Options
AU55 to MS62 - Voila!
Ronyahski
Posts: 3,119 ✭✭✭✭✭
PCGS AU 55 - August 2018
NGC MS62 - October 2018
Some refer to overgraded slabs as Coffins. I like to think of them as Happy Coins.
1
Comments
I am happy for you!
...... so who is right with the grade here?
Not mine.
The former.
Geez....that one is pretty obviously circ to me.
siliconvalleycoins.com
Would have been a good "guess the grade".
The 55 grade was a big gift to begin with....or am I missing something?
I think pcgs had it right. Cool coin regardless
Collector, occasional seller
55 seemed right on to me. Looks original and nice but with obvious rub.
siliconvalleycoins.com
This is just one reason (of several) why I have no respect for the guys ATS-the Need Glasses Charlie? boys. Can ICG be any worse?
What image are you looking at?
I'm no expert on these, maybe I should have said PCGS had it closer?
Collector, occasional seller
I'm not any kind of an expert of grading gold coins......guess I need to brush up on gold before I open my big yap.
Sorry!
I actually think AU55 is a gift. The usual MS62 is a 58.
Just noticed that's a $30k grade bump. Wow!
Collector, occasional seller
Yet another reason to learn to grade for yourself, especially if you're a buyer.
...but will it CAC? Undoubtedly...no.
BST transactions: dbldie55, jayPem, 78saen, UltraHighRelief, nibanny, liefgold, FallGuy, lkeigwin, mbogoman, Sandman70gt, keets, joeykoins, ianrussell (@GC), EagleEye, ThePennyLady, GRANDAM, Ilikecolor, Gluggo, okiedude, Voyageur, LJenkins11, fastfreddie, ms70, pursuitofliberty, ZoidMeister,Coin Finder, GotTheBug, edwardjulio, Coinnmore, Nickpatton, Namvet69,...
It’s so strange that wear is disappearing and metal is returning. I never would have thought it possible.
It's been relustrified!
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
Both top tier services are losing it IMHO.
I'm just glad that I currently am not an avid collector of gold......................
What?
Wow... this reinforces the adage... buy the coin, not the plastic!
Successful BST transactions with: SilverEagles92; Ahrensdad; Smitty; GregHansen; Lablade; Mercury10c; copperflopper; whatsup; KISHU1; scrapman1077, crispy, canadanz, smallchange, robkool, Mission16, ranshdow, ibzman350, Fallguy, Collectorcoins, SurfinxHI, jwitten, Walkerguy21D, dsessom.
Looks to have obvious wear, especially in the first images.
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947):
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/
I couldn't agree more. If the two of them don't straighten up, the market will continue to decline and will never recover fully.
@insider2 - You and a handful of others seem to be a proponent of allowing coins with wear into MS holders at times in the name of "grading evolution." Can you defend this one?
No grading service is immune to the AU/MS62 (or MS61) thing. It's just that some do this more frequently than others. I don't see how professional grader can call any coin with wear Mint state.
The AU grade was appropriate... That is not an MS coin....Cheers, RickO
I don't know much about gold but my whack at a grade here would of been au50 or au53.
It def does not look ms.
I think that even AU-55 is a little generous. Here is one in AU-50, which I think is accurate. Some of the lines you see on this piece are die breaks which are rasied. This piece is a very late die state.
When I was shopping for this coin, I saw several 1939-C quarter eagles that NGC called"MS-61 or 62" that had been polished to death. Compared to those, I guess this is an MS-62.
That's just.... nuts.
I'm expecting some credentialed expert to comment on this in some forum where he will be accepted as the 'authority'; "WHAT MUST BE UNDERSTOOD IS THAT THE BRANCH MINTS AND ESPECIALLY THAT ONE IN CHARLOTTE HAD SUBSTANTIALLY SUBSTANDARD STRIKES AND IN LIGHT OF THAT THE COIN IS PROPERLY GRADED AND MARKET ACCEPTABLE!!!" LOL
That's a reverse circulated
Steve
I am not 100% convinced that those are the same coins. Yes, I see a lot of similarities in ticks, but I also see some differences - enough not to trust either image as accurately representing the coin
Soaked in Tang before resubmission or did HA's photos overexposure wise just rip it apart?
If I was the consignee at HA I would have pleaded for a Crayola drawing over those photographs.
The pictures gave me the same feeling when I first looked at it, but the more I found small marks the more they correlated.
Look at the mouth, star 13, the fields to the eagles right, the spot behind the head...
Reverse marks confirm that it is the same coin.
Hey - I get you. There’s enough similarities to suggest they came from the same coin. I’m just not convinced that they ARE the same coin. How does this curl sharpen up on the NGC coin? At a minimum, it suggests the photography differences are enough to call any grade pronouncements into question...at a maximum it suggests something more nefarious
I am convinced. Beyond color and contrast differential, three identical marked areas on reverse.
1) in field below 1st "T" in "States" - hole and deeper horizontal cut.
2) Left wing 3rd lower small feather - mark
3) Shield stripe #4 - broad bisecting mark 28% down
The piece has not been "relustrified". It has been "refurbished"
Perhaps Tang mixed with Gulden's Mustard and sealed with 1958 Cohiba smoke?
I absolutely agree with TDN that the photography differences make grading from these photos a guessing game. I think you can draw some tentative conclusions but would have to see the coin in hand to really come to a definitive conclusion.
Based on detail/wear I would grade this coin 40-45.
not sure whether it is the same coin but keep in mind that it isn't unusual for NGC gold to get a grade less money than pcgs gold
62 can be a circulated grade in market grading which is used by all the TPGs and taught by the ANA.
The first picture is typical of what Heritage does when they overexpose the item. The color gets washed out, and sometimes some of the marks get blasted off the photo only to appear when you see or get the coin. At the same time, I think that the surfaces have been darkened.
I think that this coin needs to be closer to Unc. to call it Unc. Such are the oxymorons of market grading.
calling on @Insider2
I would expect that from a self-slabber/ 4th tier (PCCS, NCG, etc.) but not from NGC.
Check out my current listings: https://ebay.com/sch/khunt/m.html?_ipg=200&_sop=12&_rdc=1
You convinced me --- it's neither AU or MS-62. It's a middling EF with a lot of bumps and nicks.
The coin was bought out of a Heritage auction in a PCGS AU55 holder, cracked out and sent to NGC, came back NGC MS62. That is a very significant grade for an 1939-C quarter eagle, as there are only four known in the grade, and only one coin graded higher, an NGC MS63 that has not been seen since 1999.
This coin is also significant as a die marriage. There are three die marriages for 1839-C, and this coin is the rarest marriage, an R-6 with an estimated 25 known.
I see lots of calls for an AU grade, a few for a bit lower, and none so far for MS.
The strike on this marriage is always weak within the stars, and weak at the wing tips, which is an unusual spot. So some might think they are seeing additional wear on the coin.
All of the coins of this marriage also have a striking defect on the face of Liberty, covering most of the cheek and behind the eye. It may look like marks and chatter in the pictures. I call these coins Bandit Face, looks like Miss Liberty is wearing an eye mask.
Interesting!
My YouTube Channel
Nice coin, but not MS.
FSF - you've been here a month and 98% of your 50 posts have said this. Any other words in your vocabulary?
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"