, the grade is intended to be a measurement of wear. One of the reasons for that is that there is no way to consistently or objectively rank strike quality, or even to arrive at a consensus for an ideal strike. Grading based on wear and surface quality allows for some foundation of consistency, although of course there is the matter of human error and differing standards. Of course, then you can end up with a pancake AU58 and a well-struck XF45 on some series, but at that point it is up the collector to make a decision on what they want - they can easily judge the amount of visible detail for themselves.
The main issue arises when it seems that these coins were graded on a curve, or "market graded" for decades (the Worst example is in the OGH as a 50), but later on they tighten the screws and start adhering to technical standards. I don't mind if we hold mine to 53, but I want the same standards applied to all of them. Regardless of whatever number we land on, I don't think anyone can dispute the fact that it falls somewhere in the middle of the pack as the 4th or 5th best coin, not tied for last.
Yes, there have definitely been issues with grading Pioneer gold very loosely, as well as standards changing over time as graders and approaches change, as well as inconsistency on a human level. I can see myself disputing that though, if I could see all the coins in hand. It placed as #5 in my guesses, but if we adjust for two of the coins having weak strikes rather than the wear that I read them as having, then it could very well be #7.
Simply put, I want an "EQUAL amount of blueberries in EACH muffin".
That simply won’t happen, but I understand where you’re coming from.
This just doesn't make any sense to me. The surface quality of that 55 is on par with the 61s, and it certainly isn't poor. It's simply lovely. And that is without it having an incredible strike.
Personally, this coin is #2 for me, behind one of the 61s. I find it hard to place it elsewhere.
@PeakRarities said:
OK ready? The Grades assigned by PCGS are.......
50
50
55
55
55
55
61
61
I put them in order from lowest to highest, but you would never be able to tell. Guess which one is my coin?
2-
In that particular Stack's auction, it was late on a weeknight and the auctioneer was ripping through lots, about 4 per minute. I graded the coin a solid 55, so I thought I got a screaming hot deal at the price I paid.
It's got some wear on the highest points, specifically the top half of the miter, but in my opinion the luster seems more than adequate for this issue to be called choice AU. I have 3/6 of the mormon issues, and I've seen the rest of them in hand. They just don't come cartwheel luster, and when the texture of the fields matches the texture inside the letters and protected areas, that indicates, to me at least, that this one didn't see all that much circulation.
You have all heard me express that pioneer grading is all over the place, and I don’t think that point could be better illustrated than it can here with this issue. Here’s a link to all APR’s recorded by PCGS, and some of you may draw your own conclusions . For me, I’m thinking the glove is looking awfully tight .
It’s really the surface quality and not so much the technical wear that brings that coin down. I wrote 53, but I don’t see it as higher than that. The fields are quite beat up.
Yes and no, there's a few things to consider there, . I guess if you want to be super strictly technical, but that's not how these have always been graded,
Planchet quality & strike - unstuck planchet observed on the other AU55 examples has that same roughness and texture.
Condition of the dies- Look at the surface texture inside the letters and the protected areas, these coins were not created equal all with uniform appearance. As the dies aged and got rustier, the coins had more pitting.
It's a little quarter eagle the size of a dime, and I took super close ups that are blown up to the size of a dinner plate. Mine also has the highest resolution photos, and none of the other ones have current true views to compare to.
I hate to argue, but that is not all unstruck planchet or die roughness. There are plenty of legitimate rough hits, and the slight shine to the surfaces is from an old cleaning. All coins are graded with surface quality in consideration, and this is no exception.
While I acknowledge there are some small scratches and abrasions near the date area and some other abrasions, the ONLY 55 that looks to have better surfaces is the last one, and if you look inside the letters and protected areas, its smooth and glossy. You can even see die polish lines, indicating an earlier die state. That coin simply looked much nicer when it came off the press.
I disagree, all four 55s have better surfaces. They simply have weaker strikes. They’re flat, but not mottled with (as many) hits. The first 55 looks the most free of marks. The last 55 actually has worse surfaces than at least a couple of the others, the reverse has some fairly significant lines and chatter in the fields (those are not die polish lines). The strike and color is nicer than the others through.
Ignoring strike and wear, the 8th coin looks to have the worst surfaces (borderline cleaned) of the bunch. The first coin looks very dipped out at best as well. The other five don’t seem that bad, all things considered.
