Citeer: kommodoreThank you, thank you!
No, no, I don't consider myself a coin grading expert.
Then again, none of us really are. You (and I) would call the people at Heritage grading experts, and yet it seems the the average numismite can do better than them!
First coin I would put at VG since there's almost no detail on the portrait. Second one VF, the reverse is nice but there's a bit of wear on the obverse.
I think the discrepancy in grading might be due to the fact that different coins are graded in different ways, based on things like their size, how easily they wear, etc
That's why a VF would not be crazy, given the fact that it is really old, and still shows considerable detail. If the coin is gold, that makes even more sense, because gold is a very soft metal and there is more room for wear when grading gold coins than say silver, or nickel. On some coins there is a focus on the obverse when grading, while for others the focus goes on the reverse, or both.
Source: I recently had long conversations with 4 different dealers at a coin show.
Citeer: eminemIf the coin is gold, that makes even more sense, because gold is a very soft metal and there is more room for wear when grading gold coins than say silver, or nickel.
That's because gold coins of the last 200 years have been admired and hoarded where as older gold circulated alot in certain places although I admit most places just used copper and silver
There are coin series where the main design is so weakly struck that grading is almost meaningless. Those series are well known and this is one of them. I was told many years ago that in these cases you simply grade the other side of the coin. I've never been sure what to make of that advice!
It does illuminate perfectly the fallacy of "grading standards". Let me explain that a little. If you were to receive that coin from me with a grade of VF (and vice versa) your first thoughts would be "damned ignorant newbie just rooked me!" however the same coin from a TPG would be largely accepted because the half blind geriatrics have "standards".
Like hell they do. Consider an uncirculated 2013 Lincoln cent..... flawless, full mint lustre, carefully selected to have no blemishes or bag marks. MS69 without a doubt right? OK, now look at a few 100 or 200 years old coins given the same grade - you would throw them right back into circulation as EF maximum if they were current issues. TPGs know what their main customers (the mega dealers) want.... a MS69 coin no matter what it truly may be. Money talks. For many years a MS70 grade was supposed to be entirely hypothetical, an impossibly perfect coin. Now the shopping channel coin hustlers are taking orders for MS70 coins which haven't even been struck yet, they order 10,000 MS70 ASE's and the grading companies duly oblige them.
I have to laugh quietly whenever I see a collector stating that a coin is "definitely" a MS63..... quit playing these Sheldon games already and learn to grade properly!
Non illegitimis carborundum est. Excellent advice for all coins.
Make Numismatics Great Again!
Phil I agree UNC is UNC (any coin blatantly not circulated regardless of marks) BUNC is BUNC (no marks at all) unless you're me and then XF is all you need to give a coin some history and also have a brilliant example !
Check out the gouge on the original coin at 6 o'clock.
That's where some ignorant precious metal hound has ruined a perfectly good coin by having a chunk cut out to test the PM content. I hate this bullion crowd with a passion.
Non illegitimis carborundum est. Excellent advice for all coins.
Make Numismatics Great Again!
