Why do suppose that one of these coins graded, while one did not?

scoobydeux

Both of the coins are pedigreed to the same collection (dating from 1910-1930) and are up for auction in the offing. The 1821 graded "Genuine--Code 91, Questionable Color," while the 1830 graded EF45.

(Please note that I have no financial interest here. I'm merely putting out this question for academic purposes.)

blu62vette

What is the stuff on the 1821 near 50c on the reverse? Color seems off. PVC?

scoobydeux

Good point; however, the auction description notes a genuine grade for QT, not PVC damage.

coinkat

The 1830 was cleaned and retoned- and was likely considered market acceptable

The 1821 is a tougher call- I think the reverse has look around the letters that leads me to believe it toned over time- I would like to see the obverse in hand-

golddustin

Have to agree with coinkat - I think that the dark areas on the reverse are the issue. The way that they outline the devices, but do not appear on any parts of the design is definitely questionable. Also agree that the '30 was cleaned & retoned - maybe they just got graded at different times.

DoubleEagle59

Both have been probably dipped, then retoned.

Both are market acceptable, in my book.

scoobydeux

Interesting point. I immediately assumed that the obverse was the problem on the 1821. Interestingly, there is so-called "pull away" toning of the letters and arrowheads on the reverse on the '21, which argues more for legitimacy. Or so the theory goes.

jedm

<< <i>Interesting point. I immediately assumed that the obverse was the problem on the 1821. Interestingly, there is so-called "pull away" toning of the letters and arrowheads on the reverse on the '21, which argues more for legitimacy. Or so the theory goes. >>


I agree, that's just what I was thinking...Must be the obverse then that's questionable. JMHO.

scoobydeux

Another thought...the coins come from the George Dyer Collection.

Perhaps it's like in the old days, that the name describes the occupation?

ambro51

It probably hasnt been resubmitted enough times.

telephoto1

<< <i>It probably hasnt been resubmitted enough times. >>



LOL. You said what I was thinking. These two pieces have virtually identical toning, especially on the obverse...and yet the far and away nicer coin- particularly on the obverse- magically gets the QT slam? Higher odds of a resub at some point perhaps, either by a current or future owner?

scoobydeux

<< <i>

<< <i>It probably hasnt been resubmitted enough times. >>



LOL. You said what I was thinking. These two pieces have virtually identical toning, especially on the obverse...and yet the far and away nicer coin- particularly on the obverse- magically gets the QT slam? Higher odds of a resub at some point perhaps, either by a current or future owner? >>



Pardon my naivete, but is it really just a question of resubmitting a QT toned coin XXX times until it grades? Is something else going on?

Let me more clearly articulate the underlying point of the OP--if I were given both of these coins to grade, and was told that one was "genuine" while the other received a grade, I would have graded the 1821 and body bagged the 1830.

Is it just my eye--missing something?

ambro51

Grading, all grading, whether surfaces or detail is 80 percent set in stone and 20 percent opinion. On a resubmission, maybe the graders who look at it are seeing it in 'another light', or didnt just look at your nearly identical coin before looking at this one.

no one know for certain on this AT stuff they just go by gut reaction when they look at yours and their brains stack it up against the 20,000 other silver old coins theyve seen. More often than not...they are right.

sweetwilliet

Her's a thought that comes to mind: Is "market acceptable" in one grade not "market acceptable" at a higher grade? Just food for thought.

golden

I do not like the look of either.

scoobydeux

<< <i>Her's a thought that comes to mind: Is "market acceptable" in one grade not "market acceptable" at a higher grade? Just food for thought. >>



An interesting point. I think that we are all familiar with the practice of going easier on extraordinarily rare coins, but I'm not sure if acceptability is a grade based issue for relatively common coins.



<< <i>I do not like the look of either. >>



Agree. My earlier point was assuming a given that one was gradable and the other was not. But you know what happens when you assume things...