And If we're going to punish a coin for as-struck characteristics like surface texture, then why not punish a weak strike? At that rate, shouldn't the other 50 and top 3 AU55s be held back to XF? The 1850 Moffat $5 is a good example of this, you can have two 58s that look completely different from eachother because of the surface texture and the die rust.
I am not saying that coins should be punished for as-struck characteristics, because the surface texture I am describing is not as struck. And regarding strike, that’s just not how grading on the modern Sheldon scale works. Weak strikes and die rust don’t matter, the grade is intended to be a measurement of wear. One of the reasons for that is that there is no way to consistently or objectively rank strike quality, or even to arrive at a consensus for an ideal strike. Grading based on wear and surface quality allows for some foundation of consistency, although of course there is the matter of human error and differing standards. Of course, then you can end up with a pancake AU58 and a well-struck XF45 on some series, but at that point it is up the collector to make a decision on what they want - they can easily judge the amount of visible detail for themselves.
The main issue arises when it seems that these coins were graded on a curve, or "market graded" for decades (the Worst example is in the OGH as a 50), but later on they tighten the screws and start adhering to technical standards. I don't mind if we hold mine to 53, but I want the same standards applied to all of them. Regardless of whatever number we land on, I don't think anyone can dispute the fact that it falls somewhere in the middle of the pack as the 4th or 5th best coin, not tied for last.
Yes, there have definitely been issues with grading Pioneer gold very loosely, as well as standards changing over time as graders and approaches change, as well as inconsistency on a human level. I can see myself disputing that though, if I could see all the coins in hand. It placed as #5 in my guesses, but if we adjust for two of the coins having weak strikes rather than the wear that I read them as having, then it could very well be #7.
Simply put, I want an "EQUAL amount of blueberries in EACH muffin".
That simply won’t happen, but I understand where you’re coming from.
This just doesn't make any sense to me. The surface quality of that 55 is on par with the 61s, and it certainly isn't poor. It's simply lovely. And that is without it having an incredible strike.
Personally, this coin is #2 for me, behind one of the 61s. I find it hard to place it elsewhere.
Are you not seeing the large circle of concentrated chatter on the date side? There are even several fairly deep and distracting gashes, such as above the 1, on the 4, and on the right of the eye. And it has been wiped at some point. I don’t really know how it could be #2. There are at least 4 coins with better surfaces, but weaker strikes.
First thought is that some may be as low as fine, but those with a lot more knowledge than I did not go below VF, so probably that's the baseline for the most worn examples; those with rich toning likely into AU. I don't have the time or knowledge to do a proper review, thanks for the examples.
@PeakRarities said:
OK ready? The Grades assigned by PCGS are.......
50
50
55
55
55
55
61
61
I put them in order from lowest to highest, but you would never be able to tell. Guess which one is my coin?
2-
In that particular Stack's auction, it was late on a weeknight and the auctioneer was ripping through lots, about 4 per minute. I graded the coin a solid 55, so I thought I got a screaming hot deal at the price I paid.
It's got some wear on the highest points, specifically the top half of the miter, but in my opinion the luster seems more than adequate for this issue to be called choice AU. I have 3/6 of the mormon issues, and I've seen the rest of them in hand. They just don't come cartwheel luster, and when the texture of the fields matches the texture inside the letters and protected areas, that indicates, to me at least, that this one didn't see all that much circulation.
You have all heard me express that pioneer grading is all over the place, and I don’t think that point could be better illustrated than it can here with this issue. Here’s a link to all APR’s recorded by PCGS, and some of you may draw your own conclusions . For me, I’m thinking the glove is looking awfully tight .
It’s really the surface quality and not so much the technical wear that brings that coin down. I wrote 53, but I don’t see it as higher than that. The fields are quite beat up.
Yes and no, there's a few things to consider there, . I guess if you want to be super strictly technical, but that's not how these have always been graded,
Planchet quality & strike - unstuck planchet observed on the other AU55 examples has that same roughness and texture.
Condition of the dies- Look at the surface texture inside the letters and the protected areas, these coins were not created equal all with uniform appearance. As the dies aged and got rustier, the coins had more pitting.
It's a little quarter eagle the size of a dime, and I took super close ups that are blown up to the size of a dinner plate. Mine also has the highest resolution photos, and none of the other ones have current true views to compare to.
