What next grade up separation offers the most notable improvement in a coin?

mercurydimeguy

I didn't want to do a poll for this as it would have way to many options for 1-70.

Instead I'm interested in your perspective. It's hard to generalize because each series is so different, but try.

I'll go first...

In my experience XF40->45 offers the most visible separation.

XF45 coins often bring in luster lacking in XF40 coins, and XF45's are often blessed with significant detail/minimal wear.

I've seen and or upgraded XF40 coins to XF45 coins in my sets and once I have an XF45 it's tough to upgrade because i don't get a lot more coin (even up to 62) but sometimes at 6x+ price tag.

I would say runner up would be MS60->61... The 61's typically have dramatically better eye appeal.

Ok. Your thoughts?

indeetlib

I'm thinking mostly in terms of early type, but I find there's often a significant jump in quality from AU55 to AU58 and from MS63 to MS64. In each case, there are a lot more problem, "net graded", or otherwise subpar coins in the former grades than the latter.

messydesk

PR64 - PR65. You lose a lot of hairlines or spots at this jump.

coinaesthetics

I set out about 20 years ago to collect all major proof types from the 1800s in PR 66 - 67, and just this year completed this collection of 27 coins. So I was forced to become very familiar with the jump from PR65 to PR66. It's almost always significant -- in quality as well as price. Of course, you can still find hairlines and other imperfections in many PR66s, but a solid, eye-appealing, original PR66 strikes me as something special. Though there are many beautiful PR65s around (and I've seen some very nice PR64s), to me PR66 is a real benchmark. Anyway, it better be . . . after everything I've put into it!

LochNESS

If we are talking numbers then I agree 64-65 and 65-66 are significant jumps. Much more significant than 66-67 or 67-78 for that matter.

However, if we are talking categories, I believe XF45 - AU50 is the most notable improvement. Conversely, I have found AU58 - MS60 to be the worst "grade up" as I'm sure most here would agree.

au58

Good to Very Good.

lkeigwin

60 to 58.
Lance.

Davideo

I would say Fair to About Good. Fair is typically missing significant portions of the design, while AG has all the main design elements there. It certainly seems more significant then changes in luster or slight improvements in eye appeal.

I would say Poor to Fair, but the grading down there is sort of a crapshoot...

lasvegasteddy

<< <i>Good to Very Good. >>



in this crowd too

LotsoLuck

<< <i>60 to 58.
Lance. >>



I'll go with that one

roadrunner

<< <i>I set out about 20 years ago to collect all major proof types from the 1800s in PR 66 - 67, and just this year completed this collection of 27 coins. So I was forced to become very familiar with the jump from PR65 to PR66. It's almost always significant -- in quality as well as price. Of course, you can still find hairlines and other imperfections in many PR66s, but a solid, eye-appealing, original PR66 strikes me as something special. Though there are many beautiful PR65s around (and I've seen some very nice PR64s), to me PR66 is a real benchmark. Anyway, it better be . . . after everything I've put into it! >>



I'd agree with this. And then also add the jump from MS65 to MS66. This is basically the separation from an acceptable gem coin to a no brainer gem. Back in 1988 this would have been a simple question because MS66 and PF66 were about the highest grades you could ever get for a 19th century gold or silver type coin. Some of that flavor still lives to this day. I would add that this 65 to 66 jump is for PCGS coins. I would probably answer it differently for NGC. These days, MS and PF 65 coins often have plenty of hairlines and hits. Those are not usually acceptable on 66 coins which are borderline superb. You can still find 19th century type coins with rub on them and lacking full luster in the 65 grade. Again, that's not usually acceptable on 66 coins. The difference is often striking. Like Mercurydimeguy this has been my point of focus since the late 1970's. And the comparison is with an solid 65 coin to a solid 66 coin....no fair making a 65 PQ or high end and comparing that to a low end 66. Those two will often be very similar.

These days I often view VF35 to XF45, AU 50-55, and AU58-MS62 as essentially single grades with considerable overlap on multiple submissions. You're not going to find that as often for MS64-MS66, at least not in 19th century and early 20th century type. Early 19th century type (pre-1811) is tricky because many of those coins aren't even technical uncs until you get to MS64 to MS65. I guess the answer to the OP's question varies a lot from series to series....and dependent on what you've specialized in over the years.

MsMorrisine

<< <i>60 to 58.
Lance. >>



Not a lock but likely for classics we see here

Next might be 60 to 61 for moderns as a beat 60 can be all sorts of abused.

TommyType

Apparently, I may be alone....

But I always thought the "jump" from VG to F was a significant jump. In most series, it goes from a coin with significant missing elements, to a coin that usually has most of the intended design.

I'm probably still influenced by my first "type set" endeavor, with little money, when my goal was to be Fine or Better....

Baley

<< <i>Apparently, I may be alone....

But I always thought the "jump" from VG to F was a significant jump. In most series, it goes from a coin with significant missing elements, to a coin that usually has most of the intended design.

I'm probably still influenced by my first "type set" endeavor, with little money, when my goal was to be Fine or Better.... >>



Same answer here, though could make a case for EF to AU because of the luster

LindeDad

XF to AU Luster comes in.

mercurydimeguy

The proof comments are really insightful. Thanks for contributing. I know what you mean. I've owned some proof Barber coinage and proof Morgans and a host of other classic proof coins, and a 66 (CAM or DCAM or not) is way better than 65's. Amazing that it's one point but visible. Would agree. (PCGS...never owned proof NGC coins).

TopographicOceans

Depends on the series and type of strike.

For moderns, it's 69 --> 70
For classic proofs, the designation ( PR --> CAM --> DCAM ) can mean a bigger difference than grade points

LochNESS

So, Lance says the same thing as me but he gets all the quotes?