Reverse Engineered Grading

[coinsbygary]

According to the ANA grading course description, students are first instructed in grading principles. The students are then tested in the application of those principles by hands-on grading of certified coins with the grade blotted out. I myself would love to take an instructor lead course, but to date have not had the opportunity. To make up for it I watch on line videos, do some reading, and consult very detailed grading manuals.

 

That said, there is yet another way that I found to learn grading which is to ask myself, "How did the coin I am looking at EARN the grade it received?" Under magnification, I study the coin's surface to find subtle nuances that cause the coin to receive its assigned grade. This method is especially helpful in helping me to identify coins that are cleaned BEFORE I submit them for grading. In this instance I look at details certified coins and ask myself, "Where is the evidence of the cleaning".

 

This brings me to an NGC MS62, 1922 Grant Star Gold Dollar that I recently won through a Heritage auction. According to population reports a grade of MS62 for this coin is at the low end of the grading spectrum. Yet even the lowly graded coins find homes in collections where the value of the coin is the best its owner can afford. And that is the case with this coin in my collection.

 

In the hand this coin is fairly attractive, but then again the tiny size of the gold dollar will make almost any gold dollar to look nice in the hand. Still there was something hidden to cause my coin to be graded MS62. Close examination of my coin shows significant clashing marks and die polish lines. Yet the definition of grading is "post" strike marks and abrasions. A key point on my coin is that the luster seemed to be a little flat in places.

 

It was then with the exact angle of light that very fine hairlines became visible. I am learning to tell the difference between hairlines, die polish lines, and luster lines. Hairlines are typically fine, parallel, incuse, and look like someone swiped the coin with an abrasive cloth. These lines closely resemble cleaning lines but in this case can be caused by rough handling or packaging. The lines go across both the fields and the devices.

 

Now to tell the difference between cleaning and rough handling, let's say I have a ways to go to learn that. Otherwise, I am pleased with this coin and the clash marks make it all the more appealing to me. Notice obverse lettering and an outline of Grants forehead across the right front of the house on the reverse of this coin. I was unable to photograph the hairlines on this coin.

Gary

 

[erwindoc]

I think that there are several examples of PQ MS62 coins out there. I think that this coin is one of them. Thanks for sharing! Id love to own an example!!

[MarkFeld]

According to the ANA grading course description, students are first instructed in grading principles. The students are then tested in the application of those principles by hands-on grading of certified coins with the grade blotted out. I myself would love to take an instructor lead course, but to date have not had the opportunity. To make up for it I watch on line videos, do some reading, and consult very detailed grading manuals.

 

That said, there is yet another way that I found to learn grading which is to ask myself, "How did the coin I am looking at EARN the grade it received?" Under magnification, I study the coin's surface to find subtle nuances that cause the coin to receive its assigned grade. This method is especially helpful in helping me to identify coins that are cleaned BEFORE I submit them for grading. In this instance I look at details certified coins and ask myself, "Where is the evidence of the cleaning".

 

This brings me to an NGC MS62, 1922 Grant Star Gold Dollar that I recently won through a Heritage auction. According to population reports a grade of MS62 for this coin is at the low end of the grading spectrum. Yet even the lowly graded coins find homes in collections where the value of the coin is the best its owner can afford. And that is the case with this coin in my collection.

 

In the hand this coin is fairly attractive, but then again the tiny size of the gold dollar will make almost any gold dollar to look nice in the hand. Still there was something hidden to cause my coin to be graded MS62. Close examination of my coin shows significant clashing marks and die polish lines. Yet the definition of grading is "post" strike marks and abrasions. A key point on my coin is that the luster seemed to be a little flat in places.

 

It was then with the exact angle of light that very fine hairlines became visible. I am learning to tell the difference between hairlines, die polish lines, and luster lines. Hairlines are typically fine, parallel, incuse, and look like someone swiped the coin with an abrasive cloth. These lines closely resemble cleaning lines but in this case can be caused by rough handling or packaging. The lines go across both the fields and the devices.

 

Now to tell the difference between cleaning and rough handling, let's say I have a ways to go to learn that. Otherwise, I am pleased with this coin and the clash marks make it all the more appealing to me. Notice obverse lettering and an outline of Grants forehead across the right front of the house on the reverse of this coin. I was unable to photograph the hairlines on this coin.

Gary

 

 

I cannot comment on what I can't see. However, it appears that there are hairlines and/or light friction on the cheek (edited to add: and/or light slide marks). And for me, that, alone, would limit the grade to 63 in a best case scenario..

[RWB]

Friction = AU. Nothing better. But, still a nice coin.

[CSdot]

Appears you can see the DOLL or Dollar across the top of the reverse as well.