I hate to argue, but that is not all unstruck planchet or die roughness. There are plenty of legitimate rough hits, and the slight shine to the surfaces is from an old cleaning. All coins are graded with surface quality in consideration, and this is no exception.
While I acknowledge there are some small scratches and abrasions near the date area and some other abrasions, the ONLY 55 that looks to have better surfaces is the last one, and if you look inside the letters and protected areas, its smooth and glossy. You can even see die polish lines, indicating an earlier die state. That coin simply looked much nicer when it came off the press.
I disagree, all four 55s have better surfaces. They simply have weaker strikes. They’re flat, but not mottled with (as many) hits. The first 55 looks the most free of marks. The last 55 actually has worse surfaces than at least a couple of the others, the reverse has some fairly significant lines and chatter in the fields (those are not die polish lines). The strike and color is nicer than the others through.
Ignoring strike and wear, the 8th coin looks to have the worst surfaces (borderline cleaned) of the bunch. The first coin looks very dipped out at best as well. The other five don’t seem that bad, all things considered.
And If we're going to punish a coin for as-struck characteristics like surface texture, then why not punish a weak strike? At that rate, shouldn't the other 50 and top 3 AU55s be held back to XF? The 1850 Moffat $5 is a good example of this, you can have two 58s that look completely different from eachother because of the surface texture and the die rust.
I am not saying that coins should be punished for as-struck characteristics, because the surface texture I am describing is not as struck. And regarding strike, that’s just not how grading on the modern Sheldon scale works. Weak strikes and die rust don’t matter, the grade is intended to be a measurement of wear. One of the reasons for that is that there is no way to consistently or objectively rank strike quality, or even to arrive at a consensus for an ideal strike. Grading based on wear and surface quality allows for some foundation of consistency, although of course there is the matter of human error and differing standards. Of course, then you can end up with a pancake AU58 and a well-struck XF45 on some series, but at that point it is up the collector to make a decision on what they want - they can easily judge the amount of visible detail for themselves.
The main issue arises when it seems that these coins were graded on a curve, or "market graded" for decades (the Worst example is in the OGH as a 50), but later on they tighten the screws and start adhering to technical standards. I don't mind if we hold mine to 53, but I want the same standards applied to all of them. Regardless of whatever number we land on, I don't think anyone can dispute the fact that it falls somewhere in the middle of the pack as the 4th or 5th best coin, not tied for last.
Yes, there have definitely been issues with grading Pioneer gold very loosely, as well as standards changing over time as graders and approaches change, as well as inconsistency on a human level. I can see myself disputing that though, if I could see all the coins in hand. It placed as #5 in my guesses, but if we adjust for two of the coins having weak strikes rather than the wear that I read them as having, then it could very well be #7.
Simply put, I want an "EQUAL amount of blueberries in EACH muffin".
That simply won’t happen, but I understand where you’re coming from.
This just doesn't make any sense to me. The surface quality of that 55 is on par with the 61s, and it certainly isn't poor. It's simply lovely. And that is without it having an incredible strike.
Personally, this coin is #2 for me, behind one of the 61s. I find it hard to place it elsewhere.
Are you not seeing the large circle of concentrated chatter on the date side? There are even several fairly deep and distracting gashes, such as above the 1, on the 4, and on the right of the eye. And it has been wiped at some point. I don’t really know how it could be #2. There are at least 4 coins with better surfaces, but weaker strikes.
Everytime anyone posts something with which you disagree you become defensive and you hammer on about your bonafides and expertise HARD. I guess it is impossible for you to admit you are wrong.
You are wrong.
Here is the 50 in question with lovely original surfaces and color and a few marks from circulation:
Versus the scrubbed 61 with roughly equivalent marks:
Great thing about pioneers IMO is that anyone can play in the sense that numeric grades are less relevant than perhaps most other types. (Colonials, early coppers come to mind as well). Myself, I think originality/ color trump surface marks. Can’t say that the 61 above has equivalent marks, but the 50 above appeals much more to me - color and apparent originality. Great thread illustrating the “buy the coin” principle.
I beg to differ. Judging by your post history and your comments here, it seems that you enjoy it.
>but that is not all unstruck planchet or die roughness.
Read my comment again. I never said that it was, I said there are a "few other things to consider" and "unstuck planchet observed on the other 55 examples...."
>There are plenty of legitimate rough hits, and the slight shine to the surfaces is from an old cleaning. All coins are graded with surface quality in consideration, and this is no exception.
