1935 Penny - Elongated Dot Inside E of WEALTH (Renniks)

[autocoupler]

good very fine to about extra fine

A bit tough there RG, I thought it was a little better.

[robbiegal]

good very fine to about extra fine

A bit tough there RG, I thought it was a little better.

sorry
i am no expert either
just putting it out there same as the other posters

PCGS AU58 is what I call good extra fine - my 1946 penny that i called extra fine came in as AU58

AU55 is what  i call good very fine to about extra fine

i believe that was more generous than say, Trout's, Steve's and Echi's  guesstimate

anyways, best to keep my opinions to my self I think

[autocoupler]

anyways, best to keep my opinions to my self I think

No way, that's what this thread is all about, giving an opinion. I'm certainly no expert but like to give it a go and see what others think as well, and maybe learn something. I was interested to see how you structure your system of bridging from one grading method to the next which is the tricky part I think, but no doubt once you settle on a system that works stick to it.

Not having seen many slabbed coins in the hand, I mostly practise just from pics which can be unreliable depending on where they originate. My system is subject to change, but has evolved to a point where VF = 40, gVF = 45, aEF = 50, EF = 53/55, gEF = 55/58. But as you say there are exceptions where something you view as gEF at times might be AU58 or even higher or lower.

It's all a learning curve for me, but thinking back to the changeover from imperial measurement to metric in 1973, the conversion was always a pain when working in fine measurement, and here we are 43 years later and I still find it necessary at times.

[r9453]

If VF = 40, gVF = 45, aEF = 50, EF = 53/55, gEF = 55/58 where does aUnc fit in? Also, I like the fact that the adjectival system allows for split grades which the Sheldon/PCGS system does not.

[robbiegal]

going by my guesstimate
about extra fine (about being the operative word) i said about E/F because the 7th 8th pearls are separated but clearly blunted and not high, the end of the mustache is blunted . and yes, this is a coin that i would be inclined to split grade
the reverse surface  damage would also, in my books bring it down

might be equal to Echi's AU53 ??

the conversion is tricky
perhaps those who use Sheldon only might be obliging and add the Aussie equivalent to their numerical guesstimate
Sheldon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheldon_coin_grading_scale


ANDA
http://www.anda.com.au/documents/resource/00114_Pt%202%20-%20Grading%20Commonwealth%20coins.pdf

 "Care must be taken not to mistake a weak strike for wear." - must admit i wondered if that could be the case with the obverse on this coin

[Unicorn]

Thanks for all your thoughts and comments RG, I certainly appreciate them. One day I'll have a bash at grading but at the moment I'm hopeless at it. (I can't imagine how bad I'll be at my George VI ones!!!)

With this one I was trying to get an idea whether or not it's worthy of slabbing, but I don't think it is due to the grade and the reverse spots, so I'll probably end up selling it off as a variety (error).

[autocoupler]

If VF = 40, gVF = 45, aEF = 50, EF = 53/55, gEF = 55/58 where does aUnc fit in? Also, I like the fact that the adjectival system allows for split grades which the Sheldon/PCGS system does not.

IMO, by the time the grades get to gEF and AU there's not a lot of separation, and depending on the individuals interpretation the result can be higher or lower, ie aUNC may overlap into MS territory. Hence, aUNC = AU58/MS? You have to remember this is what works for me, but others may have the bar set differently.    

I agree about the split grades, it adds an extra dimension to the quest for accurate description.

[nealeffendi]

I use G, VG, aF, F, gF, aVF, VF for the lower grades and common dates but for scarce dates I switch over and I start at VF25 up to MS67 for anything that might be slab worthy. Unless it is something very rare/valuable in low grades (like a 22/21) then there isn't much reason to go beyond counting the pearls and using the matching adjective.

[wwwww]

97. AU Details

[Unicorn]

Thanks for that Walter. :good: Certainly wishing the environmental damage wasn't there!