Guess the Grade just for fun! 1 1

[RWB]

9 hours ago, kbbpll said:

This is where I love a learning experience. How much difference is there, really? Granted, all we have are images on here, and there's hardly any difference in value. You put these almost 3 grade points apart. I tally up the various marks and severity, and it's almost a tossup.

Look more closely. The coin on the right has a deep gouge across the face, prominent scratches in the left field, and a large crater at the truncation (above '8'). These things alone put it in the Unc-60 category. Both coins have a lot of dings and scrapes but the left coin has none of the major problems mentioned. The facial scratch is very distracting in the photo an limit the coin to 62 at the highest.

As another poster mentioned, it hardly matters since both a bullion coins.

[Insider]

9 hours ago, MAULEMALL said:

AU 60 Is my grade for thumbed sliders.. Wouldn't pay MS money... Just a personal thing...

That's nice to know. Fortunately, neither of these coins is thumbed nor AU. 

[RWB]

[As an aside - there is no "AU-60" or similar "grade." About Uncirculated (AU) is a unitary grade: it has no subdivisions. The reason is that it is the first trace of wear on a coin so it marks the division between Uncirculated and circulated. Most, especially those who make money on stretching grades and sliding things around to pump-up prices (but not value) will uniformly disagree.]

[ldhair]

I would call both coins MS-60.

[MAULEMALL]

2 hours ago, Insider said:

That's nice to know. Fortunately, neither of these coins is thumbed nor AU. 

 meh...

[VKurtB]

13 hours ago, RWB said:

[As an aside - there is no "AU-60" or similar "grade." About Uncirculated (AU) is a unitary grade: it has no subdivisions. The reason is that it is the first trace of wear on a coin so it marks the division between Uncirculated and circulated. Most, especially those who make money on stretching grades and sliding things around to pump-up prices (but not value) will uniformly disagree.]

Nope, not correct. There is AU50, AU53, AU55, and AU58. Pretty stout to have 4 grades in a range that the U.K. doesn't even recognize at all. They go right from XF to Unc.

Edited August 17, 2020 by VKurtB

[Alex in PA.]

VKurtB is correct:

 

Edited August 17, 2020 by Alex in PA.

[RWB]

44 minutes ago, VKurtB said:

Nope, not correct. There is AU50, AU53, AU55, and AU58. Pretty stout to have 4 grades in a range that the U.K. doesn't even recognize at all. They go right from XF to Unc.

Nope, VKurtB, it is you who are not correct. You have obviously bought into the scam of "stretch grading" whereby fixed points are no longer fixed. This is perfect for skewing prices upward without the addition of any value whatsoever.

I fully realize that most do not agree with my comments. That's OK -- that is to their detriment, not mine. When examining coins I do so with a consistent set of reference points and stable definitions ... one of which I mentioned above as "AU." Like "MS-70" it is an empirical grade which defines the "highest condition" of circulated coins just as "MS-70" does for uncirculated coins. It is ALWAYS a point and never a range. Other circulated "grades" have ranges, just as uncirculated coins have a range based on degradation from "MS-70."

[RWB]

4 minutes ago, Alex in PA. said:

VKurtB is correct:

Nope. See the reply, above

[Insider]

On ‎8‎/‎16‎/‎2020 at 1:38 AM, kbbpll said:

This is where I love a learning experience. How much difference is there, really? Granted, all we have are images on here, and there's hardly any difference in value. You put these almost 3 grade points apart. I tally up the various marks and severity, and it's almost a tossup.

Actually, I'd sell the coins ONE COMMERCIAL GRADE apart.  One as a 61 and the other as a 63.  The difference at Heritage is probably $40-$50.  

[Insider]

12 hours ago, MAULEMALL said:

 meh...

Meh, meh?   Are you here to offer opinions, disagree, agree. and possibly  learn something???

 

IMO, both coins posted here are Uncirculated. They are not thumbed.  Now, if you care to interact with me and the rest of the members posting here, perhaps you can tell us WHAT YOU SEE ON THE COINS to arrive at your opinion.  Take a shot as you may be able to change my opinion and teach me something.   

