help grading coin

Thanks for you input Jeff and every else. This has been a very useful
exercise for me. I've learn that a coin can't be accurately graded from
a picture. But I have also learn that you can get useful feed back on
things to look at. I.E. comments about the steps. I've also learned how
hard it is to grade a coin and how much you have to pay attention to
detail.

Thanks to everyone. This is a good start and the next time I post a
picture, maybe I'll have a much better idea of the starting point. For
now I would be happy if I could determine if a coin is a MS-? or AU. In
time I guess.

Rick



Jeff Landon wrote:
Rick,

As you can see from the wide-ranging opinion posted so far (AU to 65RD),
it's just plain impossible to grade a mint state coin by a pair of photos.

Circulated coins can be graded from photographs if the lighting is accurate
enough to show details (assuming the lighting doesn't hide a cleaning).
Mint state coins, on the other hand, require much more detailed scrutiny.
Just discerning between MS and AU requires tilting the coin at various
angles under a light source to determine if the luster is "broken".

Then, factors such as strike, die state, surface preservation, toning, etc
figure into the grade. All of these factors require viewing the coin from
various perspectives. You can't even BEGIN to do that with photographs.

Sorry, but the only way you'll be able to get a reasonably accurate grade is
to submit it.

Good luck.

--Jeff (L.)


"Rick" wrote in message
news
Hi all.

I'm trying to learn how this grading thing works. I'd appreciate any
opinions on this coin. I know it's hard to be real accurate with a
picture, I just wanted some ballpark opinions to work with.

These pictures are full scale (730K) if someone would like me to post a
smaller picture, let me know.

http://home.woh.rr.com/ovrundr/images/P2070489.JPG - obverse
http://home.woh.rr.com/ovrundr/images/P2070490.JPG = reverse

Rick wrote:
Hi all.

I'm trying to learn how this grading thing works. I'd appreciate any
opinions on this coin. I know it's hard to be real accurate with a
picture, I just wanted some ballpark opinions to work with.

These pictures are full scale (730K) if someone would like me to post a
smaller picture, let me know.

http://home.woh.rr.com/ovrundr/images/P2070489.JPG - obverse
http://home.woh.rr.com/ovrundr/images/P2070490.JPG = reverse

Took this coin to the local coin shop today just to see how we did. His
45+ years of experience says Strong AU. Touch on cheep and steps on
reverse brought it down from MS.

Thanks for the opinions.

Rick

"Rick" wrote in message
...
Rick wrote:
Hi all.

I'm trying to learn how this grading thing works. I'd appreciate any
opinions on this coin. I know it's hard to be real accurate with a
picture, I just wanted some ballpark opinions to work with.

These pictures are full scale (730K) if someone would like me to post a
smaller picture, let me know.

http://home.woh.rr.com/ovrundr/images/P2070489.JPG - obverse
http://home.woh.rr.com/ovrundr/images/P2070490.JPG = reverse

Took this coin to the local coin shop today just to see how we did. His
45+ years of experience says Strong AU. Touch on cheep and steps on
reverse brought it down from MS.

Thanks for the opinions.

Rick

I'd rather have a nice lusterous AU than a dull flat MS Lincoln cent. Years
from now that coin you have might be worth more than a crummy MS60 that's
all banged up and dull looking.
A good looking coin is a good looking coin no matter the grade.

In article t,
"bri" wrote:

I'd rather have a nice lusterous AU than a dull flat MS Lincoln cent. Years
from now that coin you have might be worth more than a crummy MS60 that's
all banged up and dull looking.
A good looking coin is a good looking coin no matter the grade.

I was under the impression that numismaticvally speaking lustrous is the
opposite of dull, and that an MS coin is lustrous (among other things)
by definition.

Is this thinking on my part incorrect?

"Scot Kamins" wrote in message
...
In article t,
"bri" wrote:

I'd rather have a nice lusterous AU than a dull flat MS Lincoln cent.
Years
from now that coin you have might be worth more than a crummy MS60
that's
all banged up and dull looking.
A good looking coin is a good looking coin no matter the grade.

I was under the impression that numismaticvally speaking lustrous is the
opposite of dull, and that an MS coin is lustrous (among other things)
by definition.

Is this thinking on my part incorrect?

MS means mint state--like that's a brand new off the press coin. Most all
coins brand new should be getting at least a MS60. No traces of wear
showing.
Sometimes they'll say MS58 on a brown, spotted but uncirculated copper coin.
AU is traces of wear. Like if you took an MS68 and carried it around in your
pocket for a couple of days it would then be an AU. So now you would have an
AU58 but it's a really nice AU58--it was an MS68 at one time but now it's
got traces of wear.
Also you could have an AU58 Lincoln and a MS58 Lincoln.
I have two MS64 Franklins. One is MS65+ by the looks of the luster, but it's
got a big noticeable gash on it so it got an MS64. The other one is a
blazing white--I'd say its at least 80% white. But that one too gets
downgraded a lot because it's got a big noticeable bash on the bell and a
big noticeable gash on the obverse. Neither one exhibits traces of wear but
the white blazer got points added due to it being very nice looking--eye
appeal. Otherwise it would probably get an MS62 or 63.
Now the tricky part is distinguishing between a weak strike and wear
sometimes.
Just exactly why you buy the coin and not what it's been graded. I've seen
some butt-ugly MS65's and some beautiful AG's.

"bri" wrote in message
k.net...

"Scot Kamins" wrote in message
...
In article t,
"bri" wrote:

I'd rather have a nice lusterous AU than a dull flat MS Lincoln cent.
Years
from now that coin you have might be worth more than a crummy MS60
that's
all banged up and dull looking.
A good looking coin is a good looking coin no matter the grade.

I was under the impression that numismaticvally speaking lustrous is the
opposite of dull, and that an MS coin is lustrous (among other things)
by definition.

Is this thinking on my part incorrect?

MS means mint state--like that's a brand new off the press coin. Most all
coins brand new should be getting at least a MS60. No traces of wear
showing.
Sometimes they'll say MS58 on a brown, spotted but uncirculated copper
coin.
AU is traces of wear. Like if you took an MS68 and carried it around in
your
pocket for a couple of days it would then be an AU. So now you would have
an
AU58 but it's a really nice AU58--it was an MS68 at one time but now it's
got traces of wear.
Also you could have an AU58 Lincoln and a MS58 Lincoln.
I have two MS64 Franklins. One is MS65+ by the looks of the luster, but
it's
got a big noticeable gash on it so it got an MS64. The other one is a
blazing white--I'd say its at least 80% white. But that one too gets
downgraded a lot because it's got a big noticeable bash on the bell and a
big noticeable gash on the obverse. Neither one exhibits traces of wear
but
the white blazer got points added due to it being very nice looking--eye
appeal. Otherwise it would probably get an MS62 or 63.
Now the tricky part is distinguishing between a weak strike and wear
sometimes.
Just exactly why you buy the coin and not what it's been graded. I've seen
some butt-ugly MS65's and some beautiful AG's.

Then you have coins with a superior strike to take into account.
Like I seen this '32D quarter graded really high--can't remember what--but
anyhow it was ugly looking with no gashes anywhere. It had ugly brown spots
all over it. BUT--it had just about the best strike I've ever seen on any
coin. Razor sharp.
So they added points for that which gave it a high grade from it's
phenominally well struck surface.
So there's that to think about too.