Perhaps, but I find it interesting how you state your opinions as objective facts. All of my comments use "in my opinion" or "it appears", as we are comparing to old pictures and we don't have the coins in hand.
> I disagree, all four 55s have better surfaces. They simply have weaker strikes. They’re flat, but not mottled with (as many) hits. The first 55 looks the most free of marks.
Again, you're entitled to your opinion but to state as a fact that "All four 55s have better surfaces" (two of which you graded lower than mine initially) is conjecture, especially since we haven't seen the other coins.
>The last 55 actually has worse surfaces than at least a couple of the others
You think the georgeous 55 with CAC approval (that you initially graded 58) has WORSE surfaces than the other 55s? Lol, ok.
> And regarding strike, that’s just not how grading on the modern Sheldon scale works. Weak strikes and die rust don’t matter, the grade is intended to be a measurement of wear. One of the reasons for that is that there is no way to consistently or objectively rank strike quality, or even to arrive at a consensus for an ideal strike.
Right, because the only factors we consider for grading are the ones that can be applied "consistently and objectively" 🙄.
That was basically the purpose of the thread, to show how adhering to the "modern Sheldon scale" after decades of market grading leads to this type of variance. Weak strikes did matter in the past, which is why you'll see a modern day XF that used to be called a VG because of the strike. Personally, I think strike should factor in more than it does, and while we may never be able to define an "ideal strike", I think we could arrive at a consensus that we wouldn't want to pay choice AU money if half of the design is missing.
>I can see myself disputing that though, if I could see all the coins in hand. It placed as #5 in my guesses, but if we adjust for two of the coins having weak strikes rather than the wear that I read them as having, then it could very well be #7.
Yea, and if my aunt had a ____ she'd be my uncle. Seriously? I tried to wrap up my comment by finding some common ground, suggesting that it falls in the middle of the road somewhere (#5 in your rankings, and #3-#4 by consensus). You really had to put out a "what if" so you could knock it down again? It just seems like find pleasure in being combative and disagreeable, and those are the type of forum members that drive people away from here.
@PeakRarities said:
OK ready? The Grades assigned by PCGS are.......
50
50
55
55
55
55
61
61
I put them in order from lowest to highest, but you would never be able to tell. Guess which one is my coin?
2-
In that particular Stack's auction, it was late on a weeknight and the auctioneer was ripping through lots, about 4 per minute. I graded the coin a solid 55, so I thought I got a screaming hot deal at the price I paid.
It's got some wear on the highest points, specifically the top half of the miter, but in my opinion the luster seems more than adequate for this issue to be called choice AU. I have 3/6 of the mormon issues, and I've seen the rest of them in hand. They just don't come cartwheel luster, and when the texture of the fields matches the texture inside the letters and protected areas, that indicates, to me at least, that this one didn't see all that much circulation.
You have all heard me express that pioneer grading is all over the place, and I don’t think that point could be better illustrated than it can here with this issue. Here’s a link to all APR’s recorded by PCGS, and some of you may draw your own conclusions . For me, I’m thinking the glove is looking awfully tight .
It’s really the surface quality and not so much the technical wear that brings that coin down. I wrote 53, but I don’t see it as higher than that. The fields are quite beat up.
Yes and no, there's a few things to consider there, . I guess if you want to be super strictly technical, but that's not how these have always been graded,
Planchet quality & strike - unstuck planchet observed on the other AU55 examples has that same roughness and texture.
Condition of the dies- Look at the surface texture inside the letters and the protected areas, these coins were not created equal all with uniform appearance. As the dies aged and got rustier, the coins had more pitting.
It's a little quarter eagle the size of a dime, and I took super close ups that are blown up to the size of a dinner plate. Mine also has the highest resolution photos, and none of the other ones have current true views to compare to.
I hate to argue, but that is not all unstruck planchet or die roughness. There are plenty of legitimate rough hits, and the slight shine to the surfaces is from an old cleaning. All coins are graded with surface quality in consideration, and this is no exception.
While I acknowledge there are some small scratches and abrasions near the date area and some other abrasions, the ONLY 55 that looks to have better surfaces is the last one, and if you look inside the letters and protected areas, its smooth and glossy. You can even see die polish lines, indicating an earlier die state. That coin simply looked much nicer when it came off the press.
