@CaptHenway said:
And does "a pleasing quotient of luster" mean "less than 100% luster?"
Yes. This is just 20% more buttery
m
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
@Justacommeman said: "Here you go. FYI There is another 1840 piece in the very same auction. It’s bid is at $900. The OP coin is at $33,000."
Thanks for the post. I'm surprised the descriptions were similar. That does not change my opinion. As I wrote, the attractive and very high grade for the date coin that will eventually grade MS-63 (IMHO) has two folks bidding $33,000 so far. The low priced coin is not the same quality (no matter what either is graded at the moment). The auction price reflects this. Perhaps its price will be dragged up by the nicer coin when the auction is finished.
I've only bid in stamp auctions. Are coin auction descriptions ever conservative to keep a "special" coin on the "low down?"
I agree Tom. Not grease, but you are a numismatist so it matters.
@Insider2 said: @Justacommeman said: "Here you go. FYI There is another 1840 piece in the very same auction. It’s bid is at $900. The OP coin is at $33,000."
Thanks for the post. I'm surprised the descriptions were similar. That does not change my opinion. As I wrote, the attractive and very high grade for the date coin that will eventually grade MS-63 (IMHO) has two folks bidding $33,000 so far. The low priced coin is not the same quality (no matter what either is graded at the moment). The auction price reflects this. Perhaps its price will be dragged up by the nicer coin when the auction is finished.
I've only bid in stamp auctions. Are coin auction descriptions ever conservative to keep a "special" coin on the "low down?"
You will lay down your arms before that ever happens
m
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
If Laura says it-and there are at least 2 bidders who agree, isn't that enough proof? I did speak to a world class grader who also fully agrees-lock 61, shot 62. I am seriously thinking about bidding-and I am no damn fool. The coin was simply graded too tight-way too tight. It happens just like a coin can be horribly over graded.
Any one remember the $20 1921 PCGS MS3 in stacks a few years ago that sold for $1.6 million??? Three dealers picked it off it was a Proof. While the image made it look cleaned. The sharks do not miss the real hits in a sale.
@Insider2 said: @7Jaguars posted a coin surrounded by white insert w/prongs. I don't think "slider" is the right term for this coin. I suspect some strike weakness but that coin is closer to an XF-45 or AU-50 than to an MS-60. You and Laura must be posting about the coin at the top of the thread in the auction. Right?
@specialist said: "obviously, this coin is a great example of why you can't grade via an image."
@specialist said: "If Laura says it-and there are at least 2 bidders who agree, isn't that enough proof? I did speak to a world class grader who also fully agrees-lock 61, shot 62. I am seriously thinking about bidding-and I am no damn fool. The coin was simply graded too tight-way too tight. It happens just like a coin can be horribly over graded. **THIS IS WHY YOU CAN NOT GRADE VIA IMAGE. **
While it is difficult and sometimes impossible to grade from an image, I think in this world of online photo grading sites like the one at PCGS puls online auctions with sharp magnified images some folks can get pretty close. On this coin, three members hit the MS-62 grade and you also agreed with Laura.
I was optimistic. I think it will eventually get into an MS-63 slab unless there are a bunch of hairlines not visible. Todays, MS-62 gold coin is usually a naked eye AU with obvious wear. The details are sharp and the wear on this coin is minuscule. I think the actual condition of the coin "scared-off" the graders as it is not even close to today's AU-55 - a coin that formerly passed as an XF+ before most of you held a magnifying glass!
What is the expiration date of a grade issued today?
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
@Insider2 said:
Fresh? Lustrous? High end PQ? Ah,...Ok, if you say so.
I prefer attractive, desirable, and very high grade for that date. I guess it is just a matter of words. Anyone care to post the auction catalogue description for the piece?
Here it is:
"A well-struck orange-gold Choice AU example. The hair over the ear shows a trace of wear, but the fields display a pleasing quotient of luster, and no marks are detrimental. A brief and minor streak of struck-in grease is near star 5. Exceptional quality for this early, scarce, and conditionally rare Philadelphia eagle. Certified in an old green label holder. CAC: 2 in 55, 3 finer (1/18)."
The coin is an old time AU that could have made AU-58 over the assigned AU-55 back in the day. It is not a Mint State coin, but it's the type of piece that often made it into MS-62 holder later on.
Heritage sold an Ex Harry Bass piece that is a PCGS MS-61, that looks nicer to me, in September 2016 for $35,250.
I am okay with calling coins like this low end Unc. for market price purposes. My problem is that coins like this are starting to migrate into MS-63 holders, which is just plain wrong. This should depress the the MS-63 prices after a while, but in the mean time, I would advise collectors to really look at newly certified MS-63 and higher graded coins carefully.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
I agree but when a coin is special as this one or one like the 1870-S Half Dime, it seems that its actual grade does not matter. When the coin was graded, standards were tighter.
