Understanding AU-58

That 72 is clearly not au58 in my book. Too much wear at the high points. That thing really slipped through the cracks! Now that I look at who graded it, psgc(?) that may explain it

The 1972 shows light wear on the forehead, ear, cheekbone, jawline, collar, and shoulder as seen by the slight change in patina. I see enough circulation hairlines in the fields that I would probably call it AU55 but that slight difference is largely immaterial. An AU58 Lincoln can be Brown like this example or it can still be mostly Red, grade is not color-dependent.

The 1974D is still fully Red, I see some scuffs on the high points but no actual wear or patina changes. It is a bit baggy so I would call it MS62 and yes, you can still pull Unc coins out of a mixed bank roll.

From a strict technical definition, yes, it's instantly AU. But this is a business defined by subjectivity. The grade is what you see, not what you're told. "AU58," for the TPG's, is as much a fallback position for doubt as a specific grade, a copout when they're not quite ready to declare a coin Mint State. It's always been my contention that half of the TPG "AU58's" are Mint State coins they were too cautious to risk their reputations on.

And people make mistakes, as well. The '72 on your blog is a perfect example - I'm no Lincoln expert but even factoring strike that coin does not reach AU55. So you're going to see a pretty wide range of stuff in AU58 slabs, most of it unjustifiable had you known the coin's true provenance.

The 72 is AU and memorials typically get a bump, so I can believe the 58. However, I normally like see more luster than that coin shows in the pictures for such a grade. I'm surprized it got a 58 nonetheless. I'm in the 55 group.