Do you think the MS-66 and MS-67 grades awarded to many Morgan Dollars is being abused.
Insider2
Posts: 14,452 ✭✭✭✭✭
The ANA description for an MS-66 dollar is: Several small contact marks, a few may be obvious. MS-67 may have 3 - 4 miniscule. I guess that means 5-8 marks is considered several. All these MS-66 and 67's have great luster. Perhaps attractive toning gives them the bump as many have too many marks for me but I'm conservative. What do you think?
Do you think the MS-66 and MS-67 grades awarded to many Morgan Dollars is being abused.
This is a private poll: no-one will see what you voted for.
0
Comments
I think the key dates are generally being protected but the more common coins have had many more graded in last 5 plus years. You will see some in upper side and lower side of grade because it is still subjective.
Plus you now you use a scope all the time.
Best place to buy !
Bronze Associate member
I think most grades used for all coins are being abused compared to my standards.
Counting marks to grade a coin is short sighted, as there are other dimensions one must consider (strike, luster, and eye appeal). Sort of like judging a musical performance by counting how many notes a performer missed.
At 67, eye appeal is going to be the first thing you notice, because that's a coin that should make you say, "Wow!" as soon as you see it. If someone only wants one Morgan dollar in their collection and wants it to be high grade, 81-S and 82-S have the most to offer, especially if you find an 82-S in 67 with slightly concave fields. Counting marks won't be the first thing that comes to mind.
That said, there is no shortage of Morgan dollars in 66 and 67 that deserve a pass, and given the availability of the common dates, a majority of those you see on any given bourse floor, often coins with a lot of bourse mileage on them, deserve a pass. This is fine, since that still leaves a good number of nice coins to choose from. The Hypercube of Quality is four dimensions of coordinates (surfaces, strike, luster, eye appeal) on a continuous scale, and grading tries to project that onto a discrete one-dimensional scale. The very nature of doing that is going to create high-end, low-end, just-right, and WTF coins at every grade. Of course, dealers then transform the discrete 1D grading scale into a continuous (more or less) 1D pricing scale.
Whether this constitutes abuse of lofty grades, I don't know, but presents the collector with a reality that they are ultimately responsible for navigating when making purchasing decisions.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
What do you expect with 3 second grading?
The whole worlds off its rocker, buy Gold™.
BOOMIN!™
I found myself quite surprised on some GTG reveals ....... eye appeal seems to trump the warranted standard
This is an excellent question and has implications that extend far beyond Morgans in a narrow grade range. I’m not the expert and I certainly lack the chronological experience of people who have been in the game for a long time. That said, many grades seem to be wandering beyond their historical habitat.
But, probably better to have the discussion in a different location.
Stay conservative. Buy nice coins for the grade, then you have nothing to worry about.
My understanding is that the ANA supports and teaches market grading which is used by the TPGs.
Mint State Morgans are always technically graded.
I've noticed more of the unexpected lately. No one entity is solely responsible; it's industry wide in my opinion. And not to pick on @Insider2 but I've been seeing more of the following lately:
July 2018 (PCGS) --> Nov 2018 (ICG)
I am saying this with no disrespect to any grader be it a TPG or a seller of raw coins, but every coin is it’s own entity, no matter what the grade. Eye appeal to the buyer is what matters over anything else. I have collected dollars in the past and I have seen slabbed coins that were outstanding for the posted grade as well as slabbed coins that were imho, overgraded. It happens. Everyone has their own likes and dislikes. I am positive that I would rather have an MS 65 or 66 dollar that knocks my socks off rather than an MS 67 that I find a bit blah.
As far as counting marks, where are the marks? I would rather have a handful of light marks that are hidden or not too annoying rather than one mark in an area that will always catch my eye.
I'm not really sure that the TPG represented with the upgrade is part of the "serious" discussion. No insult intended, and nice coins can be found in those holders, but I don't seek them out in general.
Check out my current listings: https://ebay.com/sch/khunt/m.html?_ipg=200&_sop=12&_rdc=1
I voted the weaselly "Other" since I tend not to dwell on coins I can't afford, (or refuse to pay for).
But, I think the "Eye Appeal is King" (paraphrasing), choice is probably the right answer. It's the catch-all excuse!
But, to be honest, all of US are to blame as well. Recently a Walker was presented as a GTG. And while I didn't vote, I thought a coin with the obvious "ding" over the eagle couldn't possibly grade higher than 65....yet people were guessing 66, 66+, and 67!
Turns out, it was a 65. But it shows that maybe WE don't judge based on marks, either!
Yes. Next.
I'll generically say 2 things....
