Options
This seated dollar must be MS58...
tradedollarnut
Posts: 20,199 ✭✭✭✭✭
....because of the field marks. I certainly don't see enough wear not to call it at least AU61
3
Comments
not MS
Can you expound on your reasoning, please? Keep in mind that this is in a 61 holder
.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Hmmm not a touch of wear on the high spots...
except for above the ear, cheek, shoulder , breast, knee, calf, shield, bottom hem of gown
.
The OP coin looks MS to me.
Maybe a combination of a soft looking strike that's camouflaged by mottled toning hindered it.
But still.......looks MS to me.
"If I say something in the woods and my wife isn't there to hear it.....am I still wrong?"
My Washington Quarter Registry set...in progress
While not my series it just seems to have a little to much wear and chatter going on all over the place for me to call it MS. It's one of those coins I'd have to judge in hand and maybe if the light caught it just right I would say different.
Successful trades.... MichaelDixon,
I believe there is circulation on the original coin. The fields are always the giveaway on tough to judge coins. The 61 above, if you also post the reverse, clearly shows an MS reverse. You can't have a circulated obverse and MS reverse.
Wow! just when you think you've heard it all someone says "You can't have a circulated obverse and MS reverse." I've seen many premium AU-58 LSD's with a circulated obverse and mint state reverse.
I agree with TDN, "I certainly don't see enough wear not to call it at least AU61."
Years ago a golf buddy of my Dad's asked me to look at a coin collection he had "liberated" as a foot soldier in Germany in 1945. At that time he had dumped the coins out of whatever holders they had been in into the bottom of a wooden box.
Don't think he ever took them out of the box, as the bottoms of the bottom layer were all uncirculated, while the tops of those coins were EF-AU from the loose coins atop them sliding around as he slogged eastward until V-E Day. Most of the loose coins were EF-AU with unc luster in the recesses.
Shish apparently needs a lesson on what a circulated coin really is. If the reverse was never in circulation, the coin is uncirculated. But I didn't grade the coin so take it up with PCGS.
I disagree, a coin can have rub or cabinet friction on one side and be fully mint state on the other. CaptHenway just gave an excellent example of how this could and did occur.
Slide marks are not circulation sir. Collect and grade enough coins and even you will also be able to spot circulation. Hint, it is always found in the fields. You don't really believe the overused term "rub" means anything I hope?
gentlemen
I've been grading coins for over 30 years, my grading ability is highly respect by some of the best in the business. You can use many different words to describe it but I have seen many coins that have wear or cabinet friction on only one side.
Judging on pictures, I would guess MS63 on the OP coin (maybe even 64 depending on luster). 61 in seated coins indicates some sort of impairment I don't see here. I rather like the crusty look -looks like the type of coin you might find in a Tom Bush inventory .
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
So if the wear is hidden on the obverse, the reverse, or the edge, and you pick the obverse, then I show you there's no wear on the edge, what are your odds of being right if you change your mind and say it's on the reverse?
(Regarding the OP coin, I can't tell wear from funky color based on the pics, although it is more attractive than what I'd expect a 61 to look like.)
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
Honestly, I don't know how anyone can explain the differences, be consistent over time and be accurate in grading, the most difficult range of grades - that is, au58 to ms61.
To put it another way....one day a coin looks like a top notch circulated coin (au58), six months later, looks to you like a banged up MS coin.
I give the TPG's a complete pass if they waver from this particular grade to grade range.
"“Those who sacrifice liberty for security/safety deserve neither.“(Benjamin Franklin)
"I only golf on days that end in 'Y'" (DE59)
For a seated dollar, or even a Morgan dollar, those field and body hits don't amount to hardly anything. At least not enough to keep the coin out of a 63 range. The coin has such a strong patina that the high point toning breaks "look" like circulation rub. Could have occurred laying face down in a wooden drawer or box. Had this coin been dipped or untoned, you would not even see those high point scuffs. Look at the hoard 1860-0 dollars....even in grades of MS63/64/65 they will show mint luster grazes on these same high points. These coins are big and heavy and take a toll in coin to coin high point contact. Let's face it, the "majority" of MS61-63 bust and seated halves/dollars all show high point friction/grazing.
