Best Of

@UpGrayedd said:

@Cougar1978 said:
The ones that don’t include return privledge? I block and neg them on sight if they send me crud.

I offer returns and I try not to sell crud, but what's your eBay ID? I'd like to go ahead and block you preemptively.

I agree. No return policy means the item is as-is. Bid and buy accordingly, but don't complain unless the item was described inaccurately.

That's not what I said...I have the receipts.

@PeakRarities said:
@WQuarterFreddie -

NONE of your discussions are about "collecting" , they're all inflammatory topics about Vaultbox or the like.

I just received an email that my Ike's have shipped

Apparently, Mr. Feld decided to take a much needed break from the boards after recently trying to bring sanity to a thread here on Flowing Hair Gold privy coins; literally an impossible task absent a (much needed) slight modification of the rules here (but that discussion is for another day).

Let’s not have this interesting thread on W quarters also quickly deteriorate due to a “lover’s quarrel” between a couple valuable forum members. I don’t give a darn about VaultBox - that discussion has absolutely no place here on this tread. If anyone wants to talk about that topic, please hunt down 18 month old threads and go hurl accusations, or defenses to conduct over there (which I won’t need to waste my time reading). Fair enough?

As to W quarters, I have a couple substantive points to make on the subject, if we can get back on task now. Everyone OK with getting back to discussing the market for W quarters heading into 2025?

Wondercoin.

Just remember; a $10 coin in a $30 slab is still only worth $10.

Circulated quarters from the 50sv and 60s are only worth bullion value.

Uncirculated quarters from the 70s and 80s would have to be exceptional to be worth grading. In most cases, they are likely only worth face value.

The easiest way to get a sense of grading is to look at the PCGS photograde guide.

https://www.pcgs.com/photograde#/Washington/Grades

why do you think pcgs didn't put damaged on the label, plus i wonder why the holdered a dateless coin

The W quarters in strong demand and been good sellers for me. Not a bad investment buy. Better yet super find in change $$.

They retail quicker than I can replace.

@ProofCollection said:

@coinbuf said:

@ProofCollection said:

There are methods that can be used to find a midpoint. For example, you could take 20 or so PCGS MS65 Morgan dollars and rank them in quality and the one in the middle would probably be close to MS65.50. While a team of graders might not rank the coins the same, I bet the same handful would generally end up in the middle.

Basic statistics would say that you are correct, but this is coin grading where personal bias is rampant so I doubt that would occur with the frequency that you think it would. What about the next group of graders who see that consensus 65.5 coin as a consensus of 66.6 or 66.4?

A valid point, but I think that you have to define an acceptable margin of error and that you'd be well within it. As others have commented, although a resource like Photograde is helpful, there really needs to be multiple examples of each grade as there are always compensating factors. For example, an MS65 with excellent luster and great strike but a few extra bag marks compared to one with average luster, average strike, but few bag marks can both bot solidly MS65. The point being that it's probably OK for your grading set to have an MS65.5 +/- 0.1. After all, grading is already subjective.

@ProofCollection said:
As people are probably tired of seeing me point out, CACG does not adhere to ANA standards because they will intentionally grade coins at the bottom of the standard for each grade one point lower than deserved. A lot of people like that though.

I never said that CACG adheres to an ANA standard, only that they are the closest. Yes, you have to the point of ad nauseum made your contempt of what you think of CACG quite clear. I get that you think PCGS is the only grading service that "gets it right" 100% of the time, a thought or idea that I disagree with.

I would never say that PCGS gets it right 100% of the time. I would say that their standards are the closest to ANA. There is sometimes a consistency issue with how they adhere to them. I like the fact that PCGS does not artificially lower grades. As far as tolerance for surface conditions, which is a separate discussion, I am torn because collectors do want problem free coins for the most part, but there's also a strong case and need to define what's "market acceptable" because sometimes the issues really are very minor and most of the market doesn't or wouldn't care or would gladly pay a little less for that coin so long as it's not labeled Details.

"Closest to the ANA"? Where it's stated that MS-60 and above have NO trace of wear? Yeah, that definitely sounds like PCGS and not CAC,,,,

First of all, why would that even matter and how is it relevant today?

"I like the fact that PCGS does not artificially lower grades"

NOBODY is "artificially lowering grades, for the 784th time. Go talk to one of the CACG graders at the show, because you're determined not to listen to anyone here, no matter how many times it's been explained (ad nausuem).

Goodness, can't you just say that you like PCGS' grading better, instead of trying to use these convoluted mental gymnastics to try to justify your reasoning? The amount of wasted time people have spent trying to get this across immeasurable at this point. Just collect whatever you want and submit wherever you want, but please stop spewing misinformation stated as fact. The only time a grade is "artificially lowered" is when a coin is net graded, which happens at every service. This will be my only comment about this on this thread.