Undergraded coin?

RevDrBlimber

Here is a piece that I bought as an AU58/MS60: http://www.greatcollections.com/Coin/51409/1831-Capped-Bust-Dime-PCGS-AU-55

I didn't see any wear on it, and looked at it fairly thoroughly. Is the absence of sufficient luster the final basis for not getting an MS grade? Thanks to the experts on Bust coins.

DUIGUY

linky

crypto79

A common mistake with grading is to solely focus on the Redbook condensed grading 101 model and to simply look at highpoint wear and then fail to take in the total coin. A coin can be void of highpoint rub and still have impacted flow lines which is really the definition of the higher AU grades; IE the fields have rub even if Lib doesn't. If you look at the fields you should expect to see the luster flow from the center of the coin out depending of finish and not the cloud or halo effect around the devices. Note the red circle is a cloud effect and the blue one represents the halo effect if you look right up aginst the devices. The halo effect is a glimpse into what the unworn luster should look like and is often seen circling devices like stars and letters as the raised portion acts as a protection against fingers and other coins. NOTE how it is lighter up against her neck/bust line


If you take that coin's technical grade of AU58 due to lots of field breaks and then apply the total coin concept and net grade it down for lower than normal/Avg luster (be it dip, crust or what ever it doesn't matter, it has it or it doesn't) and you get a "market grade" of AU55 that will bring strong money (PQ for the grade) for its originality. Note PQ for the grade is the key because if the coin was a 58 it would be a little life less for the grade and believe it or not would have a harder time getting 58 money from a connoisseur than if it sat in a 55 holder .

RevDrBlimber

Thanks for the excellent analysis. Same at NGC? ANACS 60?

RevDrBlimber

Same reason why this other Bust dime graded AU55? http://www.greatcollections.com/Coin/40601/1834-Capped-Bust-Dime-Large-4-PCGS-AU-55

And an NGC piece that I sold at Teletrade: http://www.teletrade.com/coins/lot.asp?auction=3152&lot=1243

crypto79

Here is a good example of a mid range AU with worn fields and no high point rub to speak of, note the halos around the stars on the Obv that show protected luster. While I wont say that you will never see those on a coin in a UNC holder I will say you shouldn't really see those on a true UNC.

RevDrBlimber

Thanks for the comparison.

Here is a coin I bought from the same dealer, an 1862 gold dollar that he called "MS61": https://www.greatcollections.com/Coin/51408/1862-Indian-Princess-Gold-Dollar-PCGS-AU-55

Deceptive wear again?

coinman23885

<< <i>A common mistake with grading is to solely focus on the Redbook condensed grading 101 model and to simply look at highpoint wear and then fail to take in the total coin. A coin can be void of highpoint rub and still have impacted flow lines which is really the definition of the higher AU grades; IE the fields have rub even if Lib doesn't. If you look at the fields you should expect to see the luster flow from the center of the coin out depending of finish and not the cloud or halo effect around the devices. Note the red circle is a cloud effect and the blue one represents the halo effect if you look right up aginst the devices. The halo effect is a glimpse into what the unworn luster should look like and is often seen circling devices like stars and letters as the raised portion acts as a protection against fingers and other coins. NOTE how it is lighter up against her neck/bust line

If you take that coin's technical grade of AU58 due to lots of field breaks and then apply the total coin concept and net grade it down for lower than normal/Avg luster (be it dip, crust or what ever it doesn't matter, it has it or it doesn't) and you get a "market grade" of AU55 that will bring strong money (PQ for the grade) for its originality. Note PQ for the grade is the key because if the coin was a 58 it would be a little life less for the grade and believe it or not would have a harder time getting 58 money from a connoisseur than if it sat in a 55 holder . >>



I agree fully, and this is probably the most concise (and best) explanation of this subject matter that I have seen. Much like the OP, I made this mistake often when I first started out as well; thus, early on, it became very difficult for me to decipher between nice AU58s with a slight rub in the field to true mint state pieces.

coinman23885

<< <i>Thanks for the comparison.

Here is a coin I bought from the same dealer, an 1862 gold dollar that he called "MS61": https://www.greatcollections.com/Coin/51408/1862-Indian-Princess-Gold-Dollar-PCGS-AU-55

Deceptive wear again? >>



The coin doesn't look mint state to me. Like the original coin you posted, you can see luster disturbances in the fields (among other things).

RevDrBlimber

Here is another PCGS certified Bust dime that did not CAC certify: http://www.teletrade.com/coins/lot.asp?auction=3283&lot=1368

It is really hard to find these coins, I don't get it. It is original, no-problem. The only thing I can think of is it isn't AU enough for CAC.

lcoopie

great thread for me to learn from

RevDrBlimber

In my experience, we only learn by examples not theory.

NGC and PCGS certify millions of coins. Then CAC standardizes the grading by stickering only coins that meet their criteria. The first Bust dime did sticker, the second did not. The reason I bought both was because Mr. Albanese recommended Bust dimes in his interview with Maurice Rosen.