My thoughts on AU designations are probably wrong per ANA
training/TPG standards, technically speaking, but I would think that in reality, almost every coin out there, save the sealed from mint type, has been in some kind of circulation. How can they not be? Having said that, it is why they have TEN levels of Mint State. Yes? If any circulation shows, which you can find on about any coin, then all of them would be AUXX with any signs of circulation nullifying an MS designation.
What keeps a coin in the TEN levels of MS might be a better way to ask it.
AUXX to me is a circulated coin that reaches a certain level of wear, that exceeds any chance of achieving one of the Ten Mint State conditions. MS-60 has been compromised. Hence...AUXX. Seems logical to me. What I have to get better at is looking at a coin like this one I submitted, and determine how it qualifies for one of the TEN levels of any Mint State, to have a more acceptable coin in my arsenal. I just looked at PCGS
Photograde for AU55 Morgan. What did I do?
. None of this means an AUXX coin is not worthy. Just personal preference. Don't want hate mail. Lol.
So, even though as some have noted, "I see some evidence of circulation...it's an AUXX", I say Ok. But this coin from a known substandard Mint (New Orleans), I would think would start from a grading baseline with that taken into consideration. Add some circulation evidence. But still in a 'Mint State" condition. One of the ten levels. So to me, this is a Mint State coin with some wear, evidence of circulation. Again.....that's why we have TEN levels of Mint State. Otherwise, it would be ONE Mint State condition. No levels. "Uhhh, there's a mark. A hairline. A bit of a rub mark, etc.. Duhhhh, Larry, you see that? Here, look in my 1000X microscope. A mark! Yup. No MS. It's an AUXX".
Maybe that is a naive assessment, though I understand TPG
's take many things into consideration, and I accept that, I don't have to like it. No one does. We play by the rules as set though. But to ask questions and try to understand the "Why" of a head-scratching grade, is normal. Completely fair. It does not change my view that I don't see what the professionals see with decades of experience. I get that. And still, accept it. Just frustrating as not being experienced, to catch up to the "Why". And let's admit it...even experienced folks/experts have disagreements on grading. So, all fair questions/statements as I see above in this chain, and many others.
Just as an example of the "WHY" of a grade, this truly uncirculated Kennedy (was in Cello to PCGS
very PL and excellent contrast), got what I think was a low grade. To boot, which I was confident in getting, no CAM
designation. Though any comparative coins (using a baseline of other TRUEVIEW graded Kennedy's), with less frostiness, did get it. I know comparisons to pictures are no longer, to me anyway, a good measure. TPG
's see what we don't. Pictures are deceptive. But it is a fair question with simple visuals, of a head-scratcher for this coin's SP65, no CAM
grade (maybe "OF AMERICA"'s slight less frostiness caused a no CAM
...don't know). And I just got all Slabs back today, less Error coins, and looked at this coin....what did I do?
. It's clearly a CAM
, and a sweet one. Better than TRUEVIEW depiction. However, I did check my wallet, and alas, I am not a Card-Carrying TPG
. For those who are tired of explaining it to me, and others like me, chillax. No response is necessary. I accept what has been explained to me already. Not complaining. Just observations...thinking out loud. And this Kennedy is just an example to support my whining. I reserve the right to whine.
And you reserve the right to ignore me.