This from the auction indicates its actual grade: "The hair over the ear shows a trace of wear,..." The bidders and several posters either do not see any wear in the image (see specialist's comments) or they know how to grade gold coins "Commercially" = MS-62.
I say it will eventually max out in an MS-63 slab as this appears too nice to be just a '62. Once you ignore the amount of wear, the other attributes determine the grade.
One should never ignore the amount of wear - one should net it along with all the other attributes of the coin. The idea that a trace of rub limits a coin to 58 max has come and gone
I'm opening the CAN OF WORMS. Lets try for another 1K thread.
@tradedollarnut said: "The idea that a trace of rub limits a coin to 58 max has come and gone."
You are absolutely correct! LONG GONE!
This part of your post ("One should never ignore the amount of wear - one should net it along with all the other attributes of the coin.) makes us old dinosaurs howl with laughter to hide our distress! It is a very hard concept to teach a beginning grading student as it makes no sense at all! Is it any wonder that grading a coin is now even more subjective than it was when an Uncirculated coin was to have no trace of wear by definition?
Never ignore the amount of wear? Ok, but what amount of circulation wear do you tolerate before a coin becomes AU. Is it the same as @specialist? What about @BillJones, @Justacommeman, and @CaptHenway who are posting about this coin. And up pops that old "net grading" folly again.
Note to folks reading this thread from the Bowers Grading Guide (buy it and read the introduction):
"...the interpretation of Uncirculated or Mint State is more liberal than it was..."
"Today, such coins that used to be graded as About Uncirculated (AU) are now often graded as MS-60, MS-61, and MS-62."
This coin is a perfect example. Is it any wonder that grading is subjective when we add, magnification, image sharpness (if not in hand), experience, "eye" for detail, color blindness, rarity, coin size, etc.
So what should you do as a collector when you read somewhere that all coins with the identical TPGS grade are not equal (CAC sticker)? First, study coins graded MS-65 and higher to see what a true Uncirculated coin looks like.
Next, study coins in lower MS slabs to learn what amount of circulation wear is tolerated on each type of coin and in the different metals. Then decide what amount of circulation wear YOU are going to accept on a Mint State coin. Easy, right?
I need to cut some lumber for some bookshelves, and need to buy a yardstick. When my house was built a yard was only 34 inches long. Then it went to 35 inches, and later 36. Nowadays the yardsticks are at least 37 inches long, and 38 inches if they are from a rare lumberyard.
Which standard shall I use???
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
@CaptHenway said:
I need to cut some lumber for some bookshelves, and need to buy a yardstick. When my house was built a yard was only 34 inches long. Then it went to 35 inches, and later 36. Nowadays the yardsticks are at least 37 inches long, and 38 inches if they are from a rare lumberyard.
Which standard shall I use???
All of them. Then you can end up with something like an upside-down house at an amusement park.
Just like how some people will end upside down in their coins with a shifting grading standard, while others come out ahead.
Some things never change however (except for opinions and change).
This exact coin was called Unc in the early 20th century; then AU decades later; then Unc 3 different times then back to AU in the slab. I have never seen the coin in person so I don't know what my opinion would be. The first set of pics make it look AU to me while the second set make it look Unc. Different views on this coin are nothing new.
"To Be Esteemed Be Useful" - 1792 Birch Cent --- "I personally think we developed language because of our deep need to complain." - Lily Tomlin
@Insider2 said:
I agree but when a coin is special as this one or one like the 1870-S Half Dime, it seems that its actual grade does not matter. When the coin was graded, standards were tighter.
This from the auction indicates its actual grade: "The hair over the ear shows a trace of wear,..." The bidders and several posters either do not see any wear in the image (see specialist's comments) or they know how to grade gold coins "Commercially" = MS-62.
I say it will eventually max out in an MS-63 slab as this appears too nice to be just a '62. Once you ignore the amount of wear, the other attributes determine the grade.
Only? The way we are going in a few years it may approach gem, and cac may even get more liberal.
@Gazes said:
One thing CAC does a very good job of is not stickering gold coins that are 61 or 62 no matter how nice they are if they have any wear on them.
61's or 62's are not supposed to have any wear on them!
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
@Gazes said:
One thing CAC does a very good job of is not stickering gold coins that are 61 or 62 no matter how nice they are if they have any wear on them.
61's or 62's are not supposed to have any wear on them!