[Alex in PA.]

24 minutes ago, RWB said:

Nope. See the reply, above

It isn't that I am being disagreeable with you RWB.  Perhaps I do not understand what you mean.   All I know is the TPGs use that in their grading.  For example, NGC uses the following:

U58

 

Slight wear on the highest points of the design. Full details.

AU55

 

Slight wear on less than 50% of the design. Full details.

AU53

 

Slight wear on more than 50% of the design. Full details except for very minor softness on the high points.

AU50

 

Slight wear on more than 50% of the design. Full details except for minor softness on the high points.

[RWB]

Let’s look at this a little more closely.

 

Generations of coin collectors of all types and resource levels have separated coins into three collecting categories:

1.      Uncirculated

2.      Circulated

3.      Identifiable/Damaged

 

We also call these “grading bins.” A specific “grade” is about abbreviating the natural range of degradation/preservation or deterioration from origin of coins, medals, etc. Each represents a self-contained continuum built on certain criteria that define the range.

 

For example, “uncirculated” refers to a coin/medal, etc. which shows no evidence of circulation or handling by people. If it is exactly as it came from the dies, we call it “MS-70” or “Unc-70” for convenience and to avoid writing out the definition on little 2x2 coin holders. All coins acquire marks, scratches, nicks and other surface damage after they leave the dies – even sliding down a metal chute and contacting another coin is sufficient to cause multiple marks. As more marks are acquired, we subjectively feel the coin is less attractive or desirable, and assign a name and an arbitrary number between 60 and 69 to abbreviate the coin’s description. In no instance can the coin have deep marks or otherwise have damage that makes on question its authenticity or full metal content.

 

Circulated follows the same pattern when we establish a unitary upper or beginning point. In this argument “About Uncirculated (AU)” is the unitary equivalent of “MS-70.” AU is thus the first detection of non-mechanical handling; admittedly this is subjective but must be held within a tight boundary if the rest of the scale it to have stability. To stabilize AU we add two descriptors: 1) “slightest trace of wear on the highest points of the design,” and/or 2) “slight disturbance of luster in the fields.” The “and/or” statement means that either one or both can be present on an AU coin to separate it from an uncirculated coin. The balance of circulated conditions are verbal descriptions to which arbitrary numbers are assigned by various groups, organizations and others who have their own purposes and goals….That is, there is no widely accepted meaning to any of the numbers and no empirical definition.

 

The last category refers to any coin that can be identified but that is about all. It also includes coins that might otherwise fall into some accepted preservation but have been subject to gross abuse, alteration, mutilation, or damage. We often call these “culls” or “slicks” or other terms to indicate they are largely free of the usual collector interest. (For now, we’ll ignore “low ball” collectors who want to have the most heavily worn but identifiable coins.)

The preceding is not expected or intended to convince anyone of anything – except possibly to consider the non-system we use and how it might be made more meaningful and objective.

[Just Bob]

Definitely one of the more interesting Guess the Grade threads that I have been a part of.

[VKurtB]

And it is yet another (as if we needed one, which we don't) example of @RWB speaking in absolutist terms about a subject, when it is merely his own very poorly thought out opinion, and the entirety of the hobby stands at HUGE opposition to his views. So unless you like living in a "RWB is right, and everyone else is wrong" world (I don't care to live in that world), we should probably ignore RWB.

[Insider]

20 minutes ago, RWB said:

Nope, VKurtB, it is you who are not correct. You have obviously bought into the scam of "stretch grading" whereby fixed points are no longer fixed. This is perfect for skewing prices upward without the addition of any value whatsoever.

I fully realize that most do not agree with my comments. That's OK -- that is to their detriment, not mine. When examining coins I do so with a consistent set of reference points and stable definitions ... one of which I mentioned above as "AU." Like "MS-70" it is an empirical grade which defines the "highest condition" of circulated coins just as "MS-70" does for uncirculated coins. It is ALWAYS a point and never a range. Other circulated "grades" have ranges, just as uncirculated coins have a range based on degradation from "MS-70."

