Options
How the Heck do you tell a AU58 from a MS60???
tsacch
Posts: 2,929 ✭✭✭
I got a cool sample slab from Cameron........thanks man......great coin for what I paid and cool sample for sure...my first one.
The main reason I bought it was to get a cheap high grade AU.....I wanted to see if I could really see the wear on the coin...........Cam's opinion was that the coin is an AU58....., its slabbed in an early Accupig plastic tomb.....But, where the wear is? and how do you tell its a 58 vs a 60 or above?...aside form the obvious tics and hits and reed marks............when do the tics and bag marks ever become wear?? Can a coin be from an original bag and be so banged up it will get an AU vs a 60?.....
I have some morgans that have soft strikes and are slabbed 64 to 60 and then i have some that are awsome luster, great cartwheel and they are 55 or 58....and its darn near impossible to tell the difference at all.
Can anyone objectively with pictures and words tell us how to tell a 58 vs a 60 and a 58 from a soft strike?....or what about a soft strike that is 60/63 vs 58.
Just when i thought i was doing good i had to try to learn more..............I find out I need to learn more.
The main reason I bought it was to get a cheap high grade AU.....I wanted to see if I could really see the wear on the coin...........Cam's opinion was that the coin is an AU58....., its slabbed in an early Accupig plastic tomb.....But, where the wear is? and how do you tell its a 58 vs a 60 or above?...aside form the obvious tics and hits and reed marks............when do the tics and bag marks ever become wear?? Can a coin be from an original bag and be so banged up it will get an AU vs a 60?.....
I have some morgans that have soft strikes and are slabbed 64 to 60 and then i have some that are awsome luster, great cartwheel and they are 55 or 58....and its darn near impossible to tell the difference at all.
Can anyone objectively with pictures and words tell us how to tell a 58 vs a 60 and a 58 from a soft strike?....or what about a soft strike that is 60/63 vs 58.
Just when i thought i was doing good i had to try to learn more..............I find out I need to learn more.
Family, kids, coins, sports (playing not watching), jet skiing, wakeboarding, Big Air....no one ever got hurt in the air....its the sudden stop that hurts. I hate Hurricane Sandy. I hate FEMA and i hate the blasted insurance companies.
0
Comments
MS60 has no lustre break, but is a total dog--hairlines, dings up the wazoo, etc.
I think it's fair to say most collectors like an AU58 over an MS60 (unless they're just after Registry points
An AU58 is a very appealing coin that has a touch of wear or rub. Nothing moderate, has to be minor. The coin has to have most of its original mint luster, etc.
An MS60 coin is a dog-eared ugly coin that is technically uncirculated but nothing else. Generally only the most damaged unworn coins get MS60 in my opinion.
The Lincoln cent store:
http://www.lincolncent.com
My numismatic art work:
http://www.cdaughtrey.com
USAF veteran, 1986-1996 :: support our troops - the American way.
GREAT answers.
Thx
Thank You
SilverDollar
Tyler
I agree with this, and think it's important to have the coin in hand in good light to look for those luster breaks and tone changes.....
Herb
Dr. Steve
Looking for uncirculated Indian Heads and PRS electric guitars
It's a tough call!
For many lowwer MS coins (60 to low/mid 64), and top end AU58's, I think the line is very blurry.
Technically a MS coin has no wear and a AU58 has just a little wear ... sometimes very little. This may get subjective at times, but that is the defining line and that is the only difference. More on that in a moment.
First, a common myth is that AU58's are nicer than 60's and 61's and maybe 62's. This is absolutely wrong. Some of the nicest 58's look as good as 63's and 64's in hand ... some look like doggy 60's ... and some the wear is enough to where you know it's a Choice AU and not a MS coin, because you can see the wear and it's obvious that's what it is.
An AU58 has wear, and before it got wear it was anything from a MS60 to a MS67+.
Anyway, some questions I ask myself in trying to distiguish between MS and a really nice Choice AU;
Were the breaks in luster caused by bag and roll friction or from actual circulation?
Is the scruffiness from coin to coin friction (and the same type of coin), or caused by rubbing against something else?
Was it purely collector (mis)handling (and if so, shouldn't that qualify as a low MS and not a high AU)?
Is there some strike softness, and if so can I see some of the mint luster atop those soft areas?
The most difficult to grade are the really nice AU's that were carefully dipped and then gently retoned, because the nature of handling is difficult to discern, and the ones that are naturally and evenly medium (or darker) toned (for the same reasons).
Knowing your series and what the highest points and most exposed areas of that design are is an extremely important facet (IMO) to understanding the differences. Knowing what higher-end 58's and decent 62's look like helps in determining what are usually considered hits and scruff and what is seen as minute wear.