That’s old thinking. There’s no reason a trace of wear limits to 58 whereas huge bag marks gets 60
Conveying technical information in a single weighted grade is tough and subjective enough. Now the services are expected to price the coins too? As mercurial as the market is, I would love to have a crystal ball to see the future of the coin market for the next six months let alone an extended period of time. I’d also like to think that the hobby is stable enough that slabs have a shelf life beyond a few months. I long for the days when the graders stick to grading and leave pricing to market participants. I have no problem with AU coins selling for MS money, but watering down standards and making them less precise/more ambiguous (i.e. conveying less useful objective information) is hurting this hobby.
Only large dealers who play the crackout game and the grading services benefit from evolving grading standards. Dealers know the most recent trends and obtain upgrades. The services can avoid paying warranty claims and earn additional revenue. The losers are clear, however: collectors and other end users. It is sad that there is so much distrust and volatility that there are now graders to grade the TPG graders. The market has pretty much distinegrated for everything else (with the exception of truly rare U.S. coins).
@CaptHenway said:
I miss the old days when circulation wear mattered.
Edited to add: Actually, it would appear that both PCGS and Heritage are right on with this coin. The error would be if it were to upgrade after the sale solely because of the price, and not the coin itself.
I would be okay with a higher AU grade - maybe 58+.
@specialist said:
If Laura says it-and there are at least 2 bidders who agree, isn't that enough proof? I did speak to a world class grader who also fully agrees-lock 61, shot 62. I am seriously thinking about bidding-and I am no damn fool. The coin was simply graded too tight-way too tight. It happens just like a coin can be horribly over graded.
Any one remember the $20 1921 PCGS MS3 in stacks a few years ago that sold for $1.6 million??? Three dealers picked it off it was a Proof. While the image made it look cleaned. The sharks do not miss the real hits in a sale.
**
THIS IS WHY YOU CAN NOT GRADE VIA IMAGE. **
To play devil’s advocate, JA and crew didn’t even think the coin was a solid AU58 or it would have received a gold bean. Experts apparently disagree, which is not to say that one side is wrong, but it undermines the idea that the observations prove anything. Regardless of grade it looks like a special piece. I wish I could attend lot viewing to see it in hand.
@Gazes said:
One thing CAC does a very good job of is not stickering gold coins that are 61 or 62 no matter how nice they are if they have any wear on them.
61's or 62's are not supposed to have any wear on them!
That’s old thinking. There’s no reason a trace of wear limits to 58 whereas huge bag marks gets 60
One could argue to just get rid of the old school categories/abbreviations for the descriptions of a coin grade on the label. Essentially we have the Sheldon scale where 1 = Poor and 70 = Perfect as made.
These numbers have been retrofitted to match the old descriptions and have become the standard. Using the case here of the 1840, when its cracked out then new label might say: Grade 62.
BUT, this is not very practical since terms such as VF, XF, AU, MS, etc. are so deeply rooted in the hobby.
WHAT TO DO about this:
Perhaps a panel of experts at PCGS, NGC, etc. can write a guide on what factors are used, ie. allowances/penalties to arrive at a grade to more accurately reflect on its overall quality while not deviating from the spirit of the established standards of coin grading.
Such as: A coin can receive a grade of 60 or higher with traces of wear if compensating factors are present such as luster, strike, surface, etc....
@Gazes said:
One thing CAC does a very good job of is not stickering gold coins that are 61 or 62 no matter how nice they are if they have any wear on them.
61's or 62's are not supposed to have any wear on them!
That’s old thinking. There’s no reason a trace of wear limits to 58 whereas huge bag marks gets 60
No, that's using the English language to interpret a published definition.
If the TPGs wish to stop using the ANA Grading Standards they should have the testicular fortitude to admit that they have done so, and are now using the "Rich Coin Owners' Grading System."
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
@Gazes said:
One thing CAC does a very good job of is not stickering gold coins that are 61 or 62 no matter how nice they are if they have any wear on them.
61's or 62's are not supposed to have any wear on them!
That’s old thinking. There’s no reason a trace of wear limits to 58 whereas huge bag marks gets 60
No, that's using the English language to interpret a published definition.
If the TPGs wish to stop using the ANA Grading Standards they should have the testicular fortitude to admit that they have done so, and are now using the "Rich Coin Owners' Grading System."
I guess the bottom line is that there are two bidders grading it north of $30K. Trying to reconcile that grading scale with a purely technical one is an age old problem. Of course, this week I'm reminded again that we're not alone, as a perfectly executed double jump isn't worth as many points as a wipeout on a triple jump.
@specialist said: "To nay sayers, unless you see it, do not be too quick to judge that is wear vs a weakened strike.
I saw the coin in hand."
Since you saw the actual coin your opinion matters more than mine; however, IMHO, the coin is not weakly struck as each high point detail is sharp (except for the slight friction). As I posted, I believe the TPGS was afraid to grade this coin with the OBVIOUS COMMERCIAL LOW MS GRADE (61 or 62) they would have given it as a common date.
