PCGS guidelines for eye appeal.
lordmarcovan
Posts: 43,673 ✭✭✭✭✭
I just stumbled across this page.
Now, I give our sponsors full credit for giving this a go, and I do think it is very well written and presented.
However, I'm not so sure I'm on board with any attempts to quantify something so subjective as eye appeal. (To be fair, though, I guess maybe they aren't really attempting that- they did use the word "guidelines" in the title, after all.)
I just found it rather interesting. The first coin, the rainbow Morgan under the "AMAZING" category, is indeed an interesting and I'm sure appealing coin... but it's not really my cuppa tea.
The first coin under the "POSITIVE" category (another toner Morgan) has obvious fingerprints over a good portion of its obverse. The toning doesn't compensate for that, in my humble opinion, and the bag toning pattern on it is again... interesting, but not my cuppa tea. (BUT, I really do find the reverse of that particular coin, with its more symmetrical/peripheral toning pattern, to be very positive. In fact, almost amazing. I love the reverse on that piece.)
Finally, down towards the bottom, we've got "NEGATIVE", but I do not find the looks of the commems in that category to be that bad at all. I think the Sesquicentennial and the Vermont are definitely "OK" (not great, but acceptable). I find the Lincoln/Illinois to be only the slightest bit negative in eye appeal, and even the woodgrainy toning pattern of the Lynchburg half, while not particularly appealing, has some character.
Then, at the very bottom itself, we have "UGLY". The Peace dollar and the Boone commem there are undeniably that. But hey, that Morgan ain't bad at all, to my way of looking. Looks like it has some semi-prooflike fields beneath the toning, and while the toning pattern ain't all that great, the colors aren't awful.
See what I mean? There's no way to quantify it.
To loosely quote a common turn of phrase:
Opinions are like... (insert word for excretory orifice here). Everybody's got one, and they all stink.
Now, I give our sponsors full credit for giving this a go, and I do think it is very well written and presented.
However, I'm not so sure I'm on board with any attempts to quantify something so subjective as eye appeal. (To be fair, though, I guess maybe they aren't really attempting that- they did use the word "guidelines" in the title, after all.)
I just found it rather interesting. The first coin, the rainbow Morgan under the "AMAZING" category, is indeed an interesting and I'm sure appealing coin... but it's not really my cuppa tea.
The first coin under the "POSITIVE" category (another toner Morgan) has obvious fingerprints over a good portion of its obverse. The toning doesn't compensate for that, in my humble opinion, and the bag toning pattern on it is again... interesting, but not my cuppa tea. (BUT, I really do find the reverse of that particular coin, with its more symmetrical/peripheral toning pattern, to be very positive. In fact, almost amazing. I love the reverse on that piece.)
Finally, down towards the bottom, we've got "NEGATIVE", but I do not find the looks of the commems in that category to be that bad at all. I think the Sesquicentennial and the Vermont are definitely "OK" (not great, but acceptable). I find the Lincoln/Illinois to be only the slightest bit negative in eye appeal, and even the woodgrainy toning pattern of the Lynchburg half, while not particularly appealing, has some character.
Then, at the very bottom itself, we have "UGLY". The Peace dollar and the Boone commem there are undeniably that. But hey, that Morgan ain't bad at all, to my way of looking. Looks like it has some semi-prooflike fields beneath the toning, and while the toning pattern ain't all that great, the colors aren't awful.
See what I mean? There's no way to quantify it.
To loosely quote a common turn of phrase:
Opinions are like... (insert word for excretory orifice here). Everybody's got one, and they all stink.
0
Comments
<< <i>Wow! Great read, I learned alot. Thanks for posting the link Lord M.
My wife's cooking?
But textile toning is not my cuppa tea, either, so there. Nyah nyah.
"Eye Appeal is one component of grade. For coins grading above MS/PR 60, eye appeal is one of the four components of grade."
"For Mint State and Proof coins, the three factors comprising a coin's "technical grade" are:..."
Three? Four?
I think this a bad move, and will muddy and already messy field. "Note on toning: splotchy toning and/or deeply embedded toning is never positive no matter how "original."" - really? Some negatives are nicer than the Neutrals and below Averages, and the Amazing is not...amazing. I also think not enough time went into this terminology. It lacks something. I like 1/3 of the "ugly" as well.
"...they are doing something systematically that is repeatable and quantifiable. My money is on the latter." AMRC - You are not alone.
Eric
- Jim
PCGS could grade the coin like they have always done , and then add a three digit modifier reflecting eye appeal !
<< <i>PCGS could grade the coin like they have always done , and then add a three digit modifier reflecting eye appeal ! >>
Three-digit, twelve-digit, sixteen-digit with pluses and stars and asterisks and cherries and watermelons- it wouldn't matter.
"Eye appeal" will never be exactly the same thing to two different people, and trying to quantify it is (in my still-stinky but increasingly entrenched opinion) rather silly.
(I will add that I'm not entirely against such an idea, though. Just let it be declared that I would always be taking the proposed modifier with a healthy-sized grain of salt. A chunk of salt the size of the iceberg that sank the Titanic.)
I suppose you could rule by committee to try and get a consensus, and you could then call the resulting majority opinion an "eye appeal rating". I guess that sort of follows along the central idea that was the bedrock upon which the TPG phenomenon rests in the first place. Which has its value, too, don't get me wrong.
But when push comes to shove, whose opinion will count the most in deciding the eye appeal of a coin I am about to purchase?
I'll give you a short answer: me, and only me.
Do I care about what some other party or some committee has decided about the eye appeal of my prospective purchase? Maybe. Yes. But in only in a marginal way. When I'M buying something for my collection, my OWN opinion outweighs that of rest of the entire numismatic world.
Seems like that should be obvious, but sometimes it appears to be becoming less and less so these days. We're handing over the grading of our coins to third parties and I'm fine with that. Then some of us are soliciting the opinion of a second third party to render a judgment on the grades rendered by the first third party. Hey, whatever floats your boat, but stickers make me snicker a little. What's next? Will a committee be telling us what is beautiful and what isn't?
Not me, they won't.
Hey, folks, I have a lot of respect for TPGs and the role they play in the marketplace. I'll take dainty sips of the Kool-Aid. But I ain't gonna guzzle it. I reserve the right to remain an independent, free thinker.
Even if I'm wrong some of the time.
(Edited for sentence repair. When I really get up a good steam typin', I sometimes skip entire words.)
Whit
Take a look (in my sig)
I three
we differ on the Kool-aid though ; I will guzzle that stuff until my stomach explodes !
<< <i>Well this page is not very new. And I can't share much except all my coins fall under the ugly category.
Take a look (in my sig)
Man, whattheheck you talkin' about? I looked at your sigline links. Didn't see no dang uglies in there. You must have a pretty wide definition.