I disagree, all four 55s have better surfaces. They simply have weaker strikes. They’re flat, but not mottled with (as many) hits. The first 55 looks the most free of marks. The last 55 actually has worse surfaces than at least a couple of the others, the reverse has some fairly significant lines and chatter in the fields (those are not die polish lines). The strike and color is nicer than the others through.
Ignoring strike and wear, the 8th coin looks to have the worst surfaces (borderline cleaned) of the bunch. The first coin looks very dipped out at best as well. The other five don’t seem that bad, all things considered.
And If we're going to punish a coin for as-struck characteristics like surface texture, then why not punish a weak strike? At that rate, shouldn't the other 50 and top 3 AU55s be held back to XF? The 1850 Moffat $5 is a good example of this, you can have two 58s that look completely different from eachother because of the surface texture and the die rust.
I am not saying that coins should be punished for as-struck characteristics, because the surface texture I am describing is not as struck. And regarding strike, that’s just not how grading on the modern Sheldon scale works. Weak strikes and die rust don’t matter, the grade is intended to be a measurement of wear. One of the reasons for that is that there is no way to consistently or objectively rank strike quality, or even to arrive at a consensus for an ideal strike. Grading based on wear and surface quality allows for some foundation of consistency, although of course there is the matter of human error and differing standards. Of course, then you can end up with a pancake AU58 and a well-struck XF45 on some series, but at that point it is up the collector to make a decision on what they want - they can easily judge the amount of visible detail for themselves.
The main issue arises when it seems that these coins were graded on a curve, or "market graded" for decades (the Worst example is in the OGH as a 50), but later on they tighten the screws and start adhering to technical standards. I don't mind if we hold mine to 53, but I want the same standards applied to all of them. Regardless of whatever number we land on, I don't think anyone can dispute the fact that it falls somewhere in the middle of the pack as the 4th or 5th best coin, not tied for last.
Yes, there have definitely been issues with grading Pioneer gold very loosely, as well as standards changing over time as graders and approaches change, as well as inconsistency on a human level. I can see myself disputing that though, if I could see all the coins in hand. It placed as #5 in my guesses, but if we adjust for two of the coins having weak strikes rather than the wear that I read them as having, then it could very well be #7.
Simply put, I want an "EQUAL amount of blueberries in EACH muffin".
That simply won’t happen, but I understand where you’re coming from.
This just doesn't make any sense to me. The surface quality of that 55 is on par with the 61s, and it certainly isn't poor. It's simply lovely. And that is without it having an incredible strike.
Personally, this coin is #2 for me, behind one of the 61s. I find it hard to place it elsewhere.
Are you not seeing the large circle of concentrated chatter on the date side? There are even several fairly deep and distracting gashes, such as above the 1, on the 4, and on the right of the eye. And it has been wiped at some point. I don’t really know how it could be #2. There are at least 4 coins with better surfaces, but weaker strikes.
Everytime anyone posts something with which you disagree you become defensive and you hammer on about your bonafides and expertise HARD. I guess it is impossible for you to admit you are wrong.
You are wrong.
Here is the 50 in question with lovely original surfaces and color and a few marks from circulation:
Versus the scrubbed 61 with roughly equivalent marks:
And these views are at roughly 20x magnification.
These close-ups prove me right. There's no reason to believe that that 61 is "scrubbed". I think the issue is with your eyes.
I beg to differ. Judging by your post history and your comments here, it seems that you enjoy it.
>but that is not all unstruck planchet or die roughness.
Read my comment again. I never said that it was, I said there are a "few other things to consider" and "unstuck planchet observed on the other 55 examples...."
>There are plenty of legitimate rough hits, and the slight shine to the surfaces is from an old cleaning. All coins are graded with surface quality in consideration, and this is no exception.
Perhaps, but I find it interesting how you state your opinions as objective facts. All of my comments use "in my opinion" or "it appears", as we are comparing to old pictures and we don't have the coins in hand.
> I disagree, all four 55s have better surfaces. They simply have weaker strikes. They’re flat, but not mottled with (as many) hits. The first 55 looks the most free of marks.
Again, you're entitled to your opinion but to state as a fact that "All four 55s have better surfaces" (two of which you graded lower than mine initially) is conjecture, especially since we haven't seen the other coins.
Strike and wear are not the same as surface quality.