I'd like to agree with both of you but there cannot be any agreement anymore.  At one time, the line between AU and MS was well defined.  No trace of wear.  SOME FOLLOWED THAT STANDARD and some did not.  Each passing year, there are fewer folks who have heard of that standard or actually used it!   That standard is virtually gone forever. 

There are ranges of both MS and AU.  Unfortunately, the geniuses' who wrote the ANA Grading Guide forever screwed the system beginning with AU.   While the AU grade range was once determined EXCLUSEVELY by the amount of additional wear on a coin, the ANA combined that with the number of marks - typical & choice. 

Grading is a personal thing.  It is your money.  The most knowledgeable collectors and best professional dealers know the commercial grade of coins and it may not agree with their personal standards.  COIN GRADING IS SIMPLE.  Discussions as this thread make it seem complicated.  If collector A calls the OP's coin MS-60 he is correct.  If collector B grades it MS-61 he is correct.  The collector who called it 62 is ALSO correct and in this case he is probably MORE CORRECT because he agrees with the commercial grade assigned by a top TPGS! 

IMO, the OP's coin is an MS-60.  If it came into a TPGS I worked for, I would grade it MS-61.  The finalizer would possibly raise my grade to MS-62 in order to reflect the company standards.  I would not buy the coin BUT I would sell it as an MS-62 all-day-long (with no thought to the collector with a lower standard than mine) and sleep like a baby.  See, simple. 

[Insider]

15 minutes ago, RWB said:

Let’s look at this a little more closely.

 

 

 

Generations of coin collectors of all types and resource levels have separated coins into three collecting categories:

 

1.      Uncirculated

 

2.      Circulated

 

3.      Identifiable/Damaged

 

 

 

We also call these “grading bins.” A specific “grade” is about abbreviating the natural range of degradation/preservation or deterioration from origin of coins, medals, etc. Each represents a self-contained continuum built on certain criteria that define the range.

 

 

 

For example, “uncirculated” refers to a coin/medal, etc. which shows no evidence of circulation or handling by people. If it is exactly as it came from the dies, we call it “MS-70” or “Unc-70” for convenience and to avoid writing out the definition on little 2x2 coin holders. All coins acquire marks, scratches, nicks and other surface damage after they leave the dies – even sliding down a metal chute and contacting another coin is sufficient to cause multiple marks. As more marks are acquired, we subjectively feel the coin is less attractive or desirable, and assign a name and an arbitrary number between 60 and 69 to abbreviate the coin’s description. In no instance can the coin have deep marks or otherwise have damage that makes on question its authenticity or full metal content.

 

 

 

Circulated follows the same pattern when we establish a unitary upper or beginning point. In this argument “About Uncirculated (AU)” is the unitary equivalent of “MS-70.” AU is thus the first detection of non-mechanical handling; admittedly this is subjective but must be held within a tight boundary if the rest of the scale it to have stability. To stabilize AU we add two descriptors: 1) “slightest trace of wear on the highest points of the design,” and/or 2) “slight disturbance of luster in the fields.” The “and/or” statement means that either one or both can be present on an AU coin to separate it from an uncirculated coin. The balance of circulated conditions are verbal descriptions to which arbitrary numbers are assigned by various groups, organizations and others who have their own purposes and goals….That is, there is no widely accepted meaning to any of the numbers and no empirical definition.

 

 

 

The last category refers to any coin that can be identified but that is about all. It also includes coins that might otherwise fall into some accepted preservation but have been subject to gross abuse, alteration, mutilation, or damage. We often call these “culls” or “slicks” or other terms to indicate they are largely free of the usual collector interest. (For now, we’ll ignore “low ball” collectors who want to have the most heavily worn but identifiable coins.)

 

The preceding is not expected or intended to convince anyone of anything – except possibly to consider the non-system we use and how it might be made more meaningful and objective.

