Options
how does one get a grade like this ?
ebaybuyer
Posts: 2,984 ✭✭✭
regardless of how many posts I have, I don't consider myself an "expert" at anything
0
Comments
<< <i>link
id like to hear even the most remote hypothesis of how this got an XF45 >>
Pictified............................
edit to add: There's a reason he has it priced $3500 under PCGS guide. Also, the cert verification shows he (or previous owner) only paid $9,987.50 in January at FUN. After you deduct eBay and PayPal fees and the cost of holding it for eleven months, he might break even.
Amat Colligendo Focum
Top 10 • FOR SALE
Amat Colligendo Focum
Top 10 • FOR SALE
<< <i>XF wear over a weak strike. >>
I agree.
Maybe a little generous for this tough coin. But not that far off. I have no problem with low XF.
I'm not a buyer...just browsing, thank you.
Lance.
<< <i>it just seems that heritage and stacks get some really generous grades, while us collectors have to fight for a fair grade. I know that the graders don't know who submits the coins but coins like this lead me to wonder >>
+1
<< <i>Looks like a HA.com coin, actually.
HA result >>
I can't get the result unless I sign in or join, which I prefer not to do.
"Keep your malarkey filter in good operating order" -Walter Breen
<< <i>XF wear over a weak strike. >>
I just snorted a mouthful of my dinner reading this. If you think that's XF wear....nevermind.
Please, I'd love to read your thoughts on how poorly you believe PCGS graded this one and why.
<< <i>
Holy cow, that mintmark looks HUGE. It even looks bigger than the S in STATES.
I'm not used to seeing that. Guess I haven't had much in the way of S-mints on earlier Seated stuff.
Collector since 1976. On the CU forums here since 2001.
It's never too late to start. Those 1854 to 1865-dated San Fran coins are just about all scarce to rare, and there's something charming about that crude, early mint mark that's so large that the eagle is virtually roosting on it. Just try to picture San Francisco around that time: dirt streets with horses, lots of Old West mining characters, and these coins.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
Doug
<< <i>
<< <i>Looks like a HA.com coin, actually.
HA result >>
I can't get the result unless I sign in or join, which I prefer not to do. >>
Overdate, if you scroll up the first page of replies you will see that I posted the Heritage hammer price from January's FUN show. I posted it a few comments before the one you quoted. You don't need the link just read my comment.
Amat Colligendo Focum
Top 10 • FOR SALE
Here's a 40 from coinfacts for comparison. Strike is maybe a tad better on this one, but there's still some weak areas. And you can easily see that the overall amount wear is less than the OP coin:
<< <i>XF wear over a weak strike. >>
Sorry, NO.
When you are grading a weakly struck coin, you have fall back to grading surfaces. That is an admittedly difficult, sometimes controversial task, which requires a good eye and a lot of experience.
This coin shows signs of a weak strike, but it also has a lot of surface marks that are indicative of the VF grade. This coin falls somewhere in the VF-25 to 30 range, at best, in my opinion.
<< <i>Cleaned, environmental damage, rough surfaces, and VF details. Not a great combination for a coin in a problem free XF45 holder.
Doug >>
Pretty close to my sentiments exactly. Heritage however described this piece as a "frosty Choice XF example" in their recent Jan. 2014 FUN Signature auction.
Those who viewed the coin in person- Heritage numismatists and PCGS grading professionals are wrong yet those who viewed only the photos are correct.
<< <i>The takeaway within this thread:
Those who viewed the coin in person- Heritage numismatists and PCGS grading professionals are wrong yet those who viewed only the photos are correct. >>
Agreed. However, you have to admit that grading a circulated coin using images is usually much easier than
attempting to grade a Mint State or Proof coin using images. The EF 45 grade assigned to this coin does appear
to be a bit generous, especially when compared to the other pieces shown in this thread.
<< <i>The takeaway within this thread:
Those who viewed the coin in person- Heritage numismatists and PCGS grading professionals are wrong yet those who viewed only the photos are correct. >>
Glad you're here. A common sense post and approach to the many nuances is always welcome.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
<< <i>I'm not used to seeing that. Guess I haven't had much in the way of S-mints on earlier Seated stuff
It's never too late to start. Those 1854 to 1865-dated San Fran coins are just about all scarce to rare, and there's something charming about that crude, early mint mark that's so large that the eagle is virtually roosting on it. Just try to picture San Francisco around that time: dirt streets with horses, lots of Old West mining characters, and these coins. >>
Thanks for the little mind-movie. I could practically smell the horse manure, sawdust, and segar smoke.
(Note the period spelling of "cigar", the way Ulysses Grant probably spelled it.)
It's the main reason I collect coins with some history to them. I love a good mind-movie.
Nothing wrong with modern widgets- some of them are aesthetically beautiful. But coins with history have a whole other dimension.
