FA: 1821 Small Date Bust Dime PCGS AU-58 Rare only 19 graded

Only 7 have been graded finer since PCGS's inception in 1986. By
comparison, 149 large date examples of this date have been graded by
PCGS. This coin looks new with no rub apparent and virtually full
luster. I'm starting at a modest level with no reserve for this
landmark coin. It might be a decade before another one above EF
surfaces into the marketplace, and this is the ONLY on graded AU-58.

This is a real find for the early dime specialts!

See it at:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...m=3955482 986
Thanks!

Ira

On 29 Jan 2005 11:34:02 -0800, wrote:
See it at:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...m=3955482 986

Gorgeous coin. I'm curious, though, about Bill Fivaz's claim that
"grade of the future" AU-58's are worth more than MS-60's. A beautiful
58 worth more than an ugly 60, I can see, but not when it comes to two
typical coins. The same can be said of any two close grades. What's so
special about 58's? Can you elaborate? Just curious.

Chuck

Chuck,

Most MS-60 coins are quite unattractive, whereas a properly and
conservatively graded AU-58 looks more like a MS-63 with a tiny whisper
of rub. Frankly, it SHOULD be worth more than a typical MS-60, and
actually, that seems to be the case in the real world.This is
particularly true for pre-1840 coins. Often, a real nice AU-58 Bust
Half will sell for more than a MS-60 example, particularly if the
former has lots of luster and is not darkly toned.

Ira

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 12:13:14 -0800, wrote:

On 29 Jan 2005 11:34:02 -0800, wrote:
See it at:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...m=3955482 986

Gorgeous coin. I'm curious, though, about Bill Fivaz's claim that
"grade of the future" AU-58's are worth more than MS-60's. A beautiful
58 worth more than an ugly 60, I can see, but not when it comes to two
typical coins. The same can be said of any two close grades. What's so
special about 58's? Can you elaborate? Just curious.

Chuck

A true AU58 should be more pleasing (and therefore valuable) than a
true MS60, but most people pay for the higher number.

By definition, an AU58 is "choice," while a MS60 is "typical." In the
case of MS60, "typical" means rather beat up and unattractive.

Of course, the whole concept is meaningless, because most current
MS62s and 63s are yesterday's AU58s. Today's 58s are yesterday's 53s
and 55s which usually are not preferable to the lower MS grades.

BLReed

To e-mail me, remove the obvious spam trap.
For collector coins and supplies at fair prices: http://tinyurl.com/pt9r
Cool things and Bust Coin Forum: http://www.byronreed.com

On 29 Jan 2005 11:34:02 -0800, is alleged to have
written:
Only 7 have been graded finer since PCGS's inception in 1986. By
comparison, 149 large date examples of this date have been graded by
PCGS. This coin looks new with no rub apparent and virtually full
luster. I'm starting at a modest level with no reserve for this
landmark coin. It might be a decade before another one above EF
surfaces into the marketplace, and this is the ONLY on graded AU-58.

This is a real find for the early dime specialts!

See it at:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...m=3955482 986
Thanks!

Ira

Beautiful.

Bruce

*************************************************
ANA R162074
EAC 3606

To email me, remember that RoadRunner
and Coyote do not mix.
*************************************************

On 29 Jan 2005 12:47:56 -0800, wrote:
Most MS-60 coins are quite unattractive, whereas a properly and
conservatively graded AU-58 looks more like a MS-63 with a tiny whisper
of rub.

Hi Ira,

Now I'm more confused. Granted, I now collect mainly non-U.S.,
non-slabbed coins/tokens/medals, and I don't keep up with details of
the ever-changing U.S. MS grading frenzy, slabs, and the slabbers, but
I do understand grading principles, and I'm interested in the
psychology behind it all, too.

It really all depends what one considers attractive... an MS-60 coin
should have no breaks in the luster, and no wear... many people prefer
that to rub and luster breaks, and in that respect a typical AU-58
doesn't look more like an MS-63 at all. And Sheldon's 1-70 scale was
originally intended to directly correlate to value, and did for years,
though maybe not as scientifically as he hoped. While relative value
ratios between grades may change based on demand, a 58 now being more
desirable and valuable than a 60 reflects a changing standard, as the
continuum has been broken. More to the point, what did Bill Fivaz mean
by the "grade of the future"? Why wasn't it the grade of the past, or
of the present?

I'm also curious why, if on your dime, there is "no rub apparent",
it's an AU-58. Is it a rubbed AU-58 that should be valued more than an
MS-60, or is it a misgraded MS-63 in an AU-58 holder?

Just curious... you're obviously an upstanding guy and none of this is
intended as flame, but I do think the grading situation in general has
gotten more than a little out of hand.