On the finest AU58's, no one will agree every time. I'm sure many would agree. I have coins I believe to be 58's that have went as high as 63 (so far) at PCGS. I think I may have a couple shot 64's still waiting to go.
Anyway ... hope this helps a little ... feel free to PM if you have any specific questions I might help with.
“We are only their care-takers,” he posed, “if we take good care of them, then centuries from now they may still be here … ”
Todd - BHNC #242
<< <i>First, a common myth is that AU58's are nicer than 60's and 61's and maybe 62's. This is absolutely wrong. Some of the nicest 58's look as good as 63's and 64's in hand ... some look like doggy 60's ... and some the wear is enough to where you know it's a Choice AU and not a MS coin, because you can see the wear and it's obvious that's what it is. >>
I personally agree. Some would argue that an AU-58 coin should be an MS-63+ coin with a trace of rub or something like that, and would make an MS-60 looking coin with a trace of rub AU-55 at best. But if you believe that wear is the determining factor, not eye appeal, in the circulated grades then it is possible to have a heavily marked, ugly MS-60ish coin with a trace of rub be called 58. I've certainly seen these 58s in PCGS and NGC slabs. I've also seen the ones that look MS-64 and MS-65 at quick glance (though these are increasingly being "market graded" as MS-62s and so on).
With a good picture, relatively knowledgeable collectors have little problem pricing these coins appropriately, even though this grade has among the most varied pricing from piece to piece. The former regularly sell for AU money at best and the latter often fetch MS-62 and even MS-63 bids. It's not uncommon to see some PQ 58s sell for 2-3 times what other "inferior" 58s would sell for.
This is always a subjective area, and there is a difference of opinion with TPG's and many collectors.
edit - you can never determine the AU/MS grade from a photograph because movement of the coin under light is necessary to see the luster breaks.
Bill
It is a myth that AU58s are "nicer" that >MS60 coins. Some are and some aren't. But remember that it is also a myth all MS65s are better than MS63s. Again, some are and some aren't.
jom
Some mighty nice MS60's in slabs can be found, especially in the more common type coins. I think the grading services deliberately undergrade coins at times to keep it interesting. Sound business practice, if you know what I mean. They would never say as much, of course.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
AU58 or mint state something? I paid $120 for this coin. Its not in a slab. Newbies fire away. Regulars who have seen this coin before, comment at your own risk. Really, how do you tell?
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
This one has a more obvious lustre break in front of the portrait, but is very clean and lustrous otherwise:
Jeremy
PS- Thanks to Arco for the little plug
The way I look at it is whether the rub (or the strike or whatever attribute) takes away from the eye appeal. If the coin has rub and still looks as good as an MS63 then it's an MS63. Also, the term "AU" implies it has been CIRCULATED. If the coin has rub it still may NOT have been in circulation. Especially if there are any circulation marks/hits.
jom
<< <i>
AU58 or mint state something? I paid $120 for this coin. Its not in a slab. Newbies fire away. Regulars who have seen this coin before, comment at your own risk. Really, how do you tell?
From the pictures, It's MS. I'd be concerned about the gash in the neck on the obverse though; looks like someone was trying to assassinate him.
Self Indulgence | Holey Coins | Flickr Photostream
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>when do the tics and bag marks ever become wear?? Can a coin be from an original bag and be so banged up it will get an AU vs a 60?.....
. >>
I asked HomeRunHall this exact same question on one of his Tuesday Q&A sessions and he
said in his opinion bagmarks and the like never get heavy enough to get a coin to AU. No doubt
though it is possible for a coin to get enough wear in a bag to grade AU. If they're on top lying
on a high point in an enviroment with heavy vibration or if it's just a very well traveled bag it
should be possible for a coin to get a rub.
Coins wear from the high point down. To find the high points just tilt the coin until it is nearly
flat opposite a light source. (incandescent or equivalent) The high points will appear to stand
up off the coin. Look at the coin straight on again and compare the luster on these points to
the surrounding luster and the luster in the fields. If it's greyer or less shiny then the coin is
probably AU. Sometimes these points won't be completely filled by the strike since they are the
last to fill. So be sure to take the strike into account. Also note toning or other conditions which
might account for a different color. Often these wear spots will have tiny little scratches on them
if the wear was more "sudden" and natural. The toughest part of determining if some coins are
AU or not is trying to ascertain if the luster and surfaces are natural or not.
Bright and early when the grader is fresh and got lucky last night and is very intent on being scrupulously diligent with his/her scanning electron microscope?
or:
4:58 PM and the grader is hungry and bored and has just enough time to glance and jot before flipping into a slab and getting home in time to relax and watch TV?
I think it's time the services began to recognize that technically "AU" coins can "grade" 60 or 61 or 62 or even 63.