Roger.  There are several MAJOR ERRORS in your post.  

Unfortunately, I don't have time to post what they are at the moment.  I will take them one at a time over the next few days as you, I and others here are going to have an excellent discussion worthy of anything posted on the Internet.  I hope we can get some NGC graders to add their comments at night after work.  

[Insider]

13 minutes ago, VKurtB said:

And it is yet another (as if we needed one, which we don't) example of @RWB speaking in absolutist terms about a subject, when it is merely his own very poorly thought out opinion, and the entirety of the hobby stands at HUGE opposition to his views. So unless you like living in a "RWB is right, and everyone else is wrong" world (I don't care to live in that world), we should probably ignore RWB.

Perhaps you have the time to start pointing out exactly what you disagree with.  It may save me a lot of typing over the next few days.  Also, please keep your comments about Roger or any other member out of your posts.  Example:  You can call a member an ignorant, know-it-all, but then please explain the errors in his post so we all can learn something from you..

[VKurtB]

4 minutes ago, Insider said:

Perhaps you have the time to start pointing out exactly what you disagree with.  It may save me a lot of typing over the next few days.  Also, please keep your comments about Roger or any other member out of your posts.  Example:  You can call a member an ignorant, know-it-all, but then please explain the errors in his post so we all can learn something from you..

Roger has strong opinions, VERY strong ones. But he writes about them as if they are absolute truths, rather than offering them in the vocabulary of opinion. Not only are very many of his views merely opinions, they are very thinly held opinions in the field.

[VKurtB]

1 hour ago, RWB said:

Nope, VKurtB, it is you who are not correct. You have obviously bought into the scam of "stretch grading" whereby fixed points are no longer fixed. This is perfect for skewing prices upward without the addition of any value whatsoever.

I fully realize that most do not agree with my comments. That's OK -- that is to their detriment, not mine. When examining coins I do so with a consistent set of reference points and stable definitions ... one of which I mentioned above as "AU." Like "MS-70" it is an empirical grade which defines the "highest condition" of circulated coins just as "MS-70" does for uncirculated coins. It is ALWAYS a point and never a range. Other circulated "grades" have ranges, just as uncirculated coins have a range based on degradation from "MS-70."

If you are trying to tell me there is no "value difference" between an AU50 coin and an AU58 coin, I want some of what you're smoking. And no, not every coin right off the dies, even if removed manually, is a 70.

Edited August 17, 2020 by VKurtB

[Insider]

24 minutes ago, VKurtB said:

If you are trying to tell me there is no "value difference" between an AU50 coin and an AU58 coin, I want some of what you're smoking. And no, not every coin right off the dies, even if removed manually, is a 70.

That IS NOT what he posted.  Value has nothing to do with a coin's actual & observable condition of preservation. It is an important add-on in the commercial market where a coins actual condition DOES NOT MATTER in many cases.  

I agree 100% w/Roger what he posted about "fixed" points.  Put a gun to someone's head or offer them a million dollars so the answer has no wiggle room and there are two FIXED points in the grading scale that cannot be argued with: The AU/MS line - AU (trace of wear visible as a loss of original surface no matter the cause) and an MS-70 coin - perfect.  

Just because the industry does not follow this does not make Roger wrong.  His statement is classic: AU, like "MS-70" it is an empirical grade which defines the "highest condition" of circulated coins just as "MS-70" does for uncirculated coins. It is ALWAYS a point and never a range. 

[VKurtB]

13 minutes ago, Insider said:

Just because the industry does not follow this does not make Roger wrong

That is the crux of our disagreement. No individual, or small group of individuals, get to declare the industry wrong. Even the ANA's so-called Official Grading Standards state that strict technical grading is obsolete. I don't expect you to concur, but I do.

Edited August 17, 2020 by VKurtB

[MAULEMALL]

2 hours ago, Insider said:

Meh, meh?   Are you here to offer opinions, disagree, agree. and possibly  learn something???

