1832 Lima Peru 8R - Guess The Grade

What about that one ? Graded by ANACS (before I broke it from its plastic coffin).
Frankly it looks at least better on the shield side:




PS : those were not well struck on the portrait side, grading don't depend on how it's struck - but how its worn out ... particularly for non modern coins (if I figured that out properly)

Mine is 25.96g - underweight ... (slabbed by ANACS - not sure how much they check their coins before putting them in coffins)
Full luster on one side, half luster on the other side.

Weak strikes are certainly common throughout the Lima Liberty-type (though it's not mandatory... you actually see quite a few well-struck 1832s, for example... but then also really flat ones, and others in between). But as Buffalo nickel old-timers will tell you, that's a crutch people often use as an excuse for gradeflation. Roman, you should know from the portrait 8R... how many times do you see pieces which are VF by any reasonable person's standards (should) get called a 40? On the original coin I posted... don't even look at the detail/relief... look at the OVERALL SURFACE texture. Even, MODERATE wear throughout. There should be no mistaking that.

Mathieu's coin... I was going to guess ANACS gave it a 40 (and hopefully no more that that) - pleasantly surprised they went a bit conservative on it. I'd call that aXF, or a VF35, in that range - not quite a U.S. XF. Keep in mind, you usually see some luster on the reverse as opposed to the obverse b/c the reverse is "busier", design-wise... a lot more detail there to create protected nooks where luster remains relatively undisturbed (touched less often).

DVC, the piece you posted is certainly a lot closer to a 55 than the ebay piece is to a 50... I don't think it quite makes 55, but I could say 45-50. So-so strike on both sides, certainly some reverse luster... but definitely wear there.

GEKO brought up the Bolivia 8S... another series where "weak strike" is an excuse to inflate the grade. On that ebay coin... not a TERRIBLE strike (this is a fairly early date; note that you see the boldness of the portrait decrease as you progress through the 1830s - not sure if this was due to using the same punch, or just a decline in production quality). I'd say XF (not plus)... some frost remaining in the hair, edges looks a bit sharp yet... not quite AU though. Also, kind of fugly toning - sort of looks like an old dip or light clean that toned back somewhat unevenly.

Wow, that one is very well struck !
I just wish it wouldn't have been dipped (at least) ... how can such old coins come out "as new" like this ... silver don't stay un-oxidized for centuries.

Another reason why I hate slabs. I can understand on very high grade coins, or modern ones... but for ancients ...
Unless particularly expensive ones where the slab gives an extra insurance.

The question is typically whether the "look" of the bathed coin is "market acceptable"... That 1832 is very borderline - maybe the luster pops more in hand than in the Heritage scan (where it looks basically "dipped out"... Also, they're usually a bit more lenient with older material - I'd say that a common late 1800's Cap & Ray or a typical Morgan with that stripped of a surface might not grade problem-free.

No one really "likes" slabs (that is, having a coin locked in a slab). If done correctly (nearly perfect on Counterfeit Detection, noting cleaned/altered surfaces, proper evaluation of the degree of wear), they definitely serve a purpose on theory. That's why the initial "AU 50" in the thread is bothersome... undermines credibility.