But its really AU as it has wear. Thats no weakness in the strike or whatever, its wear.> @joebb21 said:
@privaterarecoincollector said:
But its really AU as it has wear. Thats no weakness in the strike or whatever, its wear.
I know that you have handled many more chain cents than I have, but the only weakness is on the obverse in the center which implies to me that this is strike weakness and not wear. The cheek and highest points of hair are full and strong. Why do you say AU?
The highest points are the ear and the hair around and below the ear. All these areas are flat and worn. For me 100% clear AU. If you want to look at the same coin being unc with weakness in the center, look at the MS 65 and some of the 64 of this certain type.
The coin is still properly graded as PCGS 63, maybe 62 because of the scratch. PCGS MS 63 at Chain Cents means AU, and PCGS AU 55 at Chain Cheants means normally XF or VF.
I'd have to inspect the coin in person to know for sure, but to me it looks like the mark on the temple is NOT a "scratch". I think it may be a pre-strike planchet defect that was not completely struck out.
Hey Fonz, it would be much easier if you posted the "link" as I could magnify the image as I did with the OP's coin.
First, @dcarr I still think it is a hit because of the curvature.
Second: My opinion of the grade is of no consequence and will only show my ignorance of the "real world"
IMO, the OP's coin is more desirable than either of these two. Its reverse is as close to Unc as anyone could expect to find on this old coin. The center of the OP's coin is not fully struck up, nevertheless, there is obvious wear and loss of original surface that is not as noticeable on the coin's reverse which I like to call "Unc Enough."
The obverse of one coin you posted is similar to the OP's - not struck-up on the obverse. It also shows more rub. Your other coin has more hair detail yet is also not going to make my personal grade of Mint State. All these old coins are given leeway. The excuses are the mint machinery, the planchets, their rarity in TRUE MS, and their value. This is extremely hard for a novice such as myself to grasp let alone try to grade or put a value on a coin. If the usual 1941-S WLH had this amount of rub some would grade it as low as XF!
Now to your coins:
Nice reverse except it may be (cannot magnify image) "smoothed" around "United."
XF, weak strike (no need to mention strike). Sell as AU. Scratches are no a problem.
Another obvious AU with a much better strike. Probably the nicest obverse of the three.
The reverse appears to be the same die as on the coin above so the area around "United" on that coin is NOT
altered. This side has too much detracting damage and the reverse color is "nasty."
In a poll, taking rarity and the TPGS opinion out of the mix, I'll bet most would pick this coin as the one they prefer. I don't have a clue how an EAC grader would judge these. I'm reading the EAC grading guide but from what I have observed, it comes down to who owns the coin, and do as I do; and not as I write!
I disagree to a point! I have been tempted to set up a camera connected to my computer and look at all major purchases at shows blown up on my computer!. Some of it is haste, some of it is not accepting my nearly 60 year old eyes are not what they used to be, and my pictures tend to show every little mark or scratch! Lately I have been getting really PEOD at myself when I go take a picture of a coin I just bought and there is a scratch or something or another I didn't see when I bought it!
As far as judging luster I agree!
@specialist said:
stop the insanity! you can NOT grade a coin like this via image. for PCGS and more important, CAC to approve, the coin is NO less then a 63.
unless you have seen it in person, do not comment from an image. many comments here are ridiculous
@specialist said: "stop the insanity! you can NOT grade a coin like this via image. for PCGS and more important, CAC to approve, the coin is NO less then a 63. unless you have seen it in person, do not comment from an image. many comments here are ridiculous."
Look, I understand that you are an extremely important person in the numismatic business. Nevertheless IMHO, the only thing that is insane here is the fact that such an experienced, knowledgeable, and successful person as you must be cannot look at a magnified image of a copper coin and easily notice that there is NO ORIGINAL AS STRUCK SURFACE on the hair over the ear on any of the three cents posted. We call it "a trace of wear" in the basic coin grading seminars I've been in.
Now, I think we can both agree the old standard for Mint State coins (no trace of wear) is archaic and no longer followed. I think we can also agree on this, what ever the coin is worth and what ever the slab label says, if the Big Man in the sky came to earth and gave YOU, CAC, and the PCGS graders two choices MS or AU with the answer resulting in H-e-double toothpicks or Heaven. You and all the rest of them would give the ONLY CORRECT ANSWER as I have. All three coins have a trace of wear. They are AU and not Mint State.
@specialist said: "...unless you have seen it in person, do not comment from an image."
@amwldcoin said: "As far as judging luster I agree!"
BTW, Happy New Year to all! This beats standing out in Time Square!"
Let me help you "read an image" as I have very old tired eyes also.
Go to the OP's image. Magnify it just a little - best not too much as we don't need to.
Focus on the center of the cheek. The dark patch is wear. Note how dull it is in the light.
Now start moving your eye out toward the edge at 3:00. Note how the surface starts to show radial flow lines and begins to brighten? That is the luster from the "relatively" pristine and natural surface of a copper coin this old.
Easy right? You and I just made a judgment concerning the luster on this coin from an image. Perhaps others may try it also.
This coin has significant "rub" which is very visible on the obverse. For this reason the coin['s maximum grade cannot exceed 58. And there are oither issues which just might limit the grade to XF45.
I understand that rarity should be a factor, but in the technical grade? Rarity as a grading consideration is only a concession to dealers and consignors. And a corruption of the TPG grading standards.
On the Pan and Tilt viewing, no matter what angle I move it to, the lighting on the coin stays exactly the same. Makes no sense unless my computer can't handle what its supposed to do. Here's an unwary lol anyways.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
Comments
But its really AU as it has wear. Thats no weakness in the strike or whatever, its wear.> @joebb21 said:
The highest points are the ear and the hair around and below the ear. All these areas are flat and worn. For me 100% clear AU. If you want to look at the same coin being unc with weakness in the center, look at the MS 65 and some of the 64 of this certain type.