Oh, they already do? Lot's of certified "MS61" and "MS62" coins, particularly older type coins, really do have a bit of rub?
Well, I think they should cut the bs and start calling them AU-sixty-something.
Imagine the resubmission fees for all those "PQ" AU58's!
Are you listening Mr. Hall?
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
I think the contact marks you see came as the result of some careless handling by an original owner who stored this coin in an album for who knows how many years. It may have been accidently dropped at least once.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Heritage graded MS-61, NGC graded MS-60, PCGS wouldn't cross at 60, HRH said
when examining the coin in person that he could see it going from AU-58 to MS-62
depending on if the grader viewed the coin as having rub or wear.
Now, as far as the issue of 58's looking nicer than 60's, I think that on the less
expensive coins in PCGS/NGC slabs, the answer is almost definately. No one (usually) is
going to spend the money to send in a $30 AU58; they think that it is a $200 MS64 and
then get disappointed when the slab comes back. (I have some nice AU58 3cn that
I'm sure got slabbed by that very circumstance!)
<< <i>What I don't understand is: Why is a bit of "rub" on just the highpoints of an otherwise gem or near gem coin with outstanding eye appeal considered worse (at AU58), than an MS60 or 61 coin of the same type/date/mm that is low grade Unc but still Unc because it has NO tiny barely detectable rub on the highpoints, but instead the MS60 or 61 coin has a lot of big bagmarks, ugly toning, a very weak strike or some other "eye appeal" issues?
I think it's time the services began to recognize that technically "AU" coins can "grade" 60 or 61 or 62 or even 63.
Oh, they already do? Lot's of certified "MS61" and "MS62" coins, particularly older type coins, really do have a bit of rub?
Well, I think they should cut the bs and start calling them AU-sixty-something.
Imagine the resubmission fees for all those "PQ" AU58's!
Are you listening Mr. Hall? >>
It seems to me that a better bet is to grade the coins on all their different characteristics.
<< <i>"I'd be concerned about the gash in the neck on the obverse though; looks like someone was trying to assassinate him."
I think the contact marks you see came as the result of some careless handling by an original owner who stored this coin in an album for who knows how many years. It may have been accidently dropped at least once. >>
I was thinking the same thing, looks like a sharp object (deep stable gash) was taken to it or it was dropped harshly on something with an edge.
Self Indulgence | Holey Coins | Flickr Photostream
Ahh, that's my dream... separate descriptions of the coin's strike, luster, marks, degree of "wear" and "surface preservation", and overall eye appeal.
Of course, such rigorous and expensive grading would only be for valuable coins that "merit" the cost.
Could be a niche opportunity for some enterprising individuals! Anyone want to partner up?
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
<< <i>It seems to me that a better bet is to grade the coins on all their different characteristics.
Ahh, that's my dream... separate descriptions of the coin's strike, luster, marks, degree of "wear" and "surface preservation", and overall eye appeal.
Of course, such rigorous and expensive grading would only be for valuable coins that "merit" the cost.
Could be a niche opportunity for some enterprising individuals! Anyone want to partner up? >>
I have a personal grading scale similar to this which I use for Holed Coins to determine how much they're worth to me (When I'm purchasing in an auction). I've always considered doing some custom holed coin slabs/holders noting all details and proper net grades, but ANACS does fine for me when I need one of them 'protected'. I really do want to do a detailed 'Hole Variety' list one of these days, though - There really is a lot of history in just the hole itself and how and why it was made.
Self Indulgence | Holey Coins | Flickr Photostream
I don't think it suffers from staple scratch. The damage came from contacting something hard, probably metallic, that is more blunt and rounded. The images, which were not made by me, don't capture the underlying luster that is, in reality, getting through on this toned coin.
In other words, one can disregard the "lifelessness" seen in the images if attempting to ascertain whether or not the coin has wear.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
jom
Here's a nice AU58
I think you are mostly right. Specifically though, judging from the images, comments made by myself and others, and your own expertise in making assessment of worth what do YOU think my 1909-O dime is worth?
My opinion about my 1909-O dime, short version:
IF the contact marks were not there, my 1909-O WOULD BE worth several THOUSAND dollars given that this coin was exceptionally well struck for the New Orleans mint. I detect no actual wear. It is mint state "something" and has "presentation piece" qualities. I'm ALMOST certain the toning is "natural" or "accidental" although I think "incidental" is a better word to describe the kind of toning seen on my coin.
Now, irregardless of what I think this coin is or would be worth, what do you think about its worth? I will not take whatever you might say about this coin's worth as any kind of offer for it since it currently is not for sale so you can speak as freely as you choose. Be as critical, or as kind, as you want to be. Trust me, my feelings cannot be hurt as long as you limit your comments about worth to the coin itself and not me, the owner, "who am priceless."