>The last 55 actually has worse surfaces than at least a couple of the others
You think the georgeous 55 with CAC approval (that you initially graded 58) has WORSE surfaces than the other 55s? Lol, ok.
Strike and wear are not the same as surface quality.
I beg to differ. Judging by your post history and your comments here, it seems that you enjoy it.
>but that is not all unstruck planchet or die roughness.
Read my comment again. I never said that it was, I said there are a "few other things to consider" and "unstuck planchet observed on the other 55 examples...."
>There are plenty of legitimate rough hits, and the slight shine to the surfaces is from an old cleaning. All coins are graded with surface quality in consideration, and this is no exception.
Perhaps, but I find it interesting how you state your opinions as objective facts. All of my comments use "in my opinion" or "it appears", as we are comparing to old pictures and we don't have the coins in hand.
> I disagree, all four 55s have better surfaces. They simply have weaker strikes. They’re flat, but not mottled with (as many) hits. The first 55 looks the most free of marks.
Again, you're entitled to your opinion but to state as a fact that "All four 55s have better surfaces" (two of which you graded lower than mine initially) is conjecture, especially since we haven't seen the other coins.
Strike and wear are not the same as surface quality.
>The last 55 actually has worse surfaces than at least a couple of the others
You think the georgeous 55 with CAC approval (that you initially graded 58) has WORSE surfaces than the other 55s? Lol, ok.
Strike and wear are not the same as surface quality.
Ok, and?
To reiterate, you think the bottom coin has the worst surface quality of this group?
And all four of them have better surface quality than this one?
I don’t think lermish is the one with eyesight problems…
Regardless, neither grade or eye appeal is dependent solely on surfaces, and I don’t know anyone that would choose one of the top 3 if cost was the same.
@PeakRarities said:
OK ready? The Grades assigned by PCGS are.......
50
50
55
55
55
55
61
61
I put them in order from lowest to highest, but you would never be able to tell. Guess which one is my coin?
2-
In that particular Stack's auction, it was late on a weeknight and the auctioneer was ripping through lots, about 4 per minute. I graded the coin a solid 55, so I thought I got a screaming hot deal at the price I paid.
It's got some wear on the highest points, specifically the top half of the miter, but in my opinion the luster seems more than adequate for this issue to be called choice AU. I have 3/6 of the mormon issues, and I've seen the rest of them in hand. They just don't come cartwheel luster, and when the texture of the fields matches the texture inside the letters and protected areas, that indicates, to me at least, that this one didn't see all that much circulation.
You have all heard me express that pioneer grading is all over the place, and I don’t think that point could be better illustrated than it can here with this issue. Here’s a link to all APR’s recorded by PCGS, and some of you may draw your own conclusions . For me, I’m thinking the glove is looking awfully tight .
It’s really the surface quality and not so much the technical wear that brings that coin down. I wrote 53, but I don’t see it as higher than that. The fields are quite beat up.
Yes and no, there's a few things to consider there, . I guess if you want to be super strictly technical, but that's not how these have always been graded,
Planchet quality & strike - unstuck planchet observed on the other AU55 examples has that same roughness and texture.
Condition of the dies- Look at the surface texture inside the letters and the protected areas, these coins were not created equal all with uniform appearance. As the dies aged and got rustier, the coins had more pitting.
It's a little quarter eagle the size of a dime, and I took super close ups that are blown up to the size of a dinner plate. Mine also has the highest resolution photos, and none of the other ones have current true views to compare to.
I hate to argue, but that is not all unstruck planchet or die roughness. There are plenty of legitimate rough hits, and the slight shine to the surfaces is from an old cleaning. All coins are graded with surface quality in consideration, and this is no exception.
While I acknowledge there are some small scratches and abrasions near the date area and some other abrasions, the ONLY 55 that looks to have better surfaces is the last one, and if you look inside the letters and protected areas, its smooth and glossy. You can even see die polish lines, indicating an earlier die state. That coin simply looked much nicer when it came off the press.
I disagree, all four 55s have better surfaces. They simply have weaker strikes. They’re flat, but not mottled with (as many) hits. The first 55 looks the most free of marks. The last 55 actually has worse surfaces than at least a couple of the others, the reverse has some fairly significant lines and chatter in the fields (those are not die polish lines). The strike and color is nicer than the others through.
