@Insider2 said:
Circulated coins are graded by the amount of detail that is lost.
And for the grades of VF30-AU58....also by the amount of luster they retain. It is often impossible to separate assumed wear from striking issues. Luster in the upper circ grade ranges can assist with that. Been that way for as long as I've been around.
>
One grading instructor teaches ("Luster Method") that luster is an easy way to get a beginner into the "ball park."
Unfortunately, as @BillJones implied, coins that were formerly graded one grade (VF for example) due to the amount of luster and detail present, are now very often graded a point higher (XF).
These days if a coin has any original luster hidden inside a letter it is libel to be graded XF! IMO, this is unfortunate nonsense and a bastardization of the grading system. Nevertheless, us old dinosaurs need to GET USED TO IT, GET WITH THE PROGRAM, KEEP QUIET and finally DIE so the "market acceptable/commercial grading system" can continue to evolve and loosen while the new students of grading can learn the system they will live with in their future.
My current coin collecting interests are: (1) British coins 1838-1970 in XF-AU-UNC, (2) silver type coins in XF-AU with that classic medium gray coloration and exceptional eye appeal.
When I first saw this, my immediate reaction was to grade it AU, but I couldn't put my finger on the exact numerical grade, and certainly not surprised that it graded 55. This coin appears to have the slightest amount of wear. You won't find an XF 1916 quarter with that much leg and knee detail. The strike is typical for this coin, and although the darker, irregular toning on the head is somewhat distracting, I am far from repulsed by it.
@KollectorKing said:
Based on the various guesses & comments, I am totally stoked that our host graded the coin.
PCGS would have no reason to put this coin in a "details holder." It's just that I have seen more attractive examples for whatever AU grade it received.
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 ... ?
@KollectorKing said: "Based on the various guesses & comments, I am totally stoked that our host graded the coin."
Disclaimer: I AM NO FAN OF ANY TPGS but I do use one of them to slab some of my counterfeits. I was raised by wolves and I'm a proud member of the "Attila the Hun School of Numismatics." Let the uninformed pay for their mistakes until they learn to grade for themselves or "eat cake" - widows, old folks, orphans, and the mentally challenged excluded. Oh, If I were in charge there would be NO Hobby Protection Act either. "Eat cake suckers!"
That said, I posted that the coin is my personal XF-45. HOWEVER, IMHO, as a very close observer and long-time student of grading, ANYONE who grades the IMAGE of that coin below AU is not being realistic. This is 2017 not 1975! IMO, our hosts graded that coin OK. It is NOT Uncirculated or AU-58 (too much rub and loss of detail) although the surfaces are virtually mark free and practically all the luster is present on the reverse (the less important side). There is some discoloration in the field (easy to see change of color on the reverse). It is also NOT an XF:
@veryfine said: "When I first saw this, my immediate reaction was to grade it AU, but I couldn't put my finger on the exact numerical grade, and certainly not surprised that it graded 55. This coin appears to have the slightest amount of wear. You won't find an XF 1916 quarter with that much leg and knee detail. The strike is typical for this coin, and although the darker, irregular toning on the head is somewhat distracting, I am far from repulsed by it. "
Very well said! TPGS's put value on coins...at least that's what most professionals tell me. BTW, that's why I could never be a coin grader as I don't have a clue what the coins I look at are worth without some research.
So, The coin is ABOUT UNCIRCULATED all day, night, month and year long. Anyone disagree so far? I'M HERE TO LEARN so please make your case.
AU has several grades. As I've written before, the ANA Grading Guide screwed up the entire system by combining the loss of design and the number of marks into "Typical" and "Choice." Thankfully, the OP's coin is virtually mark free so it CANNOT be AU-50. Therefore, we have two choices, 53 or 55. IMO, the lack of marks and the pretty reverse + "market value" of the coin kicked it to AU-55. The main detracting thing on this coin is the black oxidation.
Rats, I originally bet the coin was in an AU-53 slab. WRONG. That's why I can't ever win at GTG.
"That said, I posted that the coin is my personal XF-45. HOWEVER, IMHO, as a very close observer and long-time student of grading, ANYONE who grades the IMAGE of that coin below AU is not being realistic. This is 2017 not 1975! IMO, our hosts graded that coin OK. It is NOT Uncirculated or AU-58 (too much rub and loss of detail) although the surfaces are virtually mark free and practically all the luster is present on the reverse (the less important side). There is some discoloration in the field (easy to see change of color on the reverse). It is also NOT an XF:"
Yes, and as far as not being 1975, in some ways, I'm thankful for that.
There's much talk about stricter standards back then, but in reality, it was a mixed bag.
Despite all the literature and guidebooks, grading was far from consistent, and in many cases, coins were severely overgraded.
@Insider2 said:
. . . in the 1960's (before anyone ever heard of the AU grade) . . .
Beg to differ. My trusty 1961 Brown and Dunn grading guide lists "Abt. Uncirculated" as the top circulated grade, with "Extremely Fine" being the next highest. The AU grade was in common usage by dealers and collectors alike.
Thanks for the correction. My NON-memory has faded. The AU grade is even listed in Penny Whimsy (1958). I believe I was collecting coins when someone created the AU grade. I thought it happened in the 1960's.
Now I am curious as I hate to post misinformation when things are easily confirmed. I'm going to post a new discussion. Thanks Again!
Comments
XF40 by current standards.
1916 does come with a FH designation. This pic is what is needed to get it.
