Negative eye appeal

tjkillian

Coinguy1 talked about the importance of eye appeal as well as Anaconda. Assuming there are a minimal of marks and no wear, would the coin only grade MS-60 because of the strong negative eye appeal? Could it be lower?

Indian Cent on eBay

Tom

nwcs

I think negative eye appeal can have a big impact on grade, but how much is dependent. If the coin has nice surfaces but is toned totally dark, it wouldn't be a 60. But if it was just an ugly uncirculated coin, it'll either end up a 58 or 60. The image you linked to ain't the best, but it ain't the worst.

Outhaul

Eye appeal is in the eye of the beholder...I find this one nice...just my always humble opinion

Cheers,

Bob

MosesBlack

That coin is butt ugly.

Lakesammman

If it truly is MS, you can't go any lower. It's the perfect example of how much superior a nice AU coin is/can be.

keithdagen

A coin like that shouldn't take a grade hit for eye appeal, but the piece has no business being in a RD holder.

prooflike

I agree with Keith, it should be in a RB holder. The coin isn;t that bad, it just should not be in a red holder.

shylock

SEGS is lax about slabbing off-color Indian cents and I wonder if this looked a little different when it got the 64RD. The toning, too blotchy to be woodgrain, is an odd pattern for an IH to brown.

Dog97

Being ugly only affects a part of the grade. It might keep a 64.9 from making 65 but it won't make a 64 grade 60.
The coin looks cleaned and retoned.

michael

a dip brightening job gone bad in the holder

sincerely michael

braddick

Eye Appeal should not play a role in whether a coin is in an AU58 or MS60 holder, or not. That is a circulation/non-circulation issue.
Now, I suppose Eye Appeal can and does play out when you begin to approach MS64, and certainly the grades above that. Other than an insert error, I have yet to see a Classic coin in an MS68 holder that wasn't beautiful too.

nwcs

The reason I've said it could be a 58 is if the eye appeal problem includes lots of scratches and marks that are not related to circulation but enough to add "artificial wear" and bad handling by a collector.

MastaHanky

Would you say this coin has negative eye appeal?

The toning is somewhat similar.

(BTW, it's in a PCGS 65RD holder.)

braddick

<< <i>The reason I've said it could be a 58 is if the eye appeal problem includes lots of scratches and marks that are not related to circulation but enough to add "artificial wear" and bad handling by a collector. >>



That's a good point. I would think though that scratches and too many marks would be damage more than 'wear' and would place the coin in the lowest MS catagory of 60, or make it ungradeable (other than a 'net' grade).

Then again, what about slide marks caused by a coin album? I've heard of this type of "wear" and "cabinet friction" (when a coin is allowed to loosely slide around in a tray) placing a coin in the AU58 catagory.

Maybe I need to rethink what AU is. Possibly it isn't just 'circulation' but a combination of other factors that take the coin out of the MintState realm.
(It's also confusing when a coin comes out of a cash register- circulation(!) and into an NGC MS67 holder, like that mule Sac did.)

BillJones

Let's face it. Many copper coins that have red on them have been worked on to extent to get it there.

To me that are three questions one needs to ask. One, it the coin attractive? Two, does it look reasonablely natural? And three, is it stable? If the answer is "yes" to all three questions the coin is worth your consideration.

And, NO, I don't like the filmy look of the coin that started this thread, and it's not the type of piece that I would put in my collection or inventory. To me this is an example of a probable cleaning gone wrong.

One dealer provided me with the best descriptions of a true “virgin” red copper coin. It should have “the wet look.” The surfaces should have a shimmering luster that looks the coin is “wet” when you turn it in the light.

nwcs

<< <i>One dealer provided me with the best description of a true “virgin” red copper coin. It should have “the wet look.” The surfaces should have a shimmering luster that looks the coin is “wet” when you turn it in the light >>

I think this has more to do with die preparation and planchet quality than whether it is a real red coin. I've pulled cents from original rolls (say, a 1980 one I got in the 80s) that don't shimmer. They have standard frosty luster.