Ignoring strike and wear, the 8th coin looks to have the worst surfaces (borderline cleaned) of the bunch. The first coin looks very dipped out at best as well. The other five don’t seem that bad, all things considered.
And If we're going to punish a coin for as-struck characteristics like surface texture, then why not punish a weak strike? At that rate, shouldn't the other 50 and top 3 AU55s be held back to XF? The 1850 Moffat $5 is a good example of this, you can have two 58s that look completely different from eachother because of the surface texture and the die rust.
I am not saying that coins should be punished for as-struck characteristics, because the surface texture I am describing is not as struck. And regarding strike, that’s just not how grading on the modern Sheldon scale works. Weak strikes and die rust don’t matter, the grade is intended to be a measurement of wear. One of the reasons for that is that there is no way to consistently or objectively rank strike quality, or even to arrive at a consensus for an ideal strike. Grading based on wear and surface quality allows for some foundation of consistency, although of course there is the matter of human error and differing standards. Of course, then you can end up with a pancake AU58 and a well-struck XF45 on some series, but at that point it is up the collector to make a decision on what they want - they can easily judge the amount of visible detail for themselves.
The main issue arises when it seems that these coins were graded on a curve, or "market graded" for decades (the Worst example is in the OGH as a 50), but later on they tighten the screws and start adhering to technical standards. I don't mind if we hold mine to 53, but I want the same standards applied to all of them. Regardless of whatever number we land on, I don't think anyone can dispute the fact that it falls somewhere in the middle of the pack as the 4th or 5th best coin, not tied for last.
Yes, there have definitely been issues with grading Pioneer gold very loosely, as well as standards changing over time as graders and approaches change, as well as inconsistency on a human level. I can see myself disputing that though, if I could see all the coins in hand. It placed as #5 in my guesses, but if we adjust for two of the coins having weak strikes rather than the wear that I read them as having, then it could very well be #7.
Simply put, I want an "EQUAL amount of blueberries in EACH muffin".
That simply won’t happen, but I understand where you’re coming from.
This just doesn't make any sense to me. The surface quality of that 55 is on par with the 61s, and it certainly isn't poor. It's simply lovely. And that is without it having an incredible strike.
Personally, this coin is #2 for me, behind one of the 61s. I find it hard to place it elsewhere.
Are you not seeing the large circle of concentrated chatter on the date side? There are even several fairly deep and distracting gashes, such as above the 1, on the 4, and on the right of the eye. And it has been wiped at some point. I don’t really know how it could be #2. There are at least 4 coins with better surfaces, but weaker strikes.
Everytime anyone posts something with which you disagree you become defensive and you hammer on about your bonafides and expertise HARD. I guess it is impossible for you to admit you are wrong.
You are wrong.
Here is the 50 in question with lovely original surfaces and color and a few marks from circulation:
Versus the scrubbed 61 with roughly equivalent marks:
And these views are at roughly 20x magnification.
These close-ups prove me right. There's no reason to believe that that 61 is "scrubbed". I think the issue is with your eyes.
Listen, I don't even know what you're looking at, but I will say this:
There is effectively a couple experts in pioneer these days. Dan is one of them. I have yet to see anyone who has been able to categorically disprove something that he's said, and today is not going to be that day. The 55 just doesn't have the worn down, weakly struck look the others have. It does, however, have the look collectors desire, seek out, and pay big money for.
I’ll save the grading is subjective commentary for another time. This Mormon/Pioneer Gold thread started with the best of intentions. The focal point seems to have shifted from sharing coins within a grade spectrum and the traits of that limited surviving population which is rare to a clash in personalities which is unproductive and too common. We can do better.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Comments
But who won the giveaway?
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
This just doesn't make any sense to me. The surface quality of that 55 is on par with the 61s, and it certainly isn't poor. It's simply lovely. And that is without it having an incredible strike.
Personally, this coin is #2 for me, behind one of the 61s. I find it hard to place it elsewhere.
Coin Photographer.
Are you not seeing the large circle of concentrated chatter on the date side? There are even several fairly deep and distracting gashes, such as above the 1, on the 4, and on the right of the eye. And it has been wiped at some point. I don’t really know how it could be #2. There are at least 4 coins with better surfaces, but weaker strikes.
First thought is that some may be as low as fine, but those with a lot more knowledge than I did not go below VF, so probably that's the baseline for the most worn examples; those with rich toning likely into AU. I don't have the time or knowledge to do a proper review, thanks for the examples.
