Sampling from a test submission...post GTG!

marcmoish

A few weeks ago some of these came back graded...
...nothing rare (except for the '34 100 Mil) - but ALL generally nicely preserved with decent EA.

While I like our hosts 'n all, and very seldom complain - some of these have me scratching my head.
I have not done anything since with them for both lack of time, and frustration that set in....frustrated because I continuously see examples over-graded, and grades that shock me (both services to be honest)...so is it a gamble per submission? Luck of the draw? Depends who is grading or which team? or perhaps is it a full moon. Are we truly throwing away money in our attempt to "get" the correct grade which eventually happens as I can attest to. It might takes 4 tries and 10 years but it DOES happen. Hence, my frustration with this all. Sadly!

Let me know if you agree with the grades...or what.



Egypt AH1293W 20 Qsh Year 22 AU58



Palestine 1934 100 Mil AU58



France 1918 50C AU55



Belgium (But label states France HUH?) 1912 50C MS62

Zohar

IMHO

1) That to me is probably the most undergraded. Why not 62 at least? No real evident wear. Beautiful coin.
2) You know the series best and I like this one. The wear in the obverse leaves probably caused this. However the fields are clear and reverse looks far better so I could see a 62 on this one as well.
3) Great eye appeal yet probably accurately graded given chatter in fields and wear.
4) To me looks accurately graded.

mercurydimeguy

You have some nice coins there, I wouldn't sweat the slab grade detail. I'm not sure it's really even relevant for World coins until you get to 65, or better.

lordmarcovan

<< <i>1) That to me is probably the most undergraded. Why not 62 at least? No real evident wear. Beautiful coin. >>

I guessed AU 53-58 while pretending I was a PCGS grader. This was before reading the actual grade. There's obvious rub on the roses. Maybe on the bands of the torches, too. But yes, a beautiful coin.



<< <i>2) You know the series best and I like this one. The wear in the obverse leaves probably caused this. However the fields are clear and reverse looks far better so I could see a 62 on this one as well. >>

I agree with Zohar on this one. I would wonder how much the flat areas on the high points of the leaves are actual rub versus soft strike, though. I am not qualified on this series to say.

(PS- now that I mention that, I should say that I'm also not particularly qualified to judge strike-versus-rub on the Egyptian coin, either. How much of the "rub" on those upper roses is actual rub, and how much is soft strike, given that that is apparently one of the highest points on the coin? I think the slight color variations of the "rub" on those high points like the roses and torch bands might be what worked against you in this case. Had the coin all been one uniform, lustrous white, it might have garnered a Mint State grade. (But even if it caused a lower grade in this case, the color is attractive, and so all that might balance out in the long run. Who knows?)



<< <i>3) Great eye appeal yet probably accurately graded given chatter in fields and wear. >>

Again, I agree with Zohar. But I wouldn't object if somebody nudged it three points, up to 58.



<< <i>4) To me looks accurately graded. >>

I wouldn't know. But the mechanical error on the label doesn't exactly inspire confidence that they knew, either, does it?

All nice looking coins. Sorry the technical grades were a disappointment to you, but if there is any consolation, then there's perhaps something to what Mercurydimeguy said. They're going to be nice coins regardless of the numbers on the label, and they have nice images now, at the very least.

mudskippie

I would give coin#1 au53 for obvious rub and cleaning, #2 looks uncirculated, true view shows gem bu, but must be on hand to accurately determine the grade, #3 au50 for light wear and significant contact marks, and I agree with the grade given on coin#4. Just a side note, I wouldnt have sent in coin#3, because its too common and low in value/grade.

brg5658

<< <i> Just a side note, I wouldnt have sent in coin#3, because its too common and low in value/grade. >>



I agree with this sentiment. Coin #3 is about a $10-12 coin, the plastic is now worth more than the coin.

============================================

With regard to the other coins.

1) Looks about right, I'd maybe be more inclined to have guessed AU55.
2) I'd have no problem with this coin in an MS62 or MS63 holder.
4) Looks about right.

coinkat

I am not the best with these series. I have some recollection with a prior submission (to another TPC) with the 1934 Palestine 100 Mils. Your example looks MS-

marcmoish

thanx for the comments - yes I know #3 plastic is worth more indeed - in hand it really looks MS - was really curious how it would grade.
Truly a test for my senses - should have graded 58 though for the EA which is really nice in hand.

the first one is lock 62 - its solid in hand - the 58 is nuts! Yes Z, exactly as you wrote.

So why is it graded 58 which was the point of my post and the drama that follows...you get the point.

#2 the '34 100 Mil is lock MS63 - they are totally insane to grade that a 58 and cements my thoughts. There is no wear - photo seems there is but it crisp solid lustrous under toned fields - I thought 63 for sure and would not be surprised if it cam back 64. Alas, the 58!

#4 agreed with all - great eye appeal again but it's Belgium not France.

coinkat

Your comments seem to confirm the look of the 100 Mils- I am not seeing 58 either...

As for the France Belgium issue - That is likely a mechanical error and can be fixed.