Options
Grading from "the good old days" Answers revealed
BillJones
Posts: 35,808 ✭✭✭✭✭
With all the talk about changes in grading standards, let's what you think the grades are for a couple of pieces that were graded more than 15 years ago. Here is the first, an 1853 $10 gold.
And here is a 1901 $10, pre-slab.
So what are your grades?
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 ... ?
3
Comments
1853 MS-62
1901 MS-63
1853 MS-63
1901 MS-64
Both are LOVELY
63,64
AU58
MS63
62
64
ANA LM
USAF Retired — 34 years of active military service! 🇺🇸
58, 63
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest....Abraham Lincoln
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.....Mark Twain
AU55
MS63
61
63
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947):
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/
58,60.
58 (AU62 today)
65
AU; average Unc.
AU-58
MS-62
Beautiful Coins!
A government accident left me a former man, a potato. That photo on my profile is a low resolution selfie. I like coins.
62
63
Not real good on gold, but I'd say AU58 and MS63.
Louis Armstrong
AU55.
MS61.
61 & 63
Best place to buy !
Bronze Associate member
MS 61 - 1853
MS63 - 1901
Indian Head $10 Gold Date Set Album
55-62
58, 63
58, 64
50:50
That's my odds of 'guessing' correctly..........so I will sit back and learn
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
This would have been a really fun discussion however I'm going to bet that you picked out anomalies. Hopefully, they were both graded by the Top two TPGS as the others were stricter. Fifteen years + ago, the standards were much tighter than they are today so I'm hoping that is the point of this discussion.
That said I'm too chicken to GTG. :'(
IMHO the 1901 was graded MS-64 and it would be today. My guess: 64
The first coin could be graded AU-53 to MS-62 and the grade could be defended. This coin is an AU that I would send to the next grader for a "detailed" label. Since I think you "hand-picked" these two, I have no clue what a major TPGS graded it as I said: AU-53 to MS-62 can be defended. Sorry I chickened out.
I agree with REALGATOR here. If graded today the 1853 piece should go MS63. The 1901 has the color, luster and strike of a gem, only the contact marks near the lips hold it to 64.
60
and
63
BHNC #203
I'm with
63
64
as well, The top one looks played with.
Hoard the keys.
Ditto!
MS60
MS63
My YouTube Channel
Beats me. Up, down and side to side. Your guess is better than mine, but it's a really fun guessing game.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
BU rub
Ch BU
No one has responded for almost two hours so I guess it's time to post the grades.
I bought the first piece in the mid 1990s, and it is an NGC AU-58. It is one of those "58/62" coins that is an AU piece that is worth low end Unc. money. The Liberty, No Motto $10 gold coin is a tough coin in Mint State or close to it, even for a common date like 1853. Ten dollars was a lot of money in the 19th century, and few collectors could set aside $10 and let it do nothing except sit in a coin cabinet. Coins like this probably "got lucky" in the bag and never got too marked up.
I bought the second coin in the mid 1960s when I was in high school. When I submitted it for grading about 20 years ago, I expected to get an MS-64. It had once been in an MS-63 "rattle holder." It rattled, and I didn't like that, so I cracked it out.
When it came back in an NGC MS-65 holder, I just had to laugh and shake my head. "No way," I said when the dealer who submitted it for me. After I pointed out the small marks by the mouth and the one of the reverse the dealer agreed with me.
Today I look at what makes it into MS-65 holders for this type, and I guess time as caught up with the grade. The near perfect ones which once graded MS-65 are now graded higher. So now the grade looks more ... "modern."
Here is another look at the piece. It has full luster on both sides with no breaks in the cartwheel and no wear. It's Choice Unc. for sure, but not a Gem Unc., at least not 30 years ago.
This is why I do not collect post 1839 mint state common date gold. In order to find a coin I like, I usually am looking at high end 66s and MS67 coins. I refuse to pay huge premiums for otherwise common coins to acquire a decent specimen. This is especially true when you consider the prospect of European hoards driving the prices down.
The reverse of your 1901 is very clean even for gem standards and the obverse fields aren't bad. I find the marks on the cheek distracting, but have seen worse in 65 holders.
I would have said 63, 64.
The hairlines on the 1853 might have knocked it to 61/2. Luster is good though.
Bill: Your second set of images of the 1901 piece hide some of the contact marks quite well and give it a full gem appearance. That glowing color and booming luster are unmistakably gem level.
Summary -- There are no standards; modern "grading" is simply fantasy and deception.
VF30
VF35
+1
The 2nd set of pictures makes the coin look a whole lot better.
@BillJones “It rattled, and I didn't like that, so I crack it out.”
...sounds like something Indiana Jones says to a snake handler
Sweet !!!
I would have said 58 and 63... so half right... Would not have guessed 65 on the 1901.... Either way, they are gold and I like them...
Cheers, RickO