Everytime anyone posts something with which you disagree you become defensive and you hammer on about your bonafides and expertise HARD. I guess it is impossible for you to admit you are wrong.
You are wrong.
Here is the 50 in question with lovely original surfaces and color and a few marks from circulation:
Versus the scrubbed 61 with roughly equivalent marks:
And these views are at roughly 20x magnification.
Great thing about pioneers IMO is that anyone can play in the sense that numeric grades are less relevant than perhaps most other types. (Colonials, early coppers come to mind as well). Myself, I think originality/ color trump surface marks. Can’t say that the 61 above has equivalent marks, but the 50 above appeals much more to me - color and apparent originality. Great thread illustrating the “buy the coin” principle.
>I hate to argue
I beg to differ. Judging by your post history and your comments here, it seems that you enjoy it.
>but that is not all unstruck planchet or die roughness.
Read my comment again. I never said that it was, I said there are a "few other things to consider" and "unstuck planchet observed on the other 55 examples...."
>There are plenty of legitimate rough hits, and the slight shine to the surfaces is from an old cleaning. All coins are graded with surface quality in consideration, and this is no exception.
Perhaps, but I find it interesting how you state your opinions as objective facts. All of my comments use "in my opinion" or "it appears", as we are comparing to old pictures and we don't have the coins in hand.
> I disagree, all four 55s have better surfaces. They simply have weaker strikes. They’re flat, but not mottled with (as many) hits. The first 55 looks the most free of marks.
Again, you're entitled to your opinion but to state as a fact that "All four 55s have better surfaces" (two of which you graded lower than mine initially) is conjecture, especially since we haven't seen the other coins.
>The last 55 actually has worse surfaces than at least a couple of the others
You think the georgeous 55 with CAC approval (that you initially graded 58) has WORSE surfaces than the other 55s? Lol, ok.
> And regarding strike, that’s just not how grading on the modern Sheldon scale works. Weak strikes and die rust don’t matter, the grade is intended to be a measurement of wear. One of the reasons for that is that there is no way to consistently or objectively rank strike quality, or even to arrive at a consensus for an ideal strike.
Right, because the only factors we consider for grading are the ones that can be applied "consistently and objectively" 🙄.
That was basically the purpose of the thread, to show how adhering to the "modern Sheldon scale" after decades of market grading leads to this type of variance. Weak strikes did matter in the past, which is why you'll see a modern day XF that used to be called a VG because of the strike. Personally, I think strike should factor in more than it does, and while we may never be able to define an "ideal strike", I think we could arrive at a consensus that we wouldn't want to pay choice AU money if half of the design is missing.
>I can see myself disputing that though, if I could see all the coins in hand. It placed as #5 in my guesses, but if we adjust for two of the coins having weak strikes rather than the wear that I read them as having, then it could very well be #7.
Yea, and if my aunt had a ____ she'd be my uncle. Seriously? I tried to wrap up my comment by finding some common ground, suggesting that it falls in the middle of the road somewhere (#5 in your rankings, and #3-#4 by consensus). You really had to put out a "what if" so you could knock it down again? It just seems like find pleasure in being combative and disagreeable, and those are the type of forum members that drive people away from here.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
These close-ups prove me right. There's no reason to believe that that 61 is "scrubbed". I think the issue is with your eyes.
Strike and wear are not the same as surface quality.
Strike and wear are not the same as surface quality.
Ok, and?
To reiterate, you think the bottom coin has the worst surface quality of this group?
And all four of them have better surface quality than this one?
I don’t think lermish is the one with eyesight problems…
Regardless, neither grade or eye appeal is dependent solely on surfaces, and I don’t know anyone that would choose one of the top 3 if cost was the same.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Listen, I don't even know what you're looking at, but I will say this:
There is effectively a couple experts in pioneer these days. Dan is one of them. I have yet to see anyone who has been able to categorically disprove something that he's said, and today is not going to be that day. The 55 just doesn't have the worn down, weakly struck look the others have. It does, however, have the look collectors desire, seek out, and pay big money for.
Coin Photographer.
I’ll save the grading is subjective commentary for another time. This Mormon/Pioneer Gold thread started with the best of intentions. The focal point seems to have shifted from sharing coins within a grade spectrum and the traits of that limited surviving population which is rare to a clash in personalities which is unproductive and too common. We can do better.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.