Is AU grade overused ?

COALPORTER

Not that I consider myself to be a grading expert, but in the “old days”, before TPGs, I rarely graded (or saw others grade) a coin AU. The grade of AU seemed to be a very special case: applying to a VERY NARROW range of coins. Maybe, I’m a conservative grader and tend to stop at XF. Maybe, I just object to the word ALMOST or at least think it over used. Are people just ticked because their coin isn’t MS and don’t want to come to terms that their coin is “definitely circulated” ? A coin is either UNC, or it is not. I’ve always thought of AU as more of a “logical grade“ for a coin that looks MS (almost), but you know technically it can’t be considered UNC. It a coin that upon first glance appears to be unc, but on closer
examination show slight wear.
Now ,I routinely see coins in four grades of AU, many of which I would call XF. Do we really need four grades of AU ? Me thinks, that unless it’s a really
strong coin, then it should probably should be downgraded to XF.
Maybe the grade XF should be extended to 55, and the range of coins grading AU narrowed. Of course, if priced accordingly, then it doesn’t matter: but what dealer is going to sell an AU 53 for XF money?
Do you guys think too many coins grade AU ?

ahooka454

I dont see enough in AU holders. Slight wear in my eyes means AU. Plus afew other determining factors but not eveything was preserved with the care us collectors give. AU is one of my fav grade ranges. If used properly its a thing of beauty.

GoldenEyeNumismatics

I'd agree that sometimes AU50 and AU53 (especially) look more like XF, but I like the system as it is.

Zoins

<< <i>I’ve always thought of AU as more of a “logical grade“ for a coin that looks MS (almost), but you know technically it can’t be considered UNC. It a coin that upon first glance appears to be unc, but on closer
examination show slight wear. >>

It used to be that way but those coins are now low MS.

ecichlid

My novice opinions...

A coin with any wear should not by low MS. Never. I don;t except that as fact, its overgrading for profit.

Why not four grades of AU? We have eleven grades of MS. If someone can tell MS-63 from MS-65 then they should be able to tell AU-55 from AU-58. No?

tresgatos

I don't know if it's overused but I have noticed that the
grade of AU-58 is very much under-represented in coin books and
even on the PCGS price guide. I have quite a few AU-58's but
not a single MS-60 yet the Red Book and the U.S. Coin Digest
skip over the former and list the latter. I know it's been said "just use
MS-62 for AU-58" but it shouldn't have to be that. What's the deal with not listing values
for AU-58? Is it just too hard to nail down or what?

Zoins

The problem with the AU58 and MS60/61 grade is that some people wanted a nice progression of increasing prices to match increasing numerical grades. Many MS60 coins were dogs and AU58 coins often sold for more which would create a disruption in the nice price curve. The solution was to bump AU58 coins over the lower priced MS60/61 coins and give them MS62 grades so pricing would generally increase with increasing grades.

"Market grading" is the term used to grade coins according to how they are priced. The definition requiring a coin with a rub to be AU or lower is called "technical grading" and seems to be going away. Market grading is discussed in the latest ANA grading guide so it's been recognized and tacitly approved.

TomB

I don't care about the semantics of the issue, but in the "old days" many if not most of these AU pieces would have been sold under the heading of uncirculated or BU.

Zoins

<< <i>I don't care about the semantics of the issue, but in the "old days" many if not most of these AU pieces would have been sold under the heading of uncirculated or BU. >>

In the old days before TPGs, unscrupulous dealers would sell raw circulated coins as MS/Unc/BU. This practice is still widespread today.

However in the old days of the TPGs, those coins would be technically graded TPG AU. Now they are market graded TPG MS. Perhaps TPGs are now doing what dealers were doing all along?

TwoSides2aCoin

XF or AU ?

BECOKA

I don't think it really matters. If you move XF to 55 range the numbers don't change. Only the label on that number does.

I am so used to AU50, 53, 55, 58 but that could be I only started grading four or five years ago. I have XF coins that could easily be AU50 and vice versa. This is where I would not mind a mix.

TwoSides2aCoin

AU or MS ?

TwoSides2aCoin

Mint luster ? AU
No luster ? XF
Rub ? AU
No rub ? MS

Zoins

Large Rub: AU
Minor/No Rub: MS

TwoSides2aCoin

<< <i>Large Rub: AU
Minor/No Rub: MS >>





exceptions to the rule

Zoins

<< <i>

XF or AU ? >>

From the PCGS Lingo page:

<< <i>About Uncirculated
The grades AU50, 53, 55, and 58. A coin that on first glance appears Uncirculated but upon closer inspection has slight friction or rub. >>

That coin doesn't look uncirculated to me on first, second, or third glance, no closer inspection needed. According to my interpretation of the PCGS definition, it wouldn't make AU50.