I have no problem calling it MS61 since Miss Lib is 95% bathed in luster. I'd call it 61/62 before considering a 58. Don't see any field obvious luster breaks in these photos to say they do not meet unc standards. An apparently totally original and unmessed with unc CC seated dollar....neat find.
When compared to the existing MS61 coins on coinFacts, The coin graded MS58 seems to have a somewhat weaker strike, especially on the reverse. Apparently this may be interpreted in hand as rub, but the weakness in the reverse IGWT ribbon could not be rub, in my opinion. One of the coins graded MS61 and the one graded 64 seem to have hairlines that would limit the grade, but maybe hairlines only count on proof coins?
OINK
I'd call it a 58. But your better at this area then me. Plus this is from a picture.
I could see it in a MS holder if submitted enough though and wouldn't think poorly of the TPG'ers.
FYI, Tom Bush graded it AU-58.
roadrunner, I agree with all of your first paragraph.
"For a seated dollar, or even a Morgan dollar, those field and body hits don't amount to hardly anything. At least not enough to keep the coin out of a 63 range. The coin has such a strong patina that the high point toning breaks "look" like circulation rub. Could have occurred laying face down in a wooden drawer or box. Had this coin been dipped or untoned, you would not even see those high point scuffs. Look at the hoard 1860-0 dollars....even in grades of MS63/64/65 they will show mint luster grazes on these same high points. These coins are big and heavy and take a toll in coin to coin high point contact. Let's face it, the "majority" of MS61-63 bust and seated halves/dollars all show high point friction/grazing."
Yet I still think that if you saw this coin in hand you would lean toward AU-58 because of the amount of wear on the obverse high points. I'll never forget when Mark Salzberg spoke at an NGC lunch years ago, he explained that NGC would begin grading coins with cabinet friction and smooth fields low grade mint state. This example fits very nicely into my PCGS grading set as an AU-58. I mentioned in a previous thread that five veteran numismatists (including an ex PCGS grader) viewed this coin in hand and all graded it AU-58.
Although I agree with roadrunner that "Let's face it, the "majority" of MS61-63 bust and seated halves/dollars all show high point friction/grazing." I wanted a premium coin that might be considered to be part of the minority because it does not have high point friction. Our hosts grading standards state the following: MS-61 No wear, with average or weak strike. Multiple heavy marks or hairlines allowed. AU-58 Only the slightest friction on the highest points. Virtually full luster.
Interesting coin and discussion. From the standpoint of picture analysis, I would not disagree with 61... This is a coin that demands 'in hand' analysis. Certainly one could disagree with a TPG opinion, however, without the coin in hand, that would be risky conjecture. Cheers, RickO
Terrific coin. I think the cabinet friction argument has merit here. I have no problem with 61 even though I likely am in the minority. The look of this coin will dictate the price... Not the plastic or anything else. And toss the grey sheet... It is meaningless with this coin as are the other so-called guides.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
One has to decide if you want to grade this for what it really is by say 1987-1995 grading standards or current market acceptable standards. Sure, I'd grade the coin AU58 as well if had to grade it per the older standards. And when buying liner UNC coins today, I think most veteran numismatists revert back to those stricter standards as the AU58 to MS62 range is really a hard area to show consistency in bust/seated material. But today the grading system is what holder will the coin end up in. And therefore I said MS61/62. Note that TDN did say above that the coin resides in a PCGS MS61 holder.
I think NGC grading coins with cabinet friction occurred a lot sooner than when Salzburg made that statement. I recall going after a key date seated coin in the 1988 Norweb sale. The coin was really only an AU55/58 coin. It had considerable strike issues as well. The coin realized AU55 money ($4,000) to a leading player/upgrader who bought a number of coins out of that sale. No one in the room saw that coin as Mint State. An Unc coin would have been worth $12,000 at the time which I would have gladly paid. I didn't bid on the coin. It graded NGC MS63 first time through and was marketed for $13,000. It's still the finest graded today...though I still consider it to have considerable rub as an AU55/58.
