Trade Dollar grade thoughts...

Boosibri · October 14, 2013 1:53AM

Picked up this wonderfully original Trade Dollar in a NGC holder and recently crossed to PCGS. I'd appreciate some objective grade opinions on the coin. It's crusty so the luster is present in the protected areas but muted due to the tannic toning probably from a leather pouch.

Thoughts please?

silverpop · October 14, 2013 1:57AM

AU50

Placid · October 14, 2013 2:01AM

58

RYK · October 14, 2013 2:12AM

58

amwldcoin · October 14, 2013 2:24AM

53

Unknown · October 14, 2013 2:28AM

This content has been removed.

Unknown · October 14, 2013 2:30AM

This content has been removed.

MilkmanDan · October 14, 2013 2:35AM

My guess is that it was an NGC 58 and is now a PCGS 53 or 55. It all depends on remaining luster which is where the two grading companies differ most, in my experience. NGC will grant a 58 for a circulated coin with no high point rub, whereas PCGS requires 50%+ remaining luster for that grade.

Kove · October 14, 2013 2:35AM

AU 55

Boosibri · October 14, 2013 2:42AM

<< My guess is that it was an NGC 58 and is now a PCGS 53 or 55. It all depends on remaining luster which is where the two grading companies differ most, in my experience. NGC will grant a 58 for a circulated coin with no high point rub, whereas PCGS requires 50%+ remaining luster for that grade. >>

I think that you are spot on with this statement. PCGS graded it a 53 while NGC had it as a 58. The luster is naturally muted due to the attractive toning which PCGS discounted. I was surprised at the grade as the coin has AU58 detail. Seems this grading behavior just encourages dipping out naturally toned coins.

Unknown · October 14, 2013 2:53AM

This content has been removed.

crypto79 · October 14, 2013 2:56AM

AU58 wear, AU50 skin = AU55, Maybe AU53 is the luster is really weak

crypto79 · October 14, 2013 2:58AM

<< My guess is that it was an NGC 58 and is now a PCGS 53 or 55. It all depends on remaining luster which is where the two grading companies differ most, in my experience. NGC will grant a 58 for a circulated coin with no high point rub, whereas PCGS requires 50%+ remaining luster for that grade. >>

should have read down, Dan is Spot on. Welcome to the cross over game on old silver

That said the coin is what it is and there are several ways to lose luster and wear, tone, rub and dipping all leave a dull coin. How can a dull coin be border line UNC? Sounds like a lower end AU, but that is where market grading comes in, There isn't that much price difference between an original AU53 and a processed 58 at least in Type Trades.

Boosibri · October 14, 2013 3:06AM

<< 

<< My guess is that it was an NGC 58 and is now a PCGS 53 or 55. It all depends on remaining luster which is where the two grading companies differ most, in my experience. NGC will grant a 58 for a circulated coin with no high point rub, whereas PCGS requires 50%+ remaining luster for that grade. >>

should have read down, Dan is Spot on. Welcome to the cross over game on old silver

That said the coin is what it is and there are several ways to lose luster and wear, tone, rub and dipping all leave a dull coin. How can a dull coin be border line UNC? Sounds like a lower end AU, but that is where market grading comes in, There isn't that much price difference between an original AU53 and a processed 58 at least in Type Trades. >>

Agree and I didn't buy the coin for any reason other than I found it exceptionally attractive. I do find it illogical to penalize coins with muted luster due to the presence of natural toning. The same coin when processed should not be worthy of a high grade. This is obviously a common and relatively inexpensive coin so no financial loss really in the grade differences, just surprised.

BryceM · October 14, 2013 4:43AM

An interesting thread, but I might disagree a bit concerning luster. Even on a deeply toned coin you can almost always find the luster if there is any. It's hard to photograph, but with a bright lamp you should be able to see at least some of it. I'm guessing this example is on the dull/lifeless side. If so, the surfaces actually are impaired and an AU53 grade seems about right even if the detail is full. If there isn't any luster before it's dipped there won't be any after it's dipped either.

To be clear - I'm not suggesting this coin should EVER be dipped. I rather like it just how it is and I think it's fantastic. The grading difference is just the variation in what each of the companies looks for (with PCGS placing a little more emphasis on luster across the board).

ricko · October 14, 2013 4:45AM

Nice Trade Dollar, and I agree...less tarnish and it may have graded higher... environmental damage (tarnish) can do that... Cheers, RickO

stealer · October 14, 2013 5:10AM

PCGS 55 easy. They would never give it a 58 just because of how dark it is.

lordmarcovan · October 14, 2013 5:13AM

<< My guess is that it was an NGC 58 and is now a PCGS 53 or 55 >>

This.

amwldcoin · October 14, 2013 10:36AM

<< 

<< My guess is that it was an NGC 58 and is now a PCGS 53 or 55. It all depends on remaining luster which is where the two grading companies differ most, in my experience. NGC will grant a 58 for a circulated coin with no high point rub, whereas PCGS requires 50%+ remaining luster for that grade. >>

I think that you are spot on with this statement. PCGS graded it a 53 while NGC had it as a 58. The luster is naturally muted due to the attractive toning which PCGS discounted. I was surprised at the grade as the coin has AU58 detail. Seems this grading behavior just encourages dipping out naturally toned coins. >>

!

Yeah..they do the same with Barber Halves as a rule.

poorguy · October 14, 2013 10:52AM

I have to say I agree with most of the comments. I too would say 55. I think they would be more generous than 53 on a coin that original but I can also see why they would 53 it due to the excessive thick patination. Still its a 58 all day long wear-wise. Knocking it back to a 53 or 50 is quite harsh.

Trade Dollar grade thoughts...

Comments

Leave a Comment