| Author |
 Replies: 29 / Views: 2,527 |
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
3479 Posts |
Snagged it for under cdn. Everybody must be hung-over from the Beverly Hills show.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1660 Posts |
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10982 Posts |
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
94367 Posts |
Despite AU-58 CAC rating? Please describe the wear points that hold this to AU-50.  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3479 Posts |
Yeah I king of second that. I'm just not sure where you see enough rub to justify a 50 grade.  And yes, I did have my eyes examined a few months ago.  |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
11896 Posts |
I agree with BH1964. I also had it at au50-53. The main reason why I gave it that grade is because an au58 coin should have almost full mint luster, rubbed only on the high points. This coin appears to be have had almost all its luster rubbed off on its left and especially the right obverse field:  To see the contrast, see what an au58 seated half with full luster and rub at the high points should look like according to PCGS photograde:  And what a PCGS photograde au50 coin should look like. In terms of luster, I think it looks more like the au50 plate coin below as the luster in the fields is largely rubbed off:  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3479 Posts |
Thanks for the stepping up NS! But there is a clear difference in rub between my example and the au-50 example you provided. I'm not sure how that isn't obvious to you.
Also the coins you are using are completely different dates. It's king of like comparing apples to oranges. It would be better if you were to compare the same date with both obverse and reverse shown.
As far as the au-58 77 obverse you have used, if it is a lightly circulated coin it should have more toning. So the likely conclusion is that it was well-dipped. On my example I could have an expert dip it when it comes in to look like your 77 example. But the only thing it would remove is the coins history by removing it's natural toning. That's kind of what I'm trying to avoid in my collection.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
8715 Posts |
I don't think this example is an AU-50 - 53. I see wear on only the high points. I could understand a 55 maybe, but 50-53 seems a bit low.
The AU-50 example posted in the thread has significantly more wear than the OP coin.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3479 Posts |
If I may politely add, I think what you're struggling with is recognizing that original coins in AU and even MS coins will always have some toning. Anyone can take an original coin, dip it, and create the appearance of your 77 example. But some collectors value originality which is where I'm at. This is the reverse of a recently required Seated dollar graded au-58 with CAC approval. Would you grade the reverse au-50 as well? Or would I have to dip it and remove the crusty layer to meet your definition of an au-58 coin?  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
8715 Posts |
Quote:
original coins in AU and even MS coins will always have some toning. If I wanted to be nitpicky, I could say that the GSA Morgan dollars are often blast white yet still have original surfaces.  But I agree with what you're saying. Just because a coin has toning which obscures some of the luster doesn't automatically equal a lower grade. Using that logic, a crusty MS coin would grade EF or low AU because it "lacks luster." Edited by SilverDollar2017
12/17/2018 11:32 pm
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
11896 Posts |
The original question was where is the wear and rub. The answer is that the coin shown on this thread shows no luster on the right and left obverse fields. This leads to the conclusion that those fields were rubbed until the luster was wiped away. According to PCGS grading guidelines: https://www.PCGS.com/Content/pdf/PC...tandards.pdfAU58: Only the slightest friction on the highest points. Virtually full luster.AU55: Full detail with light friction on the high points. Considerable luster remains. AU53: Slight flatness and loss of luster visible on high points of design. Some luster remains. AU50: Trace of wear now seen on higher points of design. Bits of luster may remain. I don't see virtually full luster on the coin in this thread. I hardly see any luster at all. Edited by numismatic student
12/17/2018 11:37 pm
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
13014 Posts |
Quote:
This coin appears to be have had almost all its luster rubbed off on its left and especially the right obverse field: Bad pictures as usual from that source with these types of coins. Biggest complaint I have always had with them. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3479 Posts |
Quote:
Bad pictures as usual from that source with these types of coins. Biggest complaint I have always had with them. Yeah that can be a legitimate argument on this one, Baseball. But the rub in the fields vs the devices defies logic. Unless it was owned by some lunatic who enjoyed rubbing the low points of the coin, I can't see how that sort of thing would happen in circulation. Edited by MikeF
12/18/2018 12:16 am
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3479 Posts |
@ Silver Dollar back at you! You know why the GSA hoard was protected from this.  |
| |
Replies: 29 / Views: 2,527 |
First Page
Posted 12/16/2018 9:01 pm