Collector since 1976. On the CU forums here since 2001.
<< <i>WHY possibly this coin looks like it does. From Breens Encyclopedia.
I don't get it, this references halves. Looks like that because buried and cleaned if that's what you mean
However, these S mint quarters come notoriously poorly struck and also seem to come almost universally unattractive, so the grading services grade them differently because the strike, and even the planchet quality appear different to my eye. I recall vividly a 59-s, much nicer than this one and also a tough date, sitting in a friend's showcase for months as a raw xf+ for 5-6k. I passed on it many times. In frustration, he sent it to PCGS where it graded AU and he immediately doubled his money.
High quality examples do exist more conservatively graded, but they also do command a premium. And while this grade may be 5+ points off, it's not way off considering the date and the price is not way off either. Just try to find one. I actually wish PCGS would consider and account for date and variety strike and planchet quality more than they currently do. It is tough to do for things like bust half or large cent varieties, but it is also more accurate.
While the 57-S pictured is a nice piece, it is common compared to the 59-S and 60-S and comes nicer.
Tom
<< <i>Weakly stuck and not a coin I would want at that grade.
However, these S mint quarters come notoriously poorly struck and also seem to come almost universally unattractive, so the grading services grade them differently because the strike, and even the planchet quality appear different to my eye. I recall vividly a 59-s, much nicer than this one and also a tough date, sitting in a friend's showcase for months as a raw xf+ for 5-6k. I passed on it many times. In frustration, he sent it to PCGS where it graded AU and he immediately doubled his money.
High quality examples do exist more conservatively graded, but they also do command a premium. And while this grade may be 5+ points off, it's not way off considering the date and the price is not way off either. Just try to find one. I actually wish PCGS would consider and account for date and variety strike and planchet quality more than they currently do. It is tough to do for things like bust half or large cent varieties, but it is also more accurate.
While the 57-S pictured is a nice piece, it is common compared to the 59-S and 60-S and comes nicer. >>
http://coins.ha.com/c/lot-image.zx?saleNo=1205&lotNo=30020&lotIdNo=11401&inventoryNo=0&id=11007988
Eye of the beholder. By "these S mint quarters" do you suggest no motto large S as a series or 59/60 or just 60? The statement "poorly struck" may be somewhat unkind to the minters. While the link above is likely a more desirable specimen from a strike standpoint than the recent ha passed MS61, strike is adequate. High quality in 1859-1861 do exist, as R7/R7+, but are ofttimes sugarcoated, as is the coin mentioned by OP which has enviro and cleaning, and which does not, IMHO, actually trade at the past performance(s) dictated by ha/stacks/whatever archives. If actually sold, that OP coin is 7K w/BP
<< <i>it just seems that heritage and stacks get some really generous grades, while us collectors have to fight for a fair grade. I know that the graders don't know who submits the coins but coins like this lead me to wonder >>
+2
type2,CCHunter.
<< <i>
<< <i>it just seems that heritage and stacks get some really generous grades, while us collectors have to fight for a fair grade. I know that the graders don't know who submits the coins but coins like this lead me to wonder >>
+2 >>
+3.
The 60-s isn't really notorious for poor strikes, nor are any of the other 1855-s to 1865-s "Big S" coins. In those years I'd probably only pick the 1857-0 quarter for a branch mint being notorious for weaknesses. No doubt the planchet quality of 59-s and 60-s quarters is typically terrible and are the worst for these years. While this particular 60-s has some issues, it is also in the top 30% of survivors if you are assessing overall problems. The other 70% tend to be scrubbed, polished, hacked, dented, bent, holed, wire brushed, burned, corroded, scratched, etc. Well you get the picture. Despite all that, this is no XF45. It should have the market value of an upper VF coin (maybe a 30/35). I would much rather have a problem free VF35 than this XF45. The XF40 CoinFacts photo is superior overall.
I recently sold an 1858-s with much of the same issues. The coin was XF45/AU50 details, 5-10% luster, full eagle feathers, and had a nice look. But, it was over-dipped and had a hard, somewhat shiny look. I was still hoping for a VF35 or XF40 grade but ended up with a genuine holder. I ended up selling the coin for $2,000 which was problem free VF30/35 money. This 60-s is not as nice. But since it's now the highest graded at PCGS it will command strong money in that holder. If you want to know the true grade of this coin send it back raw 3 times. Whatever comes up the most often is the real grade. If you get 3 different grades....then average them. I would be surprised if XF45 was a grade you saw more than once.
In checking my last POP report (July 2007) there were still no 60-s quarters above XF40. There were 9 1859-s quarters from XF45-AU55. It would seem PCGS was very resistant to give out a 45/50 on a 60-s in those first 21 years. Sort of disappointing that this XF45 is one of the standard bearers for the highest graded.