@CaptHenway said: "61's or 62's are not supposed to have any wear on them!"
As you know, there was no MS-61 or MS-62 in the old days. According to the ANA Standards, MS coins were not suppose to have any rub. Times have changed to allow more folks to own "Mint State" coins and reflect price increases. Today, even MS-63's in some coin series can be found that are actually AU's! Some of the most liberal grading is seen with Capped Bust half dollars and $20 Saints.
@Gazes said:
One thing CAC does a very good job of is not stickering gold coins that are 61 or 62 no matter how nice they are if they have any wear on them.
61's or 62's are not supposed to have any wear on them!
That’s old thinking. There’s no reason a trace of wear limits to 58 whereas huge bag marks gets 60
One could argue to just get rid of the old school categories/abbreviations for the descriptions of a coin grade on the label. Essentially we have the Sheldon scale where 1 = Poor and 70 = Perfect as made.
These numbers have been retrofitted to match the old descriptions and have become the standard. Using the case here of the 1840, when its cracked out then new label might say: Grade 62.
BUT, this is not very practical since terms such as VF, XF, AU, MS, etc. are so deeply rooted in the hobby.
WHAT TO DO about this:
Perhaps a panel of experts at PCGS, NGC, etc. can write a guide on what factors are used, ie. allowances/penalties to arrive at a grade to more accurately reflect on its overall quality while not deviating from the spirit of the established standards of coin grading.
Such as: A coin can receive a grade of 60 or higher with traces of wear if compensating factors are present such as luster, strike, surface, etc....
Perhaps this exists already??
Not going to happen. From what I've seen the TPGS often don't follow their own "standards!" Wiggle room and keeping grading as complicated/subjective as possible is the norm.
@7Jaguars said:
Just throwing in a couple of pictures, not to pirate thread...
PL not showing well in photos...
This is why I HATE multi images in the same thread.
@Boosibri I don't think either you or Laura is calling this coin MS. Am I correct?
I don’t know what coin is pictured in the ngc holder. It looks cleaned to me
ok, that ngc picture did confuse me. now, i understand that is not the same coin...
i looked at the auction pictures to see the actual coin in question...it's must nicer. it does look like and impaired mint state coin. i am surprised it did not get a gold sticker. i can certainly see 61 on this coin. also, it does look nicer than the 58 you posted. that coin (the 58) looks sweated.
@Gazes said:
One thing CAC does a very good job of is not stickering gold coins that are 61 or 62 no matter how nice they are if they have any wear on them.
61's or 62's are not supposed to have any wear on them!
That’s old thinking. There’s no reason a trace of wear limits to 58 whereas huge bag marks gets 60
No, that's using the English language to interpret a published definition.
If the TPGs wish to stop using the ANA Grading Standards they should have the testicular fortitude to admit that they have done so, and are now using the "Rich Coin Owners' Grading System."
All of this just goes to show that grading standards run in cycles (I hope). In the mid to late 1980s, third party grading service graded coins gained a significant foothold in the market because the powers in charge at the time had abused customers with over graded coins.
Now we see the cycle rolling around again. There are some dealers who are going to push lower standards as long as the market will bear it. So far, they have made some gains. The question is, how far down can they lower the standards before the customers react? That time might come when those same dealers refuse to pay prices that are commensurate with their retail prices.
The bubble will burst eventually. When enough collectors simply say “no” to the watered down grading standards, another adjustment will be in the offing.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
@Gazes said:
One thing CAC does a very good job of is not stickering gold coins that are 61 or 62 no matter how nice they are if they have any wear on them.
61's or 62's are not supposed to have any wear on them!
That’s old thinking. There’s no reason a trace of wear limits to 58 whereas huge bag marks gets 60
No, that's using the English language to interpret a published definition.
If the TPGs wish to stop using the ANA Grading Standards they should have the testicular fortitude to admit that they have done so, and are now using the "Rich Coin Owners' Grading System."
All of this just goes to show that grading standards run in cycles (I hope). In the mid to late 1980s, third party grading service graded coins gained a significant foothold in the market because the powers in charge at the time had abused customers with over graded coins.
Now we see the cycle rolling around again. There are some dealers who are going to push lower standards as long as the market will bear it. So far, they have made some gains. The question is, how far down can they lower the standards before the customers react? That time might come when those same dealers refuse to pay prices that are commensurate with their retail prices.
The bubble will burst eventually. When enough collectors simply say “no” to the watered down grading standards, another adjustment will be in the offing.
Hopefully, my rant will provide just an ACADEMIC and historical context of "the-way-it-was" for folks who were not around at the time.