1) It can very much depend on the TPGS (I was going to type this when I read the OP...then I also saw the picture posted a few posts after). There are many different TPGSs, not all are tier 1.
2) I've heard that the grading can be subjective to the year/striking of a particular issue. While I can understand some validity in that, I also am of the believe that a MS66 in one year and MM for a series should stand up on its own against a different year/MM of the same series. So, for Morgans, an 1881-S in MS66 or MS67 should have a "similar" look to a 1904 or 1902 or 1894, etc. One may have a far greater number of nicely struck pieces, but they should still be comparable, imho
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
@messydesk...What a superb analogy..."The Hypercube of Quality"....Congratulations on a concise name for the complexity of grading. Personally, I would like to see 'eye appeal' eliminated from grading, since it is so subjective and everyone does not like the same appearance (for example, tarnish vs. no tarnish - and other visual parameters). Once again, Thank you @messydesk for that description. Cheers, RickO
Too late in the game to remove eye appeal from the mix. Doing so would just force some to resubmit coins making the TPG's richer for no good reason. Further, if a coin has poor eye appeal (like 75% on every bourse floor) I wouldn't want it at any grade.
@Bochiman that’s why I used the word protected. But agree it should just be comparable no matter what happens to POP.
Best place to buy !
Bronze Associate member
I must have made the toning gods mad or maybe I hit the wrong button while editing. My comment about toned coins being environmentally damaged has disappeared.
Grading companies don’t really stand by their grading guarantee so might as well add a point or two to some of these.
@fiftysevener said: "Mint State Morgans are always technically graded."
I'm going to bet that you don't have any idea what you just posted. What do you mean by "TECHNICALLY GRADED"
@blitzdude said: "What do you expect with 3 second grading?"
Will all the "Ex-Perts" around here PLEASE STOP perpetuating this seriously uninformed and bogus misinformation!
@U1chicago said: "I've noticed more of the unexpected lately. No one entity is solely responsible; it's industry wide in my opinion. And not to pick on @Insider2 but I've been seeing more of the following lately:
Thank you! This example is exactly the situation I was thinking about. I wondered what others thought.
While it is a beautiful coin, this one with the hit on the cheek and many other examples from all TPGS are not my personal MS-67. It does not match the published "NON-STANDARDS!" I've worked at 4 TPGS including the first one INSAB. At the other three, I did not agree with every grade assigned.
@Bochiman said: "I've heard that the grading can be subjective to the year/striking of a particular issue. While I can understand some validity in that, I also am of the believe that a MS66 in one year and MM for a series should stand up on its own against a different year/MM of the same series. So, for Morgans, an 1881-S in MS66 or MS67 should have a "similar" look to a 1904 or 1902 or 1894, etc. One may have a far greater number of nicely struck pieces, but they should still be comparable, imho."
What should be (makes things simple when the SAME "non-standard" is used for all dates and mints) IS NOT. And will never be as long as a grader is trying to place a value on a coin to express its rarity, and beauty,
@pcgs69 said: "Grading companies don’t really stand by their grading guarantee so might as well add a point or two to some of these."
Yack, yack, yack, yack....Please post your evidence with some personal examples. Otherwise, I can post things such as "some members like to sound important by posting stories they hear."
Perhaps, you may be confused. Let's use the two slabbed coins as examples. In one case the PCGS is sent to another TPGS and the say it is not an MS-65 by their standards. Is the coin correctly graded? Is it a '65? Suppose you send it back to PCGS and say it did not cross. So What, it is a PCGS 65. **Does that mean they don't honor their guarantee?" ABSOLUTELY NOT.
For the second case, let's send the ICG coin back to ICG and say it is not a 67 or another service refused to cross it. ICG examines it and says the coin is graded correctly by their standards. Does that mean they don't honor their grading guarantee? ABSOLUTELY NOT.
PS I remember being at a Long Beach Show decades ago where I observed folks examining a large trunk. I learned later that it was filled with a TPGS's "buy-backs" and they were being sold.
Whatever the grading standards coin grading companies go by to survive don't matter to many collectors who have their own grading standards they collect by. I could add quite a bit more to this linage of thought but will pass.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
ill stay with eye appeal for right now
Do you think more folks care about the standards as applied by the TPGS than YOURS or MINE?
I believe that a blanket condemnation of the host grader is a ticket to ban land.
Best to consider coins individually here, not in bulk.
IMO, standards are slightly looser than they were in 1986. Are they looser than 5 years ago? That can be debated (and has been on these boards). Also, trying to compare a PCGS grade with an ICG grade is apples to oranges, and really has no value in the original post.
