Grading Standards Q: MS Coin so "ticky" it becomes AU58?

ChuckC

Do graders dip below the MS60 threshold for unc coins that are ticked up so bad, they have trouble calling it MS?

edit:

e.g. an unc Morgan dollar from a mint sealed bag that was handled as if someone used it in a pillow fight

kranky

That would never fly, since everyone expects that AU58 coins will be attractive.

Basically, lack of wear trumps all other factors.

mgoodm3

Sounds reasonable. I would think that if you beat a coin up enough that it ceases to be MS anymore.

Cladiator

Most coins like you describe end up in MS60 or MS61 holders. An AU58 typically is an MS62-MS63 with the slightest bit of rub, probably from cabinet friction of old collectors and not actual circulation but it's still rub. This is one reason you will see AU58's sell for more than MS60-MS61's. The other reason being folks playing the upgrade game.

The flip side to this is many MS62-MS63 coins are actually AU58's. Stick to the old but true phrase..."buy the coin not the holder" and you'll be safe.

OKbustchaser

Why not? They market grade AU-55's to 58 as MS62-64...why shouldn;t they market grade a MS 60-61 as an AU?

Actually, I don't think that either should be done, but I am just a forlorn voice crying out in the wilderness.

ziggy29

<< <i>Why not? They market grade AU-55's to 58 as MS62-64...why shouldn;t they market grade a MS 60-61 as an AU?

Actually, I don't think that either should be done, but I am just a forlorn voice crying out in the wilderness. >>

Personally, as long as there is going to be market grading and the numerical scale attempts to convey relative value, there should be some overlap in numerical designation between high-end AUs and low-end MS coins.

I would prefer that we NOT have market grading and use the more strict, technical definitions. But if the industry is committed to market grading, then I'd rather see an obviously PQ superslider designated AU-62 than see that non-MS coin get the MS-62 designation.

BlindedByEgo

<< <i>

<< <i>Why not? They market grade AU-55's to 58 as MS62-64...why shouldn;t they market grade a MS 60-61 as an AU?

Actually, I don't think that either should be done, but I am just a forlorn voice crying out in the wilderness. >>

Personally, as long as there is going to be market grading and the numerical scale attempts to convey relative value, there should be some overlap in numerical designation between high-end AUs and low-end MS coins.

I would prefer that we NOT have market grading and use the more strict, technical definitions. But if the industry is committed to market grading, then I'd rather see an obviously PQ superslider designated AU-62 than see that non-MS coin get the MS-62 designation. >>



I agree with this. IMO, shared by many, a technical unc is MS60 or 61 and is ofter fugly. An AU58 has rub - not just contact marks - and is usually nicer looking. I guess that you could have a fugly AU58 - lots of contact marks WITH rub, but I just haven't encountered that many in plastic.

michael

Coxe

Ticks alone will not dip it to AU. Without wear, it cannot go there. However, MS60 is the bucket the broad band of ugliest of technically uncirculated live. That said, the converse is definitely not true. There are MS62 coins in EVERY TPGs' holders that have some rub. They are market graded and excused for reasons like cabinet friction.

Steve27

" Do graders dip below the MS60 threshold for unc coins that are ticked up so bad, they have trouble calling it MS?"

No, that's why MS60 coins look so bad.

PerryHall

I've seen many AU58 double eagles in top tier slabs that are really mint state but are extremely baggy. Not every AU58 coin is attractive.

Hyperion

technically (as I understand it), if it's really unc it'd go from MS60 to being bodybagged for being damaged.

Heywood

I think most people would expect a AU-58 to be less baggy than a 60-62-

If it was so baggy it needed to go AU, it should max out at 55.

However- I think most Baggy MS coins become the 60-62 range, with the AU-58 coins usually looking better on first glance.

ziggy29

If a mint state coin is "market graded" as an AU because of too many hits and blemishes, IMO it should be 55, not 58.

In reality such a coin should be graded MS-60.

I generally think the existing grading system should be left alone, but I make one exception in that high AU and low MS grades should have some overlap. I don't think we need to take MS below 60, but additional AU grades from 61 to 63 would probably suffice.

291fifth

Coins of that ilk will probably end up in MS 60 holders. Eventually, they will probably end up being sold to mass marketers because no one else will buy them.

cladking

I asked this question on the Q&A forum in vitually the same terms and HomerunHall
said it would not downgrade a coin from MS-60.

I do have some small doubt since there are coins so covered with marking they can
hide small luster breaks.

Shamika

If a coin is so beat up that it can't be justified as MS60, it would be bodybagged for damaged.

bushmaster8

I have often wondered about some of the Moderncrap from mint sets.

For example, you can find 71-P Kennedy's in mint sets that look all the world like AU50.

coinguy1

I've seen at least a small number of coins which appeared to be uncirculated, but which were apparently down-graded to AU58 due solely to a multitude of hits/marks. At a certain point, too much of the surface is missing for even a technically-uncirculated coin to be graded mint state.

Don't forget that, on the other hand, coins which are pulled out of change and which have technically been circulated, frequently receive (even high) uncirculated grades.

MICHAELDIXON

An older dealer and I were discussing this subject on Monday. I bought a bag of 1902 O dollars several years ago and some of the coins were so heavily marked, that I had to discount them to AU prices to order to sell. Sometimes you encounter these coins and you can tell they are uncirculated, but buyers won't purchase them at MS60 money. I've seen several coins in AU58 holders which I thought were MS60 coins that had been downgraded due to heavy marks.

JRocco

<< <i>If a coin is so beat up that it can't be justified as MS60, it would be bodybagged for damaged. >>




Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding

TwoSides2aCoin

I sent 16 of these out of the same roll in ...
9 came back AU58
7 came back MS62-MS64


Subjective is right !
Scientific is just a guess !

Shamika

<< <i> I sent 16 of these out of the same roll in ...
9 came back AU58
7 came back MS62-MS64 >>


The AU58 coins are due to roll friction, not bag marks. Even though the coins are technically mint state, if there is friction showing on the high points, the coin will be MARKET GRADED as AU58.

mgoodm3

All wear is is a conglomeration of marks on the coin. Some are fine (friction), some are course (bag/contact). Metal is lost with each interaction. You get enough marks and you get traditional "wear". Seems to me that the difference between MS and AU is a continuum, not a balck/white distinction.