Gradings accross coins

[Coins from Vending]

This might seem like a dumb question.

Does the same criteria apply to all ozzie decimals when it comes to gradings by PCGS.

The reason I ask is that I just got back my 2000 mule and was graded as expected at AU55. It is a bit scratched and has no shine to it at all, it looks like a typical Yr 2000 $1 coin.

Now today I found an incused 50cent coin (where I've been getting lots of very good 50 cent coins) and this coin has lots of shine very few scratches. I looked on Ebay and saw trouts incused graded at AU58, his coin looks less scratched than mine and looks shinier.

Now given the difference in what I can see in my 2 coins mule V incused I would have thought that the incused would be over 60.

So after all that what is the scale PCGS use when they use AU**  does it go to 70 when they do MS**


I would like to send it over along with the 180 degree upset I got to get slabbed.

[stevo1962]

I think PCGS must be grading any $1 mules AU55 that aren't UNC as I recently
got results for 8 $1 mules that I sent over and they all graded AU55.To me they
should have graded AU50-AU58.It just goes to show how difficult these are to grade

 The coins in question.Some of them have a good deal of bagging

   
   

[trout]

I think PCGS must be grading any $1 mules AU55 that aren't UNC as I recently
got results for 8 $1 mules that I sent over and they all graded AU55.To me they
should have graded AU50-AU58.It just goes to show how difficult these are to grade

I think PCGS is confusing circulation markings with "Bagging" on these coins and are overgrading them.
Which is unusual for PCGS because on most occasions their grades are quite conservative .
I have just submitted a few coins to PCGS and amongst them are two Mules (Not Mine) and another incused millennium coin.
The incused coin is in far better condition than either of the Mules but still not Uncirculated, It will be interesting to see how they grade them.
If either of the mules grade the same or higher than the incused coin then IMHO PCGS will have "Dropped the Ball" as far as I will be concerned :ok:

[emu666]

PCGS know exactly what they are doing.

[trout]

PCGS know exactly what they are doing.

This is how the AU50/55/58 coins should look

AU-50 (About Uncirculated) - Sharp legends and devices show only a trace of wear on the highest points. There must be some remaining mint luster.

AU-55 (Good About Uncirculated) - Sharp legends and devices show only a hint of wear on the high points. Remaining mint luster must be at least half; great eye appeal.

AU-58 (Choice About Uncirculated) - Virtually uncirculated, except for minor wear marks on high points. Nearly all mint luster must be present, and must have outstanding eye appeal.

Neither of the two mules that I submitted look like this "In Hand", That's why it will be interesting to see what grades come back for these coins :ok:

[markn]

If either of the mules grade the same or higher than the incused coin then IMHO PCGS will have "Dropped the Ball" as far as I will be concerned :ok:

PCGS know what they are doing.  Sure they are not perfect, but they are not systemically wrong about mules despite what you might like to post up here.

Al/Br and CuNi are different materials that wear quite differently.  AlBr is a tough material and doesn't wear at all like CuNi.  In fact, during circulation the metal an AlBr moves around rather than wears off.  On CuNi it wears off.  And the lustre characteristics are VERY different.  AlBr loses it's lustre quite quickly while CuNi does not.  It's more than possible to have a fully lustrous CuNi coin with a lot more metal missing than an AU58 mule with no lustre at all.

Regarding the OP's question. Yes, PCGS apply the same criteria when grading all coins.  But it's not as simple as "that one's shiny so it must grade higher than that one".  They also take into account wear, eye appeal, toning, surface preservation, and (of course) lustre.  And what trout has posted above isn't from the PCGS site, it's (I guess) from about.com.  Here's PCGS's equivalent chart:

http://www.pcgs.com/grades.html

[trout]

Now I am getting confused.
Are our ali bronze coins treated differently to our other coins in different metals as far as lustre is concerned when being graded?

[nealeffendi]

And I'm really confused.
Markn wrote that AlBr is a tough material. I was always under the impression that it was far inferior to CuNi. Both have copper (not that hard wearing) and the nickel makes the "silver" hard wearing. Aluminium is a very soft metal that wears easily. When I see 20-30 year old dollar coins they are in far worse nick than the silver.
I look at those coins and the bottom right seems in worse nick than the one above it, far more dings on the roos backs, yet both make the same grade?

[markn]

Now I am getting confused.
Are our ali bronze coins treated differently to our other coins in different metals as far as lustre is concerned when being graded?

No, but lustre is just one factor.  "shiny" <> high grade.  Just like "not shiny" <> low grade.  It's more than possible for two coins with minimal wear, one with full lustre and one without to grade AU58.

[markn]

Markn wrote that AlBr is a tough material

Tough and hard are different things.  Cast iron is hard, steel is tough.  Glass is hard, aluminium is tough.  Rub glass with sandpaper and you'll remove glass and make scratches.  Rub aluminium with sandpaper and you may remove a little metal but you'll also move it around.

It would be an interesting experiment to weigh 1984 CuNi decimals and 1984 dollars and see which ones have lost the most material.

[markn]

I look at those coins and the bottom right seems in worse nick than the one above it, far more dings on the roos backs, yet both make the same grade?

You can't tell anything from those images.  The lighting is completely different for the top coins to the bottom coins.

[trout]

Just thinking "Outside the Square" here for a moment.
The Dollar coins consist of 92% Copper 6% aluminium and 2% Nickel.
The Copper Nickel coins consist of 75% Copper and 25% Nickel.
Nickel is not only good for hardening alloys it is also really good at preventing tarnish and protecting metal from the environments.

The lack of Lustre on the dollar coins may simply be as a result of a reaction from the metal to everyday handling of the coin e.g. oils and acids from hands and not actual wear.
The copper Nickel coins can take far more time to react to this sort of thing because they have 23% more Nickel content.

This to me could explain the lack of lustre on these lightly circulated coins that are now 14 years old.

[markn]

Just thinking "Outside the Square" here for a moment.
The Dollar coins consist of 92% Copper 6% aluminium and 2% Nickel.
The Copper Nickel coins consist of 75% Copper and 25% Nickel.
Nickel is not only good for hardening alloys it is also really good at preventing tarnish and protecting metal from the environments.

The lack of Lustre on the dollar coins may simply be as a result of a reaction from the metal to everyday handling of the coin e.g. oils and acids from hands and not actual wear.
The copper Nickel coins can take far more time to react to this sort of thing because they have 23% more Nickel content.

This to me could explain the lack of lustre on these lightly circulated coins that are now 14 years old.

You're probably right.  Dollar coins tone quickly and easily.

[trout]

You're probably right. Dollar coins tone quickly and easily.

I have noticed this especially with the NCLT $1 coins from RAM in the unsealed packaging for the mint your own and commemoratives .
If you don't remove them and house them in 2x2's or saflips as soon as possible they do tarnish really fast and that is without anyone actually touching them.