@Baley said:
Grading is easy, for everyone has an opinion, and they're all equally valid if coming from a peanut gallery with no stake in the matter.
it's fair and accurate pricing which leads to an equitable and mutually satisfactory transaction that's difficult.
"True" technical grading as practiced for precise, unchanging identification of a coin's condition of preservation ONLY is easy because 98% of the subjective parts of the commercial grading system **were removed!" Using that system, even the "peanut gallery" could be quickly taught to grade a coin. Opinions are limited because things either ARE or ARE NOT present and value was not a consideration at all. That's why the "technical" system is obsolete and could not work in a commercial market.
@MFeld said: "Despite its lovely color and highly original appearance, I would have graded it 65, at best, based on the images. But perhaps I would agree with the 66 grade if I were to see it in hand. That’s a potential three point variance, so the pictures might not tell the story."
I would grade it MS-64 MAX (too baggy for a gem); and price it as at least MS-65 because of its beauty and originality.
@pointfivezero said:
Long time bullion collector here but recently addicted to Morgans after a trip to Virginia City/Carson City this May. Let me answer the poll question with my recent experience. I am not looking for sympathy or empathy and probably don't deserve any. I've read on this forum that many have made and paid for their mistakes. So just add me to that distinguished list.
Please be patient as this story will unravel in three part harmony.
First - to remain anonymous, I won't list specifics. This was an ebay listing from a very reputable and well reviewed seller. This uncertified coin was listed with the title "1893-CC Morgan - Nice AU" and the BIN price was around $1K. These are the actual photos with the listing. What is everyone's opinion on the grade?
XF details, cleaned
The Saga - Part 2. The Plot Thickens
So cleaned was my first concern. As most of you know, NGC began offering a service with ebay in July which would confirm if a coin was authentic and an approximate grade based on the ebay photos. As John Candy said in Stripes, "this is perfect for me" as a numismatic newcomer. So I submit the coin for the "Expert Review". Here was the response:
****An NGC expert has reviewed your request for this listing:
1893 CC Morgan Dollar Nice AU
NGC offers to refund the $10 Review Fee when one sends the coin to them for grading. I receive the coin from the ebay seller, package it up and confidently send it off to them for grading. And the result is.....you guessed it:
Well, perturbed doesn't begin to describe my reaction to this result. Not only does the review miss the grade, it misses the Details grading. This was a minimum of a $500 loss on the purchase. I escalate to the Customer Service Manager at NGC from which I'm reminded this is not a "guaranteed" service. After a series of email communications over a two week period, we come to an "understanding". Long story long, I think you can now guess my poll response.
Post Script - I have submitted many ebay review requests to NGC. 75% have come back as "Likely Details Graded" and two came back as "Not Genuine" so maybe this result was a fluke. I'm not condemning the process just this particular experience.
NGC offers to refund the $10 Review Fee when one sends the coin to them for grading. I receive the coin from the ebay seller, package it up and confidently send it off to them for grading. And the result is.....you guessed it:
Well, perturbed doesn't begin to describe my reaction to this result. Not only does the review miss the grade, it misses the Details grading. This was a minimum of a $500 loss on the purchase. I escalate to the Customer Service Manager at NGC from which I'm reminded this is not a "guaranteed" service. After a series of email communications over a two week period, we come to an "understanding". Long story long, I think you can now guess my poll response.
Post Script - I have submitted many ebay review requests to NGC. 75% have come back as "Likely Details Graded" and two came back as "Not Genuine" so maybe this result was a fluke. I'm not condemning the process just this particular experience.
It’s one thing to estimate grades, based upon pictures, like we often do here. Unfortunately, it’s another, altogether, to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars based upon such estimated grades, even if provided by experts. I’m sorry for your bad experience.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
NGC offers to refund the $10 Review Fee when one sends the coin to them for grading. I receive the coin from the ebay seller, package it up and confidently send it off to them for grading. And the result is.....you guessed it:
Well, perturbed doesn't begin to describe my reaction to this result. Not only does the review miss the grade, it misses the Details grading. This was a minimum of a $500 loss on the purchase. I escalate to the Customer Service Manager at NGC from which I'm reminded this is not a "guaranteed" service. After a series of email communications over a two week period, we come to an "understanding". Long story long, I think you can now guess my poll response.
Post Script - I have submitted many ebay review requests to NGC. 75% have come back as "Likely Details Graded" and two came back as "Not Genuine" so maybe this result was a fluke. I'm not condemning the process just this particular experience.
I was not going to bother posting about this coin because I get bored with long stories. IMO your coin is a beat-up borderline AU right at the start. A grade of XF-45 details should cover every base. It is NOT a VF-anything. That is the trouble when professional graders NET GRADE a coin while trying to put a VALUE on it. It is STUPID and now you may be both confused and angry.