I have always felt that the grading companies (meaning the graders) should grade the coin(s) based on their company grading standards. They should NOT be graded based on the populations or the value of the coin. JUST GRADE THE COIN. The market will always determine value. IMO that is not the job of TPG's.
It's no secret that Morgans graded MS66 today used to be MS65 years ago. As a long-time collector, I don't want to pay MS66 money for something that doesn't meet the old 1980s-early 1990s standards. If it's in a 66 holder and it looks 65 to me, I'll offer 65 money. Thus, if I'm buying Morgans in these grades, I'm going to be disappointed in the asking price most of the time. Because I have really been focusing on Seated material the past few years, I haven't been affected much by the gradeflation on Morgans, except that I now have a bunch of graded coins in old holders that might upgrade.
I see no condemnation of our host in this thread but I'll agree that its best to be very, very, very, very careful.
GTG threads tend to be biased toward unexpected grades.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
True! Plus I think that most forum members(self included), tend to grade the coin on what "we" would grade the coin, instead of guessing what the grading company thought. Maybe it should be asked "what would YOU grade this coin"?....but there's not a cute 2018 acronym that everyone on the planet seems to want to use these days for that!
The last Morgan I had graded was an 84 CC which I cracked out from a GSA holder that came back in a PC 6 holder twenty years ago. It's a nice coin and I believe it was properly graded.
The above said, I noticed a 1 point grade bump about 15 years ago if a coin has exceptional toning / eye appeal. This applies to coins in general, not just Morgans. This is what I have seen at shows over the years since then.
To test this theory out, I bought a 38 D Buff in an OGH in a 6 holder. The coin had exceptional color / eye appeal, but was technically a 6 all day long because it had a minor tick on the Buff's midsection. I sent it in (in holder), and it came back in a PC 7 holder.
I do not know whether this would apply if a bump from a 6 to a 7 for a coin would result in a value increment in the thousands of dollars, rather than two or three hundred dollars, as in my example.
But to address Insider's query, in general, I think superior eye appeal trumps technical grading for a particular grade of Unc.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
I found my tendency has been very consistent with how I personally grade a said coin
Well if we answer "yes....the TPG's are over grading gem Morgans" then that is a blanket swipe at all the graders including our hosts. If we are to keep our fine membership intact, it is best not to bait them into an OiltoOlay type thread.
But you already knew that, Insider.
Here is the thing. The industry decided to rely on "independent" TPGS's to allow for a level of protection for consumers. That means "they" (the major TPGS's but realistically the top two + CAC) control the table. Whatever they do in the future will be the norm. For example, if a 100 point system is ever adopted... it will be accepted by those dealing in coins and the collectors will eventually go along.
For as long as I have been alive, coin grading has evolved, is evolving, and will continue to evolve when I'm dead. Live with it and learn the system or just stay in your personal bubble. No one cares about us.
Therefore, the term "over graded" is a hollow term as each generation has adopted, and all is well for the "players" running the market.
This is why I collect early modern proofs. They didn't come in bags and their value is heavily weighted on eye appeal. Any attempts to estimate value on large silver coins that exist in huge quantities is futile because there is always more of them to grade and thus more gradeflation to come.
I totally agree. It is like trying to impose our morals on people that lived 200+ years ago. For that time, there was a norm. For today, there is a norm. The same with grading: the grading standards of the 1920's, was not the same as those in the '60s, or the '80s, or today. Change or die.
It depends. For nice toners one point sounds about right (or more commonly currently, PCGS may bump it up to a plus grade). For true monster toners (think Sunnywood, etc. level of color), PCGS was routinely awarding two and even three point bumps to a lesser extent at one point. This changed last year, and things have tightened considerably IMO.
I believe it all gets down to looking at the coins regardless of the assigned grades. The grade and, or sticker can be good guides, but in the end the coin should stand on its own merits. Then YOU make the final decision on whether to buy, sell, or pass.
The last coin I sent in went from MS 66 to MS 66 +. This represented a minor value increment. If it upgraded to an MS 67, its value would probably have at least doubled, possibly tripled. I do not know to what degree, if any, this is taken into consideration when it comes to such a submission.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
Today's standards for grading are about 80% in line with those from the late 1980's. All that's really changed is that the scale was stretched to bring the higher grades more into play (ie 66 to 69). Pretty much the same standard. The MS65 Morgan dollar of 1989 is generally a MS66 today. I figure a 1-1.5 point stretch at the 64 and up level....and 3-5 point stretch at the XF40-AU58 range. In general terms that is. Coins with considerable eye appeal benefited the most on the stretch. Those with below average or so-so eye appeal took it on the chin (no real change)