Bill, I disagree. The collector has NOTHING TO SAY about anything. Neither does the ANA who started to water-down and screw up (buy combining the # of marks on a coin with the amount of wear) the true "Technical Grading System" used in DC for internal records - a system that did not gradeflate or change in any way due to the passage of time or market conditions. Years later, a coin's commercial value was thrown into the equation to screw things up further! **Value should have NOTHING to do with a coin's condition of preservation!
Now, back to reality: The present TPGS, ESPECIALLY the top two control the way coins are graded now and will be graded in the future. I think most will agree they do a good job in spite of the under graded coin in that auction.
I tell my students that we can find under, over, and correctly graded coins in slabs. Any examples/discussion of any TPGS does not belong in a grading class.
@RogerB said:
RE: "The idea that a trace of rub limits a coin to 58 max has come and gone."
Did it go along with truth and honesty, too. or just hand-in-hand with ignorance and blind greed?
Field disturbance or a trace of wear remove a coin from being graded "uncirculated." No exceptions and no BS.
By definition, absolutely.
I don’t see ‘uncirculated’ anywhere on an MS61 label by the way
True. It's not on an MS-70 holder label either. This begs the question of what meaning, if any, "mint state (MS)" has? Where is the trust that TPG's imply in their authentication and 'grading?'
In my 35+ years as a professional numismatist, I noticed that the vast majority of collectors cannot grade their own coins objectively.
.
This was one of the reasons why we did not let the owners of the coins assign their grades to ANACS certificates.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
@CaptHenway said:
In my 35+ years as a professional numismatist, I noticed that the vast majority of collectors cannot grade their own coins objectively.
.
This was one of the reasons why we did not let the owners of the coins assign their grades to ANACS certificates.
Finally, I made it as a member of the majority even though I was born oversea
@CaptHenway said:
In my 35+ years as a professional numismatist, I noticed that the vast majority of collectors cannot grade their own coins objectively.
.
This was one of the reasons why we did not let the owners of the coins assign their grades to ANACS certificates.
Amen, and to that post I'll also add a very large number of coin dealers.
@FadeToBlack said:
Plain and simple, cabinet friction doesn't limit a coin to AU any more, hasn't for as long as I've been seriously collecting. The only thing cabinet friction limits a coin from these days is a gem grade.
AU is all about circulation hairlines in the modern game.
No. If there is no longer a set of honest definitions, then it is all about greed and ignorance "in the modern game." And -- "modern game" is used in the most derogatory way possible.
Fortunately for me, I don't try to collect coins. The wholesale ignorance of the above quote and others of a similar nature make me very sad for those trying to enjoy a hobby, and especially for those considering coin collecting as a hobby. A house built on falsehood will eventually collapse.
Labeling a coin with friction as "uncirculated" or "mint state" is in line with Orwellian "New Speak" and a culture of lies and dishonesty.
@FadeToBlack said: "Plain and simple, cabinet friction doesn't limit a coin to AU any more, hasn't for as long as I've been seriously collecting. The only thing cabinet friction limits a coin from these days is a gem grade. AU is all about circulation hairlines in the modern game."
LOL! I remember what I thought the first time I read those two words. AFAIK, "Cabinet Friction" was cooked up by a savvy big-time dealer to sell AU coins at inflated prices.
Comments
Yes. This is just 20% more buttery
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
@Justacommeman said: "Here you go. FYI There is another 1840 piece in the very same auction. It’s bid is at $900. The OP coin is at $33,000."
Thanks for the post. I'm surprised the descriptions were similar. That does not change my opinion. As I wrote, the attractive and very high grade for the date coin that will eventually grade MS-63 (IMHO) has two folks bidding $33,000 so far. The low priced coin is not the same quality (no matter what either is graded at the moment). The auction price reflects this. Perhaps its price will be dragged up by the nicer coin when the auction is finished.
I've only bid in stamp auctions. Are coin auction descriptions ever conservative to keep a "special" coin on the "low down?"
I agree Tom. Not grease, but you are a numismatist so it matters.
You will lay down your arms before that ever happens
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
If Laura says it-and there are at least 2 bidders who agree, isn't that enough proof? I did speak to a world class grader who also fully agrees-lock 61, shot 62. I am seriously thinking about bidding-and I am no damn fool. The coin was simply graded too tight-way too tight. It happens just like a coin can be horribly over graded.
Any one remember the $20 1921 PCGS MS3 in stacks a few years ago that sold for $1.6 million??? Three dealers picked it off it was a Proof. While the image made it look cleaned. The sharks do not miss the real hits in a sale.
**
THIS IS WHY YOU CAN NOT GRADE VIA IMAGE. **
correct
Latin American Collection
@specialist said: "obviously, this coin is a great example of why you can't grade via an image."
