Just For Fun! How Would You Grade These Coins?

If somebody, anybody decides to use APCGS to grade their coins and are content with the results then who are we to criticize.
They and they alone will discover any plus or minuses if and when they move the coins on.!
Living in South Australia I am fortunate to be surrounded by several people who are extremely knowledgeable in the art of grading which perhaps taints my point of view.
I find it amusing after two years that I still don't know who owns and or grades for APCGS, despite many attempts to discover the facts on many forums. Surely an Australian owned company would offer full disclosure to help boost their customer base.

My 'agenda' was to invite people to comment on the great differences between the three coins, despite the fact that they all had exactly the same grading.

My observations over the last year or so led me to become increasingly sceptical about the two major grading companies, and if you look at American forums discussing them, there is considerable dissatisfaction afoot there for various reasons I won't go into here because they relate to the grading of American coins.

I did not set out to 'promote' APCGS - in fact the opposite, because the stimulus for this thread was the fact that the APCGS guy told me that one of my most perfect coins was not in a 'mint state' and therefore would not receive an MS grade. I therefore wanted to learn more about what a mint state actually was and in that context I was horrified when I saw that the third coin is regarded by someone at the PCGS as being in a 'mint state.' (It seems to me that it most certainly is not.)

However, when the issue came up I took the position that there should be an Australian company grading Australian coins. I think it stinks that we have to send our coins to the U.S. and pay a small fortune for the privilege of being told pretty much the same thing a capable Australian grader would be able to say. So I didn't come here to promote APCGS, but I have ended up being more pro-APCGS than I was when the thread began.

What I find myself wondering now is whether, for example, the Dutch get their coins graded by a Dutch company or whether they also send them to the PCGS and the NGC. The Germans? The French? It would be interesting to know what views prevail on this subject in Europe.

Are we really going to start an argument here?

As someone who frequents both the Canadian and US section let me tell you that each forum has atleast one TPG criticizer...(Will not name names)....

IMO...

It is very hard to differentiate in the grades ok?
Any guess by any member is an educated guess to their own abilities and anyone can make the point that all 3 are of the same grade. Lots of different factors are evident here. First, one of the coins is toned. I'd like to use the example of Morgan dollars here:




Both are graded exactly the same, yet the splotchy toning makes each coin look vastly different.

Secondly, weak strikes.

The coin that many are calling AU or gVF even may as well be MS. Actual wear caused on a coin is a result of circulation and a coin that is struck weakly due to dies even with very weak details is considered MS (Hence the definition of mint state).

Just my Three Cents (Pun intended)..

Although all 3 coins have the same grade they are not equal. I look past the toning in my assessment of coins (I am partial to toning)and look for things like lustre, dings and bagging. That '52 has far too many dings to make 63. If it is MS then it is a problem MS (like when you turn your nose up at a MS60 to select an attractive AU coin for the same money).
I am a fan of PCGS but this is another case of buy the coin and not the slab.
Also I have noted over the past 6 months the seller is selling his culls and several of his slabbed coin appear to be generous/overgrades by the slabbers(like his 1940 MS63 florin that has dings comparable to typical MS61-62 florins)

I've seen this coin in the flesh. It is UNC, and was purchased from an ANDA dealer as an UNC raw coin.
The pcgs pictures for the submission weren't flattering (have a look at the other coins with certificate numbers around this one and see how bad they are)
It is an MS63BN coin. It's actually quite a wide range for the coins that fall into the MS63 mark. Were PCGS easy on it.. In all honesty, I think it was a 50 / 50.

So, WWWWW, the element of subjectivity isn't removed by the slabbing/grading process. It concerns me a little, as I considered the grading an important element, as after all, slabbing protects coin and guarantees the grade. And according to the marketplace, grading is subjective. This point is very clear even just in this thread. It's still buyer beware, You still need to carefully examine the product, regardless of the grade. I can understand the grading from a scientific point of view, you have put that across very well. If we look at this coin in terms of sales potential, how does this '52 compare with other '52 MS63 graded coins?

Trout,lustre comes into play well before the higher MS coins. I have a NGC AU58 Canberra that has great lustre, had it been dull and lifeless would it still make 58 or drop to 55?
Sfitzernator, the '52 does have one thing going for it (look at the 2), if the coin wasn't so butt ugly I would have bid on it the day it was listed.

There are strictly defined criteria for each MS grade with respect to surface preservation, strike and lustre. A coin would need to meet all the criteria for its given grading to make a specific grade. The grade may be increased by up to a point for exceptional eye appeal (this is extremely rare, even half a point upgrades are rare). As the standards are very well defined, subjectivity is minimised but the interpretation of the criteria does leave borderline coins open to subjectivity.

Comparing with other 1952-A pennies, it depends on what you like. For every coin graded MS63, there is a reason why it didn't make MS64. For 1952-A pennies it's usually water staining, carbon streaks or surface marks. In this case it's the latter two. For example, some collectors don't mind carbon streaks at all so a coin knocked down to MS63 strictly for carbon streaks may be worth an MS64 price to them. With decent photographs, this coin wouldn't sell for less than an average MS63 but it wouldn't command a premium either.




Lustre doesn't directly come into play below MS, but lustre is indicative of surface preservation which does come into play. i.e. lustre lost to environmental dulling won't drop a 58 to 55, but lustre lost to surface damage may.




It's not a requirement, but most AU58s will have it as lustre is typically only lost to wear. So a coin with little wear will lose little lustre. Some metals however are more prone to environmental dulling (e.g. bronze) so they'll more frequently be seen in AU58 with minimal lustre.