AU-50 but the leftover cleaning spots on head worry me. Lately, many with such kind of spots were put into detail holders.
>
One grading instructor teaches ("Luster Method") that luster is an easy way to get a beginner into the "ball park."
Unfortunately, as @BillJones implied, coins that were formerly graded one grade (VF for example) due to the amount of luster and detail present, are now very often graded a point higher (XF).
These days if a coin has any original luster hidden inside a letter it is libel to be graded XF! IMO, this is unfortunate nonsense and a bastardization of the grading system. Nevertheless, us old dinosaurs need to GET USED TO IT, GET WITH THE PROGRAM, KEEP QUIET and finally DIE so the "market acceptable/commercial grading system" can continue to evolve and loosen while the new students of grading can learn the system they will live with in their future.
That's in a 55 holder? Yikes. Looks AU50 to me.
40-45.
au 53/55.
50
Nice example
No expert here but I would guess 45.
Successful transactions with : MICHAELDIXON, Manorcourtman, Bochiman, bolivarshagnasty, AUandAG, onlyroosies, chumley, Weiss, jdimmick, BAJJERFAN, gene1978, TJM965, Smittys, GRANDAM, JTHawaii, mainejoe, softparade, derryb, Ricko
Bad transactions with : nobody to date
EF-40 obverse & AU-50 reverse. Final tally - XF45. Obverse looks like it has the too much wear & simply lacks the luster for an AU-50 grade.
'dude
Based on the various guesses & comments, I am totally stoked that our host graded the coin.
When I first saw this, my immediate reaction was to grade it AU, but I couldn't put my finger on the exact numerical grade, and certainly not surprised that it graded 55. This coin appears to have the slightest amount of wear. You won't find an XF 1916 quarter with that much leg and knee detail. The strike is typical for this coin, and although the darker, irregular toning on the head is somewhat distracting, I am far from repulsed by it.
I would have guessed 50, since my first thought was 45..... allowing for today's gradeflation.... Cheers, RickO
PCGS would have no reason to put this coin in a "details holder." It's just that I have seen more attractive examples for whatever AU grade it received.
@KollectorKing said: "Based on the various guesses & comments, I am totally stoked that our host graded the coin."
Disclaimer: I AM NO FAN OF ANY TPGS but I do use one of them to slab some of my counterfeits. I was raised by wolves and I'm a proud member of the "Attila the Hun School of Numismatics." Let the uninformed pay for their mistakes until they learn to grade for themselves or "eat cake" - widows, old folks, orphans, and the mentally challenged excluded.
Oh, If I were in charge there would be NO Hobby Protection Act either. "Eat cake suckers!"
That said, I posted that the coin is my personal XF-45. HOWEVER, IMHO, as a very close observer and long-time student of grading, ANYONE who grades the IMAGE of that coin below AU is not being realistic. This is 2017 not 1975! IMO, our hosts graded that coin OK. It is NOT Uncirculated or AU-58 (too much rub and loss of detail) although the surfaces are virtually mark free and practically all the luster is present on the reverse (the less important side). There is some discoloration in the field (easy to see change of color on the reverse). It is also NOT an XF:
@veryfine said: "When I first saw this, my immediate reaction was to grade it AU, but I couldn't put my finger on the exact numerical grade, and certainly not surprised that it graded 55. This coin appears to have the slightest amount of wear. You won't find an XF 1916 quarter with that much leg and knee detail. The strike is typical for this coin, and although the darker, irregular toning on the head is somewhat distracting, I am far from repulsed by it. "
Very well said! TPGS's put value on coins...at least that's what most professionals tell me. BTW, that's why I could never be a coin grader as I don't have a clue what the coins I look at are worth without some research.
So, The coin is ABOUT UNCIRCULATED all day, night, month and year long. Anyone disagree so far? I'M HERE TO LEARN so please make your case.
AU has several grades. As I've written before, the ANA Grading Guide screwed up the entire system by combining the loss of design and the number of marks into "Typical" and "Choice." Thankfully, the OP's coin is virtually mark free so it CANNOT be AU-50. Therefore, we have two choices, 53 or 55. IMO, the lack of marks and the pretty reverse + "market value" of the coin kicked it to AU-55. The main detracting thing on this coin is the black oxidation.
Rats, I originally bet the coin was in an AU-53 slab. WRONG. That's why I can't ever win at GTG.
Yes, and as far as not being 1975, in some ways, I'm thankful for that.
There's much talk about stricter standards back then, but in reality, it was a mixed bag.
Despite all the literature and guidebooks, grading was far from consistent, and in many cases, coins were severely overgraded.
I'm in the 50 camp. It's a beautiful, rare, key date coin that I'd be proud to own.
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947):
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/
First impressions are important, as noted above. It gives you a basis for further study in figuring out a grade.
Pete
EF45 Too much rub on obverse to be AU.
Beg to differ. My trusty 1961 Brown and Dunn grading guide lists "Abt. Uncirculated" as the top circulated grade, with "Extremely Fine" being the next highest. The AU grade was in common usage by dealers and collectors alike.
My Adolph A. Weinman signature
Thanks for the correction. My NON-memory has faded. The AU grade is even listed in Penny Whimsy (1958). I believe I was collecting coins when someone created the AU grade. I thought it happened in the 1960's.
Now I am curious as I hate to post misinformation when things are easily confirmed. I'm going to post a new discussion. Thanks Again!
AU 53 for me. Nice coin.