@specialist said: "If Laura says it-and there are at least 2 bidders who agree, isn't that enough proof? I did speak to a world class grader who also fully agrees-lock 61, shot 62. I am seriously thinking about bidding-and I am no damn fool. The coin was simply graded too tight-way too tight. It happens just like a coin can be horribly over graded. **THIS IS WHY YOU CAN NOT GRADE VIA IMAGE. **
While it is difficult and sometimes impossible to grade from an image, I think in this world of online photo grading sites like the one at PCGS puls online auctions with sharp magnified images some folks can get pretty close. On this coin, three members hit the MS-62 grade and you also agreed with Laura.
I was optimistic. I think it will eventually get into an MS-63 slab unless there are a bunch of hairlines not visible. Todays, MS-62 gold coin is usually a naked eye AU with obvious wear. The details are sharp and the wear on this coin is minuscule. I think the actual condition of the coin "scared-off" the graders as it is not even close to today's AU-55 - a coin that formerly passed as an XF+ before most of you held a magnifying glass!
What is the expiration date of a grade issued today?
On the next submission. ;-)
Here it is:
"A well-struck orange-gold Choice AU example. The hair over the ear shows a trace of wear, but the fields display a pleasing quotient of luster, and no marks are detrimental. A brief and minor streak of struck-in grease is near star 5. Exceptional quality for this early, scarce, and conditionally rare Philadelphia eagle. Certified in an old green label holder. CAC: 2 in 55, 3 finer (1/18)."
The coin is an old time AU that could have made AU-58 over the assigned AU-55 back in the day. It is not a Mint State coin, but it's the type of piece that often made it into MS-62 holder later on.
Heritage sold an Ex Harry Bass piece that is a PCGS MS-61, that looks nicer to me, in September 2016 for $35,250.
https://coins.ha.com/itm/liberty-eagles/1840-10-ms61-pcgs/a/1244-14134.s?ic3=ViewItem-Auction-Archive-ThisAuction-120115
I am okay with calling coins like this low end Unc. for market price purposes. My problem is that coins like this are starting to migrate into MS-63 holders, which is just plain wrong. This should depress the the MS-63 prices after a while, but in the mean time, I would advise collectors to really look at newly certified MS-63 and higher graded coins carefully.
I agree but when a coin is special as this one or one like the 1870-S Half Dime, it seems that its actual grade does not matter. When the coin was graded, standards were tighter.
This from the auction indicates its actual grade: "The hair over the ear shows a trace of wear,..." The bidders and several posters either do not see any wear in the image (see specialist's comments) or they know how to grade gold coins "Commercially" = MS-62.
I say it will eventually max out in an MS-63 slab as this appears too nice to be just a '62. Once you ignore the amount of wear, the other attributes determine the grade.
One should never ignore the amount of wear - one should net it along with all the other attributes of the coin. The idea that a trace of rub limits a coin to 58 max has come and gone
I'm
opening the CAN OF WORMS. Lets try for another 1K thread. 
@tradedollarnut said: "The idea that a trace of rub limits a coin to 58 max has come and gone."
You are absolutely correct! LONG GONE!
This part of your post ("One should never ignore the amount of wear - one should net it along with all the other attributes of the coin.) makes us old dinosaurs howl with laughter to hide our distress! It is a very hard concept to teach a beginning grading student as it makes no sense at all! Is it any wonder that grading a coin is now even more subjective than it was when an Uncirculated coin was to have no trace of wear by definition?
Never ignore the amount of wear? Ok, but what amount of circulation wear do you tolerate before a coin becomes AU. Is it the same as @specialist? What about @BillJones, @Justacommeman, and @CaptHenway who are posting about this coin. And up pops that old "net grading" folly again.
Note to folks reading this thread from the Bowers Grading Guide (buy it and read the introduction):
"...the interpretation of Uncirculated or Mint State is more liberal than it was..."
"Today, such coins that used to be graded as About Uncirculated (AU) are now often graded as MS-60, MS-61, and MS-62."
This coin is a perfect example. Is it any wonder that grading is subjective when we add, magnification, image sharpness (if not in hand), experience, "eye" for detail, color blindness, rarity, coin size, etc.
So what should you do as a collector when you read somewhere that all coins with the identical TPGS grade are not equal (CAC sticker)? First, study coins graded MS-65 and higher to see what a true Uncirculated coin looks like.
Next, study coins in lower MS slabs to learn what amount of circulation wear is tolerated on each type of coin and in the different metals. Then decide what amount of circulation wear YOU are going to accept on a Mint State coin. Easy, right?
.
I need to cut some lumber for some bookshelves, and need to buy a yardstick. When my house was built a yard was only 34 inches long. Then it went to 35 inches, and later 36. Nowadays the yardsticks are at least 37 inches long, and 38 inches if they are from a rare lumberyard.
Which standard shall I use???