The coin is still properly graded as PCGS 63, maybe 62 because of the scratch. PCGS MS 63 at Chain Cents means AU, and PCGS AU 55 at Chain Cheants means normally XF or VF.
I'd have to inspect the coin in person to know for sure, but to me it looks like the mark on the temple is NOT a "scratch". I think it may be a pre-strike planchet defect that was not completely struck out.
what do you grade this coin?
@inside2 @privaterarecoincollector
What do you grade the 2 coins I posted?
Hey Fonz, it would be much easier if you posted the "link" as I could magnify the image as I did with the OP's coin.
First, @dcarr I still think it is a hit because of the curvature.
Second: My opinion of the grade is of no consequence and will only show my ignorance of the "real world"
IMO, the OP's coin is more desirable than either of these two. Its reverse is as close to Unc as anyone could expect to find on this old coin. The center of the OP's coin is not fully struck up, nevertheless, there is obvious wear and loss of original surface that is not as noticeable on the coin's reverse which I like to call "Unc Enough."
The obverse of one coin you posted is similar to the OP's - not struck-up on the obverse. It also shows more rub. Your other coin has more hair detail yet is also not going to make my personal grade of Mint State. All these old coins are given leeway. The excuses are the mint machinery, the planchets, their rarity in TRUE MS, and their value. This is extremely hard for a novice such as myself to grasp let alone try to grade or put a value on a coin. If the usual 1941-S WLH had this amount of rub some would grade it as low as XF!
Now to your coins:
Nice reverse except it may be (cannot magnify image) "smoothed"
around "United."
XF, weak strike (no need to mention strike). Sell as AU. Scratches are no a problem.
Another obvious AU with a much better strike. Probably the nicest obverse of the three.
The reverse appears to be the same die as on the coin above so the area around "United" on that coin is NOT
altered. This side has too much detracting damage and the reverse color is "nasty."
In a poll, taking rarity and the TPGS opinion out of the mix, I'll bet most would pick this coin as the one they prefer. I don't have a clue how an EAC grader would judge these. I'm reading the EAC grading guide but from what I have observed, it comes down to who owns the coin, and do as I do; and not as I write!
https://coins.ha.com/itm/large-cents/1793-chain-1c-periods-au58-pcgs-cac-s-4-b-5-high-r3/a/1173-5019.s?type=surl-1173--5019&short=1173*5019
https://coins.ha.com/itm/large-cents/1793-chain-1c-america-au55-pcgs-cac-s-3-b-4-low-r3/a/1143-3022.s?type=surl-1143--3022&short=1143*3022
stop the insanity! you can NOT grade a coin like this via image. for PCGS and more important, CAC to approve, the coin is NO less then a 63.
unless you have seen it in person, do not comment from an image. many comments here are ridiculous
I think AU-58 is a fair grade for the one and AU-55 is too high for the other. So what was the point?
I disagree to a point! I have been tempted to set up a camera connected to my computer and look at all major purchases at shows blown up on my computer!. Some of it is haste, some of it is not accepting my nearly 60 year old eyes are not what they used to be, and my pictures tend to show every little mark or scratch! Lately I have been getting really PEOD at myself when I go take a picture of a coin I just bought and there is a scratch or something or another I didn't see when I bought it!
As far as judging luster I agree!
@specialist said: "stop the insanity! you can NOT grade a coin like this via image. for PCGS and more important, CAC to approve, the coin is NO less then a 63. unless you have seen it in person, do not comment from an image. many comments here are ridiculous."
Look, I understand that you are an extremely important person in the numismatic business. Nevertheless IMHO, the only thing that is insane here is the fact that such an experienced, knowledgeable, and successful person as you must be cannot look at a magnified image of a copper coin and easily notice that there is NO ORIGINAL AS STRUCK SURFACE on the hair over the ear on any of the three cents posted. We call it "a trace of wear" in the basic coin grading seminars I've been in.
Now, I think we can both agree the old standard for Mint State coins (no trace of wear) is archaic and no longer followed. I think we can also agree on this, what ever the coin is worth and what ever the slab label says, if the Big Man in the sky came to earth and gave YOU, CAC, and the PCGS graders two choices MS or AU with the answer resulting in H-e-double toothpicks
or Heaven. You and all the rest of them would give the ONLY CORRECT ANSWER as I have. All three coins have a trace of wear. They are AU and not Mint State.
Hopefully, I'll see all of you in Heaven.
@jimhight Curious why you disagreed with my post? A tool is a tool and nothing hurts to confirm observations!
@specialist said: "...unless you have seen it in person, do not comment from an image."
@amwldcoin said: "As far as judging luster I agree!"
BTW, Happy New Year to all! This beats standing out in Time Square!"
Let me help you "read an image" as I have very old tired eyes also.
Easy right? You and I just made a judgment concerning the luster on this coin from an image. Perhaps others may try it also.
This coin has significant "rub" which is very visible on the obverse. For this reason the coin['s maximum grade cannot exceed 58. And there are oither issues which just might limit the grade to XF45.
I understand that rarity should be a factor, but in the technical grade? Rarity as a grading consideration is only a concession to dealers and consignors. And a corruption of the TPG grading standards.
OINK
Someone thought that the OP coin was worth 300 grand as that's what it hammered for.
“I may not believe in myself but I believe in what I’m doing” ~Jimmy Page~
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947)
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/
On the Pan and Tilt viewing, no matter what angle I move it to, the lighting on the coin stays exactly the same. Makes no sense unless my computer can't handle what its supposed to do. Here's an unwary lol anyways.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection