20 Mark Hessen Germany 1911

It looks like a bit of wear, beyond bagmarks. So I would say high AU.

Note the difference in the color between the open fields and the protected areas near the closer design elements. That difference alone is a good indication of slight circulation. U.S. grade AU-58. Note that the value changes very little between EF and MS-62.

hey guys,
would you say that this piece is better tan mine?
https://www.NGCcoin.com/certlookup/2727578-002/61/

Hmm... I really do not like NGC's pictures. The brightness of them is probably hiding some marks, and it does kind of look like there is some rub on the person's cheek. From the pictures NGC provided, I would think (at most) AU-58.

Now, your pictures are way better than NGC's, and I am still not seeing any wear. I will stick with my previous grade of MS-61, and I like your coin better than NGC's.

Those last pictures look much better! Looking at the areas where I was seeing some rub (primarily on the jaw and hair), I am still seeing some flatness, but now I am unsure as to whether or not that is actually wear. If not wear, I would think the grade of MS-61 is accurate—there are plenty of marks around the person's portrait, and quite a few on the face. It looks like there are more marks than the first coin posted, but the marks on the first coin look deeper. I think this one really needs to be examined in-hand to tell whether or not it is truly uncirculated; if there is still lustre on the high points, then there is probably no wear. But I guess not seeing coins in-hand is one of the biggest flaws with buying coins online.

Hmm... I do not know. I mean, the second coin is certainly not bad enough to reach MS-60, but not good enough to make MS-63. Because there are just so many tiny marks, as compared to slightly fewer yet deeper marks, I was thinking MS-61. Now, I would say I am not the best at grading gold, so it could possibly make MS-62, but I am just not seeing it. I guess me grading this one an MS-61 is more of just a gut feeling than anything else.




My first thought was that, rather than prooflike, the coin was a mishandled proof (otherwise saying, a proof coin that has seen slight circulation). It looks like there is some slight wear on the neck area, and there are a lot of marks. For some reason, marks on proof coins seem to be magnified, and gold is a soft metal that marks up quickly. For that coin, I would think PR-58, and I do like how that example looks. Although, I do like how most proof coins look—mishandled or not.

Now, I have never graded a coin semi-prooflike before, but I have heard it used before. To me, a coin is either prooflike, or it is not. The only reason I would call this coin a proof is because I searched this coin up and found proofs were made this year. I do not know the inductions in this series as to whether or not a coin is a proof, so maybe it is actually just PL (or semi-prooflike).