One thing CAC does a very good job of is not stickering gold coins that are 61 or 62 no matter how nice they are if they have any wear on them.
All of them. Then you can end up with something like an upside-down house at an amusement park.
Just like how some people will end upside down in their coins with a shifting grading standard, while others come out ahead.
Some things never change however (except for opinions and change).
This exact coin was called Unc in the early 20th century; then AU decades later; then Unc 3 different times then back to AU in the slab. I have never seen the coin in person so I don't know what my opinion would be. The first set of pics make it look AU to me while the second set make it look Unc. Different views on this coin are nothing new.
"To Be Esteemed Be Useful" - 1792 Birch Cent --- "I personally think we developed language because of our deep need to complain." - Lily Tomlin
I was told by someone who saw the coin in hand that it is phenominal. MS-62 is still too pop with only 1 coin graded, so a 62 would be a good “make”
It’s actually refreshing to see people bid on coins and not just holders, IMO.
For a large selection of U.S. Coins & Currency, visit The Reeded Edge's online webstore at the link below.
The Reeded Edge
So you
were one of the bidders. Cool. Should have had at least a gold bean. 
To nay sayers, unless you see it, do not be too quick to judge that is wear vs a weakened strike.
this coin probably will sell for more then the current bids-and I'll bet as a 62 it very well might bean and no one is wrong.
this coin is not a participant in gradeflation. it simply was grossly under graded. Sh*t happens!
I saw the coin in hand.
a side note, if your thinking of bidding on ANY of the $10 in that set-dream unrealistic numbers and good luck!
Only? The way we are going in a few years it may approach gem, and cac may even get more liberal.
61's or 62's are not supposed to have any wear on them!
That’s old thinking. There’s no reason a trace of wear limits to 58 whereas huge bag marks gets 60
Conveying technical information in a single weighted grade is tough and subjective enough. Now the services are expected to price the coins too? As mercurial as the market is, I would love to have a crystal ball to see the future of the coin market for the next six months let alone an extended period of time. I’d also like to think that the hobby is stable enough that slabs have a shelf life beyond a few months. I long for the days when the graders stick to grading and leave pricing to market participants. I have no problem with AU coins selling for MS money, but watering down standards and making them less precise/more ambiguous (i.e. conveying less useful objective information) is hurting this hobby.
Only large dealers who play the crackout game and the grading services benefit from evolving grading standards. Dealers know the most recent trends and obtain upgrades. The services can avoid paying warranty claims and earn additional revenue. The losers are clear, however: collectors and other end users. It is sad that there is so much distrust and volatility that there are now graders to grade the TPG graders. The market has pretty much distinegrated for everything else (with the exception of truly rare U.S. coins).
I would be okay with a higher AU grade - maybe 58+.
Which one (i.e. the 1840 subject coin or the 1841 that was also thrown into the mix along the way)?
To play devil’s advocate, JA and crew didn’t even think the coin was a solid AU58 or it would have received a gold bean. Experts apparently disagree, which is not to say that one side is wrong, but it undermines the idea that the observations prove anything. Regardless of grade it looks like a special piece. I wish I could attend lot viewing to see it in hand.
Who was "The Admiral" that put this great collection together?
One could argue to just get rid of the old school categories/abbreviations for the descriptions of a coin grade on the label. Essentially we have the Sheldon scale where 1 = Poor and 70 = Perfect as made.
These numbers have been retrofitted to match the old descriptions and have become the standard. Using the case here of the 1840, when its cracked out then new label might say: Grade 62.
BUT, this is not very practical since terms such as VF, XF, AU, MS, etc. are so deeply rooted in the hobby.
WHAT TO DO about this:
Perhaps a panel of experts at PCGS, NGC, etc. can write a guide on what factors are used, ie. allowances/penalties to arrive at a grade to more accurately reflect on its overall quality while not deviating from the spirit of the established standards of coin grading.
Such as: A coin can receive a grade of 60 or higher with traces of wear if compensating factors are present such as luster, strike, surface, etc....
Perhaps this exists already??
No, that's using the English language to interpret a published definition.
If the TPGs wish to stop using the ANA Grading Standards they should have the testicular fortitude to admit that they have done so, and are now using the "Rich Coin Owners' Grading System."
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
Downwind, Captain, always downwind...
RE: "The idea that a trace of rub limits a coin to 58 max has come and gone."
Did it go along with truth and honesty, too. or just hand-in-hand with ignorance and blind greed?
Field disturbance or a trace of wear remove a coin from being graded "uncirculated." No exceptions and no BS.
By definition, absolutely.