Back around 1988 I purchased a couple dozen type coins that were stored in a wooden box, most were circs. But the "gem" of the lot was a fully field lustrous and mostly white 1872 quarter that the dealer was only considering as XF/AU. Aside for a few light wipe lines imparted from sliding around the box for months/years, and the expected high point luster grazes and scuffs that appear on the 1871 dollar above, the coin appeared to be mint state. I figured it "might" come back MS "something" but also didn't rule out an AU58 as it had technical "rub/friction" that broke the luster on the high points. The coin came back NGC MS63. And today I suspect the coin is in a MS64 holder. As buyers, we can be either fully technical, realistic, or market accepting. Take your pick. Of course those veteran dealers above if trying to buy this coin raw will grade it AU58...same as most of us. Once holdered in a mint state grade, those same dealers will be expecting mint state money for their coin.
Actually, the coin is in a pcgs58 holder. I think it's really an unc that was knocked down for the field marks - I don't see enough wear to merit the grade
On another image, it has the feel of circulation, especially in the fields. Nice coin though!
-
-
Have you seen the coin in hand TDN? My grading skills are not sharp enough to try to differentiate between high AU and low MS on a well toned coin, from an image.
"As buyers, we can be either fully technical, realistic, or market accepting. Take your pick."
Thanks for sharing your insights, I like to think of myself as a realistic grader when buying and selling, but the truth is that to often I probably fall into this category.
"I think most veteran numismatists revert back to those stricter standards as the AU58 to MS62 range is really a hard area to show consistency in bust/seated material."
There is no way to be charitable about what I write...
This is a case where everyone is correct. Grading is subjective and we all should have our own standards by now about how much abrasion on the high points of a coin we allow before we drop it out of the MS ranges. Fortunately, some of us have learned what friction wear looks like on a coin. The large image shows three colors on the "worn" parts of the coin. There is one color of gray from the toning, a slightly lighter, thin color ring inside that area, and finally the whitish part where all of the coin's original surface is gone. This is 100% AU-58 by the written description of that grade found anywhere from the late 60's when it was introduced as Uncirculated w/rub. Some here may remember the joke about pregnancy.
That said, judging by the posts here and modern grading, this grade hardly exists. One member explains it all very simply above. Coins with a slight amount of rub - FROM WHATEVER the cause - are now considered MS by most dealers, collectors, and the TPGS. As soon as old guys like me are dead, no one will consider a little rub as important.
Here is what I wish we could all agree on: Yes, we all can see a great deal of the very obvious, definite friction on the breast, leg, etc. as an obvious change of color on the high spots; but the coin is nice for the type and deserves a 61 or 62 value/grade. Then I would not consider some of you COMPLETELY BLIND or uninformed!
Two other points in this thread. Over the years, using a stereo microscope at 7X, I have seen thousands of one-sided totally original, fully lustrous, no trace of wear coins. It happens. I still see them on a daily basis. IMO, this coin is NOT ONE OF THEM.
Next, this crap about "slide wear" is a made up pack of BS. Get yourself a folder, stick a bunch of hard cookie crumbs in the hole and insert a BU 1964 quarter. Now start working the plastic slide. This little experiment was done in twice decades ago in two grading seminars and over a dozen students were made to work the slide back and forth during the lecture. When each got tired, the folder was passed to the next student. Slides DO NOT cause the type of friction wear seen on this dollar! PERIOD!
I'm not claiming that it has no friction- there is a hint. But friction no longer limits a coin to 58 - it is net graded along with marks and strike. I could see this coin in a 61 holder - that's what I'm saying.
IMO, that is the most important thing to take away from this thread. There is friction on the high points = AU, yet friction no longer may lower a coin's grade.
As I wrote, you were perfectly clear. AU-58, MS-60, MS-61, and MS-62 are all correct. When someone "spot-tones" the obvious wear points or it is is "allowed" to happen naturally, and sent to the same or another TPGS, it will get graded 61 or 62!
Remember, to paraphrase the words of someone wiser and richer than I'll ever be: "If a coin is worth submitting once, it's worth submitting more that once.
IMO, that is the most important thing to take away from this thread. There is friction on the high points = AU, yet friction no longer may lower a coin's grade.
This is where you lose me. Of course friction lowers a grade. It's just not as much as it used to - Its one more net grade factor
For those that agree that minimal friction no longer should keep a coin out of an MS holder, is that because the friction is not an indicator of circulation or is it that in an era of gradeflation, we look beyond the wear?