Does the PCGS definition need to change to talk about luster instead of friction or rub?

Do I need to switch away from looking for friction/rub and just focus on luster?

RWB

AU does not fit nicely into the arbitrary numbering system. By definition, an AU coin is one that shows very slight wear – it literally is “almost or about uncirculated.” For many, the question is to buy a real AU coin or a BU-60/61 that might be strictly uncirculated but has numerous bag marks.

The problem occurs when one tries to squeeze 10 points into a definition that is so narrow. The grading companies, with the complicity with those who place semi-divine belief in what some plastic hold states, have expanded AU into the same width as EF thus paving the way for pushing the whole circulated set of grades downward.

Over the last 5-6 years the only AUs I’ve seen in slabs from PCGS or NCG have been labeled AU 58.” Nothing with a lesser designation is anything but EF. It would be better to drop the fiction, and just call the more circulated pieces EF-55, EF-50, EF-45 (to mirror the VF category). A continuum of wear cannot be modeled using low resolution sampling.

ahooka454

This coins is PCGS AU55. Some here thought MS63 and some thought 55. I agree its 55 with claims to 58. Depending on the holder.

It is nowhere near mint state. It has rub, you can see it right? I can. It is almost unc. Not quite. I like AU as long as it is properly used.To me, this one is properly graded.

Zoins

<< <i>


This coins is PCGS AU55. Some here thought MS63 and some thought 55. I agree its 55 with claims to 58. Depending on the holder.

It is nowhere near mint state. It has rub, you can see it right? I can. It is almost unc. Not quite. I like AU as long as it is properly used.To me, this one is properly graded. >>

From the photos, I agree with the AU55 grade. The rub looks more prominent than I expect from a 58.

Sotty

It looks more like VF to me

Sotty

The dime is what looks VF to me

Steve27

I find AU58 is overused.

TwoSides2aCoin

<< <i>The dime is what looks VF to me >>



Thank you... I was mainly posting, as I always do... something to start discussion. A lot of decent questions get buried into pages of oblivion and B.S. or drama. Some stick with issues.

It's a great question, too.

cladking

Most countries don't use AU. If a coin is nice with plenty of luster it's called a nice XF.
If it has a little wear and lots of luster it's XF and if it's worn but still nice than it's XF-.

Of course they price these accordingly.

It would make make some sense to grade coins with rub as though they had no rub but
add an "r" to designate it as rubbed. Coins that are too rubbed or worn to grade Mint
State could be designated between MS-50 to MS-60 to show their AU status. Most of
the other AU coins might fall in an expanded XF range. This would provide a much clearer
mental picture of the coin in the high circulated grades.

ziggy29

Double post. Move along; nothing to see here.

ziggy29

<< <i>I don't know if it's overused but I have noticed that the grade of AU-58 is very much under-represented in coin books and even on the PCGS price guide. >>

I think the AU-58 grade varies in value more than any other grade, even within its own series. The common value difference between a run-of-the-mill, overgraded middle-AU in a AU-58 holder and the "MS-65 with a trace of rub" can easily be 2x-3x.

Historically I've heard that 58s were often not included in sheets because they were roughly worth MS-60 money; therefore, look up the MS-60 value and you're close. But these days that breaks down from one coin to the other even if it's close to true *on average*. Plenty of 58s aren't worth that, and the nicer ones can be worth twice as much or more.

It would be easier to deal with this in the trends if we had AU-61 through AU-63 grades, and for an approximate value you could use MS-61 through MS-63 columns. As long as the market wants the coins to be PRICED with a number rather than graded, this is better than "market grading" AU coins into MS holders.

roadrunner

I agree with what TomB said for the most part but would add that lots of the 19th century and early 20th century coins getting MS61 and 62 grades today would have been called sliders or AU58's decades ago. Too many of the coins that I see in 53 to 58 holders have nothing in common with a mint state coin. How can they when they are often missing 50-90% of their original luster and have rub all over such as that Merc dime pictured above? A tinge of luster somewhere on a coin should not define an almost mint state coin.

The AU terminology is just another way to extend the XF grade up a few notches. Rather than XF40 and 45, we now have XF50, XF53 and XF55. Then we have AU58, AU61, AU62. I can understand it ok though. For those coins where mint state coins are nearly impossible to find (or non-existant), the extra AU grades make the buyers feel better.

roadrunner