Grading AU58's -Do they meet the standard

coastaljerseyguy · September 9, 2021 3:00PM

Been some good discussions lately on the boards regarding AU and MS, and from those I've learned some new info about how coins are graded. I've been a collector for almost 20 years and I've just read the ANA standards for the first time. I did buy the Photograde book early but mostly learned how to grade Morgans based on viewing PCGS, NGC and ANACS slabs.

Rather than hijack these earlier threads, I decided to start a new one. I've purchased 4 better date Morgans in AU58. 1 ANACS, 1 PCGS and 2 NGC. All were broken out and placed in my Dansco.

Do you think they meet the standard of Choice AU58 - lite wear on an MS coins with few distracting contact marks and with good eye appeal? Are they worth MS60 money?

What order, best to worst, would you select? Which one is the ANACS coin? Don't have the best photo setup, but hopefully these different shots accurately depict the coins.

gumby1234 · September 9, 2021 3:13PM

They all look accurately graded from the photos. I will guess the 99S was Anacs.

airplanenut · September 9, 2021 3:35PM

It's hard to say from the photos, but a few thoughts from what I see:

-The 1886-O has a few scratches in the prime focal area of the obverse, and those are distracting.

-It may be the lighting, but the halos around the lettering and the hairlining in the reverse fields on the 79-S make me wonder if it's been wiped.

-Asking about MS60 money is the wrong question, since MS60s are almost exclusively very unappealing. To me, the ideal AU58 is a coin that would be MS63 or higher but it has a minor rub or lustre break. An MS60 with a lustre break is not going to be a nice coin.

The 1899-S looks to be the coin with the strongest lustre/least break. From the photos, I think it's the best coin in the bunch. It's not lit well, but as lit, it's the one that could get a pass from me as possibly being uncirculated (I wouldn't make a definitive statement without better photos). The 79-S and 86-S, I can't gauge the surface quality and how much lustre remains from the photos (other than what I said above about the 79-S). They may be nice coins, but I can't see it. The 2nd set of obverse photos shows the 86-S with little lustre in the left obverse field, and on a 58, I'd like to see at least some lustre remaining there, if not most of it. That could be from the lighting, or if the coin has slightly reflective fields there will be less visible lustre. I'd hope the 86-O has good lustre, because as shot, it seems a bit flat and I don't like the marks (looking at the smaller photos, it may have decent lustre).

pmh1nic · September 9, 2021 3:55PM

I agree with airplanenut. The 99 is the strongest candidate for AU-58 in my opinion. I'd disqualify the 86-O based on the distracting contact marks in prime focal areas. The quality of the photographs of the other two coins aren't clear enough to make a judgment. As mentioned in the other thread my view of what constitutes a 58 is no longer the industry standard so what the TPG companies would grade them today may be a different story. Others that are better versed in how coins are graded today may chime in.

pursuitofliberty · September 9, 2021 3:56PM

All of Jeremy's notes noted ... and worth reading ...

IMHO

They all look correctly graded, with the possible exception of the 86-O. It looks more like a 55 (more subdued luster, more wear and more circulation marks), but certainly appears to be the most original and 86-O's have weaker strikes than the other three dates. Also I think the lighting accentuates the cheek marks, and not in a good way.

The 99-s is probably technically the nicest if we were to rank the group, the 79-s the "weakest". The 79-s and 86-s both appear to have some PL qualities.

coastaljerseyguy · September 9, 2021 4:23PM

Great comments so far To not preclude other opinions, all I can add is the 86-O has a lot of original skin and does not appear dipped. The 99-S has slightly less while the 86-s is blast white . Yes the 79S rev 78 has a littkle rim toning on both sides. The lighting is a little off since 1 of the 2 bulbs has blown in my desk lamp.

Mr_Spud · September 9, 2021 5:04PM

Best to worst 4,2,1,3

jesbroken · September 9, 2021 5:07PM

I like the 79 and the 99 for AU58. I think either would be a great addition to an album.
Jim

ricko · September 10, 2021 5:41AM

@airplanenut has provided an excellent analysis... far better than I could give based on those pictures. I would say they are good album coins. Cheers, RickO

coastaljerseyguy · September 10, 2021 6:28AM

Thanks for all your feedback and very astute observations. In hand, I agree the 99-S is the best of the bunch, but all probably worthy of the AU58 grade and MS63 and above pre-circulation. The 86-O does have the most originality followed by the 99-S. The post mint 'friction' on the 86-O does stand out & highlighted by the lighting used, & break in skin caused by the friction. The coin is a little darker in hand. Its a shame since there is little other chatter on the coin. The 79S and 86S do have a semi-PL appearance but that is common for that date and mint. The 86S probably has the most overall chatter.

Coins on the right side of the photos appear brighter as this was the side aligned with my 1 bulb.

291fifth · September 10, 2021 6:35AM

AU58 by whose standard is the question. Of the four coins you show none of them make AU58 by my personal standard. My standard for the grade is more demanding than what the TPG's seem to use.

To me an AU58 must look mint state at first glance. Wear will only be obvious on close examination. They must be essentially mark free and well struck.

Set you own strict standard for grading. Don't just buy labeled plastic that is covered with stickers.

coastaljerseyguy · September 10, 2021 7:00AM

I welcome all opinions and appreciate your comments. I am a small collector and do not have the experience of many of the posters here. Always looking to improve knowledge. Since I bot 99.9% of my coins via internet I did rely on the TPGs standards, and seller photos to some extent.