Opinions On Eye Appeal (Example: 1927-D Mercury Dime)

The only negative thing I can see about the coin is it's very dull appearance , Lifeless . Other than that it looks like only minute wear .

My personal opinion is that I like it overall. I think acetone might help the black gunk on the rim.

I like that look.

I agree it is dull looking in these photos.

Lighting can make things look dull, but it doesn't hide the flat bands overall.
Appearance is a bit weak from the photos. I'd grade low AU-53.

Thanks for your thoughts everyone! Hope you all enjoyed the Thanksgiving holiday.


Interesting observation. I see so many truly 'flat' and 'dull' looking coins on ebay, and for the ones with AU details I surmise it's from overdipping. You know the ones, gray coloration nearly monotone across the entire face of the coin.

In this example I discern a subdued luster beneath a satiny toning. It looks to have original surfaces and generally no scratches/abrasions/etc. I'm tempted to ask the dealer to post an additional photo or two from other angles so I can see just how lustrous (or dull) it truly is.

The following is from the The Complete Guide to Mercury Dimes (2nd ed) by David W. Lange. Great overall reference by the way.
From this, luster is really what differentiates within AU, from 50 to 58, along with surface marks/scuffs/etc.

AU50 --> 1/3 to 1/2 of full luster (33% to 50%)
AU55 --> 2/3 of full luster (66%)
AU58 --> NEARLY FULL (80-100% ?)

Considering luster alone, if given these three options, is it even possible to accurately characterize based on a single 2-dimensional photo? Considering only what I can see in these photos, maybe I see 20% luster, limited btw 11&12 and 6&7 o'clock on each face. But I know real coins that look this way head on will no doubt indicate luster elsewhere when tilted.

So I guess I'd pose this question, if you feel this coin appears dull looking, what would you guess as to the overall percent luster if you were to hypothetically wobble it in a 2x2?...just going on what you know about a coin that looks like this head on.

So I guess I'm wondering, when folks say a coin like this looks somewhat dull, with mediocre or low eye appeal, do you mean based on the toning, which seems to be what PCGS bases "eye appeal" on for coins below MS60?

https://www.PCGS.com/eyeappeal
For toning, PCGS uses seven levels of eye appeal, from "Amazing" to "Ugly".

Interestingly, on that PCGS link, the 1927-D Mercury dime in my initial post may most closely resemble the Arkansas Centennial Half Dollar at the bottom of the "Neutral" category. Toning seems generally even but luster seems somewhat subdued.

I think it is somewhat misleading in PCGSs illustrations of these "eye appeal" categories because the coins shown appear to have varying degrees of luster, which should be considered separate from "eye appeal".

Clearly I'm confused as to how luster and eye appeal should be considered. PCGS indicates luster is a grading criteria, which I agree it is, and eye appeal is secondary to luster. For example, will an AU50 coin always have neutral eye appeal? Or will eye appeal necessarily be better on an untoned coin at AU-50. Thoughts? Thanks!

the more toning the more difficult to determine the underlying luster. sometimes its even more of a guess if the toning is heavy. one reason I stay away from heavily toned coins as for me its too tough to determine those fine grade separations.

you cant just look at one component to determine grade. a lot of beginning collectors make this error in grading. you must take into consideration; strike, luster, surface originality and eye appeal. with surface originality in my mind pulling the most weight.

I think your coin has a lower eye appeal due to the black crud (for lack of a better word) across both sides. this may come off or at least be reduced by an acetone bath. I would not use any type of abrasive on any coin ever. I'm guessing about 30-35% luster remaining but then you have to factor in the remaining 3 components for an actual grade. the strike is on the weaker side on the reverse but the obverse has a average strike so for me they net out. surface preservation for me is in the 7/10 range and eye appeal as is I'm at 6/10. all of these together as it sits I would grade it AU53