Is Au 53 a problem grade?

au58 · April 22, 2007 7:05AM

Seems to me it is. A "net grade" of sorts.
I looked at a 1861 $10 in AU 53 yesterday.
Not bad, except for the excessive marks.
The more I see, the more I conclude that these are coins that would grade higher if not for some sort of problem.

ColonialCoinUnion · April 22, 2007 7:07AM

It depends on the series.

fc · April 22, 2007 7:10AM

my half eagle pics with grades.

please notice the range of grades. it should be very obvious
which coins deserve the MS grade, while the AUs show less luster
but no real obvious wear. a low AU can have some marks but
nothing really obvious.

an AU can come in a wide range of looks in my mind but the common
theme should be it simply does not deserve the xf45 grade.

the coins in that range are obviously circulated at first glance.

--- CCU is right. i am just lucky enough to show a gold example
because that is what i collect.

1907Quarter · April 22, 2007 7:14AM

nothing problematic here at 53:

tjkillian · April 22, 2007 7:22AM

Believe it or not, but I do have an 1861 Eagle in a PCGS AU-53 holder and no, I do not think it has any problems. It looks great to me. I bought it off of eBay as a ACG MS-60 where I paid XF money for it.

lathmach · April 22, 2007 7:36AM

The more I see, the more I conclude that these are coins that would grade higher if not for some sort of problem

Ummmmm.............
Wouldn't all coins grade higher if it were not for some sort of problem?

Ray

Darkmane · April 22, 2007 7:37AM

I was under the presumption that only wear... plus net grading... determined circulated grades.

I don't think of 50, 53, or 55 as "problem" grades at all.

DennisH · April 22, 2007 7:49AM

With Morgans I see AU53s that run the gamut, but I don't think it is really any different than other split grades. I do think, though, that AU53 is the default number for coins that are otherwise AU58 except they have one or two big marks in the wrong place; or that are AU58s or 55s in terms of wear, lustre and strike but are overly baggy.

mozin · April 22, 2007 8:52AM

On Busties, I think AU 53 sometimes means a specimen with ordinary wear between AU 50 and AU 55, and having no special problems. More often than not, I see the holder grade of AU 53 meaning a higher graded coin for luster and wear--- but it has too many digs, or some cleaning hairlines, or some other problem making it unsuitable for the higher grade label.

Yes, generally, I think AU 53 means a specimen with some problems not ordinarily seen in higher graded coins. I would rather the grading services did not use this grade at all. JMHO

Silvermonstercoins · April 22, 2007 9:03AM

I don't think that the AU grades are indictive of anything. Some say that MS62 and MS61 is a "I can't tell if it is AU58 or an Uncirc grade". I dont believe so and have examined these coins closely. Minor rub or what I would call bag rub from the coins rubbing is still considered in most cases to be uncirculated. My suggestion is dont read to much into it since in reality the scale was orginally set up to step by 1s from 1 to 70.

TennesseeDave · April 22, 2007 9:13AM

This is a Pcgs Au-58,formerly Anacs 61

Silvermonstercoins · April 22, 2007 9:21AM

Interesting that you would take the chance of submitting that 1886 O. Must have been some reason you did so. I avoid these types of situation and rarely take coins out of any holder (assuming of course you did not accept a downgrade) and let the grader do it for whatever reason.

GoldenEyeNumismatics · April 22, 2007 9:48AM

AU53 is primarily for coins with the luster of a 55, but the detail of a 50 (or visa versa)

Longacre · April 22, 2007 9:51AM

Depends on the coin. I have an AU53 quarter eagle that looks great.

mgoodm3 · April 22, 2007 9:52AM

Does that mean that EF45 or VF35 are "problem grades" too?

RYK · April 22, 2007 10:03AM

AU-53 is one of my favorite grades:

skier07 · April 22, 2007 10:04AM

Why would you turn a $500 to $700 coin into a $100 coin? I'm sure you have your reasons.

Bruce

stman · April 22, 2007 10:05AM

I don't think any blanket statement can describe a grade. Sure some of the posts above me can very well be true. One thing also is a 53 can be better than a just made it 50, just like a VF-25 can be more of a solid VF compared to a just made it VF-20. Grades are soooooo over-rated IMO.

LeeG · April 22, 2007 10:09AM

AU-53
This is for "About Uncirculated" (the grade) and "53" (the numerical designation of that grade). Also called "Almost Uncirculated-53." There is obvious wear on the high points with light friction covering 50-75% of the fields. There are noticeable luster breaks, with most of the luster still intact in the protected areas.

Heres a AU-55 that looks pretty good to my eye:

BobaFett72 · April 22, 2007 10:12AM

"1879S 426,200 Minted, PCGS AU53"
thats a great looking coin

ill take those kind of problems hehe

Coinhog · April 23, 2007 4:18AM

<< <i>AU-53 is one of my favorite grades:

>>

Mine also!! XF45 to Au55 rocks, the coins have actually been used in commerce and who knows what stories they tell.

RYK, maybe its just the photography, but your coins seem to have much more "originality" to them. Did the coins shown in the AU grades from the previous poster seem dipped or recolored? No offense intended, they just seem "brighter". I have always wondered what the reddish type "haze" that seems present in the crevices of the devices of many old gold coins is. Is that a result up a dip clean or recoloring?

seemyauction · April 23, 2007 6:13AM

It's less of a problem than AU-50.......

AL

etexmike · April 23, 2007 6:35AM

<< <i>The more I see, the more I conclude that these are coins that would grade higher if not for some sort of problem. >>

Doesn't that statement hold true for all coins and all grades except for maybe the 70's?

-------------

etexmike

Scavenger · April 23, 2007 6:38AM

On gold coins I dont think AU53 is bad at all, when you're talking about silver it might look a little rough.

Is Au 53 a problem grade?

Comments

Leave a Comment