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>"It really just comes down to "what's it worth", does it?"
I think you are mostly right. Specifically though, judging from the images, comments made by myself and others, and your own expertise in making assessment of worth what do YOU think my 1909-O dime is worth?
My opinion about my 1909-O dime, short version:
IF the contact marks were not there, my 1909-O WOULD BE worth several THOUSAND dollars given that this coin was exceptionally well struck for the New Orleans mint. I detect no actual wear. It is mint state "something" and has "presentation piece" qualities. I'm ALMOST certain the toning is "natural" or "accidental" although I think "incidental" is a better word to describe the kind of toning seen on my coin.
Now, irregardless of what I think this coin is or would be worth, what do you think about its worth? I will not take whatever you might say about this coin's worth as any kind of offer for it since it currently is not for sale so you can speak as freely as you choose. Be as critical, or as kind, as you want to be. Trust me, my feelings cannot be hurt as long as you limit your comments about worth to the coin itself and not me, the owner, "who am priceless."
I'd pay roughly $150 for it.
Self Indulgence | Holey Coins | Flickr Photostream
Would you pay more if I could convincingly prove to you somehow (which I can't) that this coin, problems aside, was originally owned by none other than the last Director of the New Orleans mint?
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>"I'd pay roughly $150 for it."
Would you pay more if I could convincingly prove to you somehow (which I can't) that this coin, problems aside, was originally owned by none other than the last Director of the New Orleans mint? >>
No, I wouldn't pay for pedigree.
Self Indulgence | Holey Coins | Flickr Photostream
<< <i>Jeremy's top coin there is a good example of a "rubbed" coin. In fact, the coin is probably just an MS64. I mean, does the "rub" really attenuate the eye appeal of the coin? Probably not.
The way I look at it is whether the rub (or the strike or whatever attribute) takes away from the eye appeal. If the coin has rub and still looks as good as an MS63 then it's an MS63. Also, the term "AU" implies it has been CIRCULATED. If the coin has rub it still may NOT have been in circulation. Especially if there are any circulation marks/hits. >>
Aw Jom you know the coin is not mint state. From the picture it does appear to have slight rub on the hairline and the cheek and fields both appear to have some action going on also that would suggest the coin circulated. Maybe just for a day or so but it did circulate. Sure its a nice AU coin but to pay 64 money for the coin is throwing the green stuff down the drain. Small premium, you bet.
The second coin shown by Jeremy looks to be AU55 to me. Classic example of a coin with nice luster but just way to much action in the fields. Its the type of coin some dealers throw a 63 grade on and then it sits in stock for a decade.
Ken
<< <i>The easiest way to tell an AU 58 from a MS60 is to check your wallet! >>
You're right. If it's a PQ 58 that looks like a 63/64 with a slight trace of rub, the 58 will usually lighten your wallet more!
<< <i>Aw Jom you know the coin is not mint state. >>
Actually, I dont' know that. I do NOT know Barber coinage all that well. I was just going by what Jeremy said...plus...I've never seen the coin in person.
As to the premium comment. I agree because, like I said, it really just comes down to what you would pay. I'm guessing this coin is a "common" date (I don't really know) so the spread may not be all that much between AU58 and MS63. The coin is clearly worth more than what an MS60 would go for given what you normally see graded MS60. No?
jom
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=3963158595&ssPageName=STRK:MESE:IT
littlejohn
For what it is worth, I agree with Fairlaneman's assessment of Jeremie's 2 coins.
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
By definition, any uncirculated coin is MS 60. It can have, in theory, any amount of bag marks, as long as it has never been circulated.
Consequently, virtually all uncirculated coins are MS 61 and better, because a coin could have more marks than it actually has.
Because of this, many Choice AU coins can be worth more than uncirculated coins, because they are more attractive.
Tricky, isn't it?
I firmly believe in numismatics as the world's greatest hobby, but recognize that this is a luxury and without collectors, we can all spend/melt our collections/inventories.
eBaystore
<< <i>By definition, any uncirculated coin is MS 60. It can have, in theory, any amount of bag marks, as long as it has never been circulated.
Consequently, virtually all uncirculated coins are MS 61 and better, because a coin could have more marks than it actually has.
Because of this, many Choice AU coins can be worth more than uncirculated coins, because they are more attractive.
Tricky, isn't it?
>>
This is going to be especially interesting with clad coins. In many cases even
VF coins look much better than MS-60 coins. Many of these, especially in the
early years, were very poorly struck from worn out and misaligned dies. Detail
is frequently lacking on MS-60 coins and these are usually banged up anyway.