 

IMO, both coins posted here are Uncirculated. They are not thumbed.  Now, if you care to interact with me and the rest of the members posting here, perhaps you can tell us WHAT YOU SEE ON THE COINS to arrive at your opinion.  Take a shot as you may be able to change my opinion and teach me something.   

You come off too arrogantly..  is good enough for you..

[MAULEMALL]

2 hours ago, Just Bob said:

Definitely one of the more interesting Guess the Grade threads that I have been a part of.

you're welcome😎

[RWB]

...keep thinking.....

:)

[Just Bob]

3 hours ago, RWB said:

... one of which I mentioned above as "AU." Like "MS-70" it is an empirical grade which defines the "highest condition" of circulated coins just as "MS-70" does for uncirculated coins. It is ALWAYS a point and never a range. Other circulated "grades" have ranges, just as uncirculated coins have a range based on degradation from "MS-70."

So, could not this issue be resolved by defining AU as you have in the following quote:

 

2 hours ago, RWB said:

AU is thus the first detection of non-mechanical handling; admittedly this is subjective but must be held within a tight boundary if the rest of the scale it to have stability. To stabilize AU we add two descriptors: 1) “slightest trace of wear on the highest points of the design,” and/or 2) “slight disturbance of luster in the fields.” The “and/or” statement means that either one or both can be present on an AU coin to separate it from an uncirculated coin.

...and then assigning it the numerical grade of 59? Then the EF range could be extended to include all of the numbers to 58.

Or, am I completely missing the point?

Edited August 17, 2020 by Just Bob

[VKurtB]

 

11 minutes ago, Just Bob said:

So, could not this issue be resolved by defining AU as you have in the following quote:

 

...and then assigning it the numerical grade of 59? Then EF range could be extended to include all of the numbers to 58.

Or, am I completely missing the point?

I believe there is no point to be missed.

Edited August 17, 2020 by VKurtB

[VKurtB]

Have any of you ever encountered the Hertzbrung-Russell Diagram in astronomy? It is a graph that plots luminosity against temperature of stars. There is a so-called "main sequence"  of stars that are, for lack of an excessively accurate and understandable term, "normal" stars. That is where most stars reside. Numismatics and grading have a similar "main sequence", and that is where most coins lie, where level of preservation replaces temperature, and grade/value replaces luminosity. Here's the rub - just as there are non-main-sequence stars, there are non-main-sequence coins. Coins with other non-preservation faults are the dwarf stars. Extreme rarities are the super-giants, etc. What is happening lately is the main sequence now has a wrinkle in it, where AU58-MS62 get intertwined. One of two things had to happen. Either we could have a system where some AU coins brought better prices than some MS coins, or we needed to redefine AU58-MS62 to make it fit the market. And that is what is under way. If we tick off a few traditionalists, I'm waaaaaay more than okay with that.

Edited August 17, 2020 by VKurtB

[kbbpll]

I can't add much to this other than that I looked at a bunch of 1893 $5 between MS60-MS63 on Heritage last night and it seems all over the map to me. MS63 coins much worse than MS61, MS60 better than MS62, etc etc. ANACS seemed stricter than NGC or PCGS. Prices all over the place. I wouldn't want to be a grader, particularly not gold. (Mostly because I'd get fired after the first hour). On the obverse comparison I posted, I really see them about the same. (You're fired!) The gash across the cheek on the OP coin I see more as a rub and not too deep, while the other coin's gash looks deep. There's more chatter in the lower right field, but less above the hair and around the date. The left field on the OP coin has that one big gash, but otherwise they look about the same to me. (You're fired! Again! How many times do we have to fire you?)

[Insider]

1 hour ago, MAULEMALL said:

You come off too arrogantly..  is good enough for you..

Fair enough.  I admit to having a very low tolerance for numismatic nonsense that cannot be defended.   I guess I just expected to read more from a seasoned veteran numismatist with almost twenty years on this forum.  

Edited August 17, 2020 by Insider