FS:1909 MPL cent PCGS PR65RB "OGH" color!

BWRC

$2,500 delivered!

bestmr

WOW! That's really nice!!

robec

Fantastic 1909!! The color is unbelievable. This one will go fast.

curly

Lookin' good, brother.

PQpeace

Nice color !

Duane

One sweet MPL!

DMWJR

Brian, would that be a brown or red-brown coin as described in Jaime Hernandez' latest article??

BWRC

Hi Doug,

I would say it's well within the R/B range because it has at least 6% remaining red color, actually quite a bit more than that.

Duane

Doug,

The coin in-hand has great luster, and original mint red (orange-yellow) all along the reverse right side.

It's not really a 'Red-brown' but more like an orange-magenta-green. So I guess it's technically a PR65 OMG

Duane

DMWJR

Duane -- I had just read Jaime Hernandez's article and turned to this read and was thinking "how does this coin fit in Jaime's analysis of BN and RB?"

It's just too complicated to fit in a nice, neat little box of "RB."

But, this is the fun part of collecting .... the subjective part. If every coin fit in a neat little box of BN, RB, or RD, they would all be widgets, right?

You probably just think of me as a fan of Reds. Yes, I am a big fan of Reds. But, before I went Red with my set, I had almost a full set of RB's in 66, including the vdb and the 16. They were beautiful coins, I just chose to go a different direction.

Duane

Hey Doug,

Don't get me wrong. I agree with you totally, and myself own a number of beautiful red coppers. I actually thought that you were referring to Jaime's article.

That's way I mentioned calling the coin an "orange-magenta-green" (joke: OMG!)

I don't thing 'beauty' or eye appeal in the formal sense can be easily quantified, so we have collectors of all types of coins who find beauty the coins they collect. Personally, I have 1950 and 1953 cameo Jeffersons with amazing strike and color that I find as beautiful as many proof 65 MPLs! To each his own, right?

You may find this idea attractive: I actually have developed a patent -pending system of quantifying eye appeal called the AURA™ (soon to be AURA®) system (Acronym: "Axial Ultimate Refractory Angle"). It's sort of similar to the idea of CAC but works on a 1-70 scale, and relates to any and all coin series and is just related to the eye appeal of a given individual coin. Like a quantification of the NGC * system, if you will. I simply want to quantify coins by eye appeal, as a separate designation.

As you say, a coin is not a widget, and the particularities of each coin need be assessed very specifically to determine the merit of that particular coin. Our present system is great, but, IMHO, lacks the specificity to divide or break down coins for their variable attributes (like pure eye appeal).

As to Brian's 1909, I can tell you, under Jaime's rules, the coin is a RB, hands down. It screams Unfortunetly, a camera has a tough time picking up the nuances of the coin.

If I were to give the coin an AURA™ number for eye appeal as compared to other MPLs (as my having experience with MPLs), I'd say it has an AURA 64.5-65.5. It's a gem from a strict eye appeal standard.

Duane

Steve

Duane,
I appreciate what you are trying to do in quantifying "eye appeal", but isn't that very subjective depending on the opinions of each individual? For instance, I probably have a prejudice for original red Lincoln cents over beautifully toned Lincoln cents. I may question in my own mind whether the particular red coin is truly original red, but once I have determined that it is, I tend to see the eye appeal differently than I see the eye appeal on a beautifully toned Lincoln cent. I may be in the minority on this, but how can you universally determine eye appeal if some collectors, like me, have a prejudice for red over toned coins? I appreciate your comments.
Steve

illini420

Though Duane's AURA ranking is pretty interesting, I sort of agree with Steve that each person might have a different AURA rating depending on what their eye sees as being appealing on an MPL. For example, in looking at all but the cream of the crop MPLs, there are often very small spots to be found. While some collectors easily dismiss such minor spotting and give more weight to the overall luster, toning and look of the coin, other collectors may focus on such minor spotting and will dismiss a coin completely as those spots may bug them a little more than the next guy, regardless of the toning and other features of the coin.

Duane

<< <i>Duane,
I appreciate what you are trying to do in quantifying "eye appeal", but isn't that very subjective depending on the opinions of each individual? For instance, I probably have a prejudice for original red Lincoln cents over beautifully toned Lincoln cents. I may question in my own mind whether the particular red coin is truly original red, but once I have determined that it is, I tend to see the eye appeal differently than I see the eye appeal on a beautifully toned Lincoln cent. I may be in the minority on this, but how can you universally determine eye appeal if some collectors, like me, have a prejudice for red over toned coins? I appreciate your comments.
Steve >>



Steve,

I completely appreciate your argument. But unfortunetly for numismatics, even the present system is 'subjective'. So-called "Grading Arbitrage" works on this very premise. Why do crack-outs some times result in upgrades? One person's "MS58" is another's "MS63". This has been proven in experiments using numismatists of the highest order.

So I don't see the question as one of 'subjective' v. objective, but one of minimizing the actual subjectivity. This is the idea behind "Eagle Eye", CAC and my AURA concept. My patent application describes into great detail as to the working system to achieve this goal of creating 'more' objectivity, or if you like, 'less' subjectivity. It's at it's core incremental.

Sheldon must have struggled with the same question. We are all just building on the ideas of those who came before us. That's innovation, in a nutshell.

Respectfully,
Duane

Duane

<< <i>Though Duane's AURA ranking is pretty interesting, I sort of agree with Steve that each person might have a different AURA rating depending on what their eye sees as being appealing on an MPL. For example, in looking at all but the cream of the crop MPLs, there are often very small spots to be found. While some collectors easily dismiss such minor spotting and give more weight to the overall luster, toning and look of the coin, other collectors may focus on such minor spotting and will dismiss a coin completely as those spots may bug them a little more than the next guy, regardless of the toning and other features of the coin. >>



Thanks Mike.

To counter the concerns, what I propose is that a group of numismatists with experience in the specific series 'vote' or find consensus on the AURA grade. Minor spots on a MPL WOULD matter, if they in fact affect the eye appeal, and that's why I say the system is incremental.

A AURA 65.5 would have better eye appeal (and hence, likely more value), than a 64.8 (these AURA numbers given by the group of experts in conjunction with the coins formal grade.

The AURA is a supplement and not a supplant to the present system. As numismatics develop, we try to better quantify our grading. Even temporal conditions are considered in the patent application. just because a coin is an AURA 65 on day one, does not mean it's a AURA 65 on day 365. So this problem is addressed. This is one way to quantify better objective grades for insurance considerations (for one easy example).

Duane