Chuck

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 14:55:31 -0600, Byron L. Reed
wrote:
A true AU58 should be more pleasing (and therefore valuable) than a
true MS60, but most people pay for the higher number.
By definition, an AU58 is "choice," while a MS60 is "typical." In the
case of MS60, "typical" means rather beat up and unattractive.

And EF-45 is "choice", and AU-50 is "typical"... so you would value
the EF-45 more highly?

Of course, the whole concept is meaningless, because most current
MS62s and 63s are yesterday's AU58s. Today's 58s are yesterday's 53s
and 55s which usually are not preferable to the lower MS grades.

So "today's" 58s are NOT preferable to 60s. OK. What about Fivaz's 58s
"of the future"... will they be preferable to 60s?

Chuck

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 15:19:25 -0800, wrote:

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 14:55:31 -0600, Byron L. Reed
wrote:
A true AU58 should be more pleasing (and therefore valuable) than a
true MS60, but most people pay for the higher number.
By definition, an AU58 is "choice," while a MS60 is "typical." In the
case of MS60, "typical" means rather beat up and unattractive.

And EF-45 is "choice", and AU-50 is "typical"... so you would value
the EF-45 more highly?

Of course, the whole concept is meaningless, because most current
MS62s and 63s are yesterday's AU58s. Today's 58s are yesterday's 53s
and 55s which usually are not preferable to the lower MS grades.

So "today's" 58s are NOT preferable to 60s. OK. What about Fivaz's 58s
"of the future"... will they be preferable to 60s?

Chuck

People have been saying that AU 58s are better than MS60s for decades.
While AU58s might end up with a more affordable and attractive collection
as far as price goes have AU58s surpassed MS60s at any time in the past 20
years?

Chuck writes:

So "today's" 58s are NOT preferable to 60s. OK. What about Fivaz's 58s
"of the future"... will they be preferable to 60s?


You will have to ask Bill Fivaz what he meant by "grade of the future." What I
can telol you is that an exceptional 1955/55 1c in PCGS AU58 I had for sale on
eBay sold for well over MS-60 money amidst furious bidding and frankly, it
LOOKED better than any MS-60/61 I ever handled of that date.

BTW, the 1821 small date dime in AU-58, also PCGS graded, the coin which
prompted this thread, sold yesterday to a coin dealer for $1500, more than
Graysheet wholesale for MS-60 and well over the Graysheet price of $800 for an
AU50.

These are not just isolated incidents. You can read all the text you want
describing a MS-60 coin, but in the real world, the MS-60 is generally
butt-ugly.



Ira Stein

On 31 Jan 2005 12:10:39 GMT, ospam (Ira Stein) wrote:
BTW, the 1821 small date dime in AU-58, also PCGS graded, the coin which
prompted this thread, sold yesterday to a coin dealer for $1500, more than
Graysheet wholesale for MS-60 and well over the Graysheet price of $800 for an
AU50.

Maybe it IS an MS-60... you described it with "looks new", with "no
rub apparent". As I asked in my earlier post, is it a rubbed AU-58
that should be valued more than an MS-60, or is it a misgraded MS-63
(or 61 or 62) in an AU-58 holder? It's confusing which you think it
is, from your description. With your Liberty Cap cent you came right
out and said, "should be in a PCGS G-6 holder".

I would hope, whether it's an AU-58 or higher, that it would bring
more than Greysheet for an AU-50, so I'm not sure what that's supposed
to demonstrate. I'm also surprised you're using the Greysheet to
support your claim at all, when you've demonstrated with your Liberty
Cap cent example that it's very fallible! It would be interesting
though if AU-58 was a grade typically included in price guides... do
you know of one that includes it? Even if the prices were off in an
absolute sense, the relative prices between 58 and 60 would be
interesting. A better example would be two similar auctions, close in
time, both in PCGS holders. As you say yourself, you can read all the
text you want, but in the real world...

I think a person can cite selected anecdotal cases either way, for
example:

AU-58 @ $253.00
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...tem=3954631071
MS-60 @ $352.50
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...tem=3954055688
MS-62 @ $610.00
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...tem=3952644258

Even this isn't ideal, because circumstances of any particular sale
will differ, though it's more meaningful than comparison to AU-50
Greysheet. But where is the evidence, over the broad range of U.S.
coins, that AU-58s consistently bring more money than MS-60s, all else
being equal?

It's one thing for Bill Fivaz to say AU-58s are "worth more", but does
the market support this generality? And why would he even have to say
it, if it's what the market has already decided? I respect the fact
that you can't speak for his "grade of the future" prediction, but I
assumed you agreed to some degree, since you used it, and could help
clarify what he meant.

Chuck