I don’t see ‘uncirculated’ anywhere on an MS61 label by the way
I guess the bottom line is that there are two bidders grading it north of $30K. Trying to reconcile that grading scale with a purely technical one is an age old problem. Of course, this week I'm reminded again that we're not alone, as a perfectly executed double jump isn't worth as many points as a wipeout on a triple jump.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
@specialist said: "To nay sayers, unless you see it, do not be too quick to judge that is wear vs a weakened strike.
I saw the coin in hand."
Since you saw the actual coin your opinion
matters more than mine; however, 
IMHO, the coin is not weakly struck as each high point detail is sharp (except for the slight friction). As I posted, I believe the TPGS was afraid to grade this coin with the OBVIOUS COMMERCIAL LOW MS GRADE (61 or 62) they would have given it as a common date. 
@CaptHenway said: "61's or 62's are not supposed to have any wear on them!"
As you know, there was no MS-61 or MS-62 in the old days. According to the ANA Standards, MS coins were not suppose to have any rub. Times have changed to allow more folks to own "Mint State" coins and reflect price increases. Today, even MS-63's in some coin series can be found that are actually AU's! Some of the most liberal grading is seen with Capped Bust half dollars and $20 Saints.
Not going to happen. From what I've seen the TPGS often don't follow their own "standards!" Wiggle room and keeping grading as complicated/subjective as possible is the norm.
Yet another reason to cherish the older holders.
My YouTube Channel
ok, that ngc picture did confuse me. now, i understand that is not the same coin...
i looked at the auction pictures to see the actual coin in question...it's must nicer. it does look like and impaired mint state coin. i am surprised it did not get a gold sticker. i can certainly see 61 on this coin. also, it does look nicer than the 58 you posted. that coin (the 58) looks sweated.
All of this just goes to show that grading standards run in cycles (I hope). In the mid to late 1980s, third party grading service graded coins gained a significant foothold in the market because the powers in charge at the time had abused customers with over graded coins.
Now we see the cycle rolling around again. There are some dealers who are going to push lower standards as long as the market will bear it. So far, they have made some gains. The question is, how far down can they lower the standards before the customers react? That time might come when those same dealers refuse to pay prices that are commensurate with their retail prices.
The bubble will burst eventually. When enough collectors simply say “no” to the watered down grading standards, another adjustment will be in the offing.
If only there were some service..a sticker perhaps...that attempted to slow or stop this ‘watering down’ trend.
Hopefully, my rant
will provide just an ACADEMIC and historical context of "the-way-it-was" for folks who were not around at the time.
Bill, I disagree. The collector has NOTHING TO SAY about anything. Neither does the ANA who started to water-down and screw up (buy combining the # of marks on a coin with the amount of wear) the true "Technical Grading System" used in DC for internal records - a system that did not gradeflate or change in any way due to the passage of time or market conditions. Years later, a coin's commercial value was thrown into the equation to screw things up further! **Value should have NOTHING to do with a coin's condition of preservation!
Now, back to reality: The present TPGS, ESPECIALLY the top two control the way coins are graded now and will be graded in the future. I think most will agree they do a good job in spite of the under graded coin in that auction.
I tell my students that we can find under, over, and correctly graded coins in slabs. Any examples/discussion of any TPGS does not belong in a grading class.
True. It's not on an MS-70 holder label either. This begs the question of what meaning, if any, "mint state (MS)" has? Where is the trust that TPG's imply in their authentication and 'grading?'
For comparison, take a look at the 1841 in the same collection. The 1841 is nice, but perhaps by a point or two.
Dealing in Canadian and American coins and historical medals.
In my 35+ years as a professional numismatist, I noticed that the vast majority of collectors cannot grade their own coins objectively.
.
This was one of the reasons why we did not let the owners of the coins assign their grades to ANACS certificates.
Finally, I made it as a member of the majority even though I was born oversea
What about what looks like a large gouge at the fifth star. On the holder?
Amen, and to that post I'll
also add a very large number of coin dealers.
Thank goodness for TPGS coins!
No. If there is no longer a set of honest definitions, then it is all about greed and ignorance "in the modern game." And -- "modern game" is used in the most derogatory way possible.
Fortunately for me, I don't try to collect coins. The wholesale ignorance of the above quote and others of a similar nature make me very sad for those trying to enjoy a hobby, and especially for those considering coin collecting as a hobby. A house built on falsehood will eventually collapse.
Labeling a coin with friction as "uncirculated" or "mint state" is in line with Orwellian "New Speak" and a culture of lies and dishonesty.
@FadeToBlack said: "Plain and simple, cabinet friction doesn't limit a coin to AU any more, hasn't for as long as I've been seriously collecting. The only thing cabinet friction limits a coin from these days is a gem grade. AU is all about circulation hairlines in the modern game."
LOL! I remember what I thought the first time I read those two words. AFAIK, "Cabinet Friction" was cooked up by a savvy big-time dealer
to sell AU coins at inflated prices.