This is an example of if I want an uncirculated coin, it usually is in at least an MS 63 holder. Capped Bust Halves are a very good example of this. As far as I am concerned, it a coin has wear (now politely called "cabinet friction" or the like), it's not an Unc. It can be a "market acceptable" unc., but not to me.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
It's because a beautiful coin with slight friction is worth up to ms64 money. Artificially limiting the grade to 58 is inefficient
Cabinet friction and grade inflation are separate concepts. Just because an uncirculated coin can show signs of friction at high points does not mean that friction came from circulation. Nor does it mean that an MS grade for such a coin is grade inflation. Think of all the Saints that have lustre impairment just from stacking.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
On bust coins up to 67 money.
My 1866 Philly Mint Set
Good point. Seems that the market (or at least the price guides) automatically assign higher values on MS60-61 coins than AU58. Though many would prefer the AU coin.
Using your OP as an example perhaps grading up to an AU64 or so would not be a bad idea.
I mistakenly thought everything that could be said was already said and understood.
A coin either has a completely original surface with all its luster intact or it does not. This is an indisputable fact.
A buyer/grader either sees the coin is AU or he does not. This is also indisputable.
Nevertheless, as people have posted above, there are reasons a coin's original surface and the original luster that was on its surface are changed or missing. Saints provide a great example. I'll take for granted to save typing that all of you know the differences between "stacking rub", weak strikes, and friction wear. That's because they each look different and are given different leeway in the "market acceptability" column. If you don't know the difference...perhaps another member will complete this paragraph.
Again, it all boils down to your personal standards and those of the grading service. You put a hundred slabbed Saints on a long table with all the same grade either MS-62 to MS-64 (60 and 61 are scarce and the discrepancies of grades over MS-64 are slim) and some of those coins will be 100% original with full luster on the breast, knee, and eagle's breast and upper wing. Yet, they are traded sight unseen at the grade on the holder along with "less original" coins.
If friction wear and the change of color it causes to a surface is acceptable to an individual due to the value of say an 1804 dollar, Brasher doubloon, or 1870-S Half dime (whose color has been lightened since it was first discovered), that's fine - I'm not the grading police.
All that I do care about is that we all be informed so we become better numismatists. I can look a collector in the eye and tell him his coin (see the OP's example) is a toned AU but he is going to pay Mint State money because the coin is worth it. In fact, I'll look a fellow in the eye with the same coin and sell it for MS-62+ money without saying a word and sleep like a baby!
Let's compare. Here's an ngc61. Can someone who is not on a plane with lousy internet post the obverse?
https://coins.ha.com/itm/seated-dollars/silver-and-related-dollars/1871-cc-1-ms61-ngc-oc-1-high-r4/a/1254-4116.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515
And your point is? Note that the knee and breast on the NGC coin are NOT WHITE! As I posted above, sooner or later the OP coin will be "doctored" and it will also be graded MS.
Look, it is in the best interest of a TPGS to push grades of coins as high as possible within their standards. That makes EVERYBODY happy! The seller is happy - he gets more money. The Registry Set maven is ecstatic - he/she gets a coin graded higher than some old conservative crackpots think it should receive, and the TPGS is happy, they get more business.
If the owner of the OP coin is happy with it, that's all that counts. It has been professionally graded by a top service of experts. I don't think CAC will sticker it as MS as it stands now. Wait, I think I read above it is in an AU-58 PCGS holder. Those guys are the best!
PS Marks in the field of a coin should NEVER kick it out of the MS range of grades. That's what MS-60 is for. At the worst, it should get Unc details, "excessive marks." But they don't have that one now, do they?
Have a safe flight!
reverse
.
eBay ID-bruceshort978
Successful BST:here and ATS, bumanchu, wdrob, hashtag, KeeNoooo, mikej61, Yonico, Meltdown, BAJJERFAN, Excaliber, lordmarcovan, cucamongacoin, robkool, bradyc, tonedcointrader, mumu, Windycity, astrotrain, tizofthe, overdate, rwyarmch, mkman123, Timbuk3,GBurger717, airplanenut, coinkid855 ,illini420, michaeldixon, Weiss, Morpheus, Deepcoin, Collectorcoins, AUandAG, D.Schwager.
Might as well put up the big images:
-
-
Might we be entering the NGClight zone?
...and that coin has a famous pedigree so it could have been worn down to AU-50 and still be graded Mint State. LOL!