PS We don't know the quality of the image you sent to NGC was in the first place. That is suspect because an opinion of "between XF-40 and AU-58" is worthless!!! Perhaps, you paid $10 for the cleaning lady to grade your coin from the image.
@Insider2 said:
PS We don't know the quality of the image you sent to NGC was in the first place. That is suspect because an opinion of "between XF-40 and AU-58" is worthless!!! Perhaps, you paid $10 for the cleaning lady to grade your coin from the image.
Insider2 - in the NGC review process, one does not "send" photos. One simply enters the ebay auction number in their website link and the NGC cleaning lady reviews the pictures associated with the auction. The pictures in my original post were the two pictures in the auction listing.
@keets said:
well, you couldn't have missed the target more if you were firing in the dark. the point of the thread is that judging >coins based solely on internet pictures, no matter how good the quality, isn't reliable.
The title of the thread is....
"Is grading from online pictures reliable??"
My answer is yes for TV & more reliable than CAC
So far as your "point" goes...?
No picture will ever tell the full story. If you have done a lot of business with a particular seller, the images are consistent, and the images are of high quality, then yes I believe you can train your eye to interpret the photos reasonably well. I did this with Shane (before he went rogue) and aireplanenut's eBay auctions.
@pointfivezero said:
MasonG - actually, here are the range of options on their reviews:
Yes, that's correct. I only listed the options for a circulated coin with a numerical grade. Sorry for the confusion.
Since there are only two choices for a numeric graded circulated coin, suppose their opinion based on the eBay listing puts the coin barely over the line into the XF/AU category but when they see it in hand, it doesn't make the cut.
I'm not defending NGC here, just suggesting a reason for what happened with the grade.
@Insider2 said: @ReadyFireAim said: "Laura said "Extremely lustrous possessing a blazing golden glow with a bold vibrance throughout. In addition, there are brilliant, swirling cartwheels"
My 2c: I wish the coin were mine.
I AGREE with everything Ms. Laura said about this coin. Blazing luster and beautiful skin, Unfortunately, it's other characteristics (plus & minus) were NOT stated. She did not mention there is virtually no trace of "stacking rub" (a very unusual condition of these heavy coins) which IMO makes this coin more desirable. Another thing that was not addressed is the large number of marks (light & scattered all over the coin including its prime focal areas) on this truly MS DOUBLED DIE OBVERSE coin that does not have a "gem" surface. For this reason, the GTG opinions on this coin by members would have been like "buckshot!"
Is "stacking rub" the cause of the ugly "broken noses" I see on so many St. Gaudens $20?
@BryceM said:
Some dealers photograph their coins in a consistent way that lends itself to accurate interpretation of the coin, once you’re accustomed to what you’re seeing.
As a photographer, I can easily shoot a coin in a way that hides hairlines and leaves little blemishes hidden in shadows. I assume less scrupulous people know those same tricks.
Overall, though, I vote no. You can get close, but holding and twirling a coin under a couple of different kinds of light always yields more information than a single photo.
@BryceM, Is a fare statement which I fully agree with. Saved me some typing. NO is my vote.
My answer is no for sure.
I think you can get an idea but you can’t tell what the surfaces look like until it’s in hand. You might have a cleaned or polished coin that pictures can hide.
@brianc1959 said:
Is "stacking rub" the cause of the ugly "broken noses" I see on so many St. Gaudens $20?
Usually it's top or bottom of the obverse just inside the edge but it could be other places.
Here is a 15-S bean (that I agree with the grade/CAC & maybe minus $125 on price ) in MS65+ http://www.collectorscorner.com/Products/Item.aspx?id=44530380
It has stacking rub between the capital & the date.
Here is stacking rub on my 14-S on the top that that involves the word liberty & the torch.
I disagree. The mark on the Capitol is not due to stacking. "Stacking rub occurs on the high points of a coin and is an area where the original surface luster becomes impaired. We invented the term in the 1970's to describe an area of "compression" (smashed out luster) on a coin that left a shiny surface. This was different than "friction wear" on the high points that was "dull." Note that at that time, any loss of original surface luster on a coin dropped it out of the MS grade because at that time the definition of MS was: : "No Trace of Wear."
Stacking rub is now tolerated (as it should be) on coins graded MS. True "stacking rub" can be seen on the breast of this coin when it is magnified using the original post above.
A very high percentage of my coins were purchased online from photographs. In all my years; I've only had to return a few of them. I think that says a lot. Of course; I don't buy raw from images---that is something I would have to see in hand. Buying PCGS and NGC only helps to level the playing field. Yes, I know a lot of problem coins are straight graded in those slabs but it still helps a lot. It has definitely stacked the deck in my favor. After many years; I have learned a great deal about interpreting images correctly, as well, especially when the images are good.
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
@Insider2 said:
True "stacking rub" can be seen on the breast of this coin when it is magnified using the original post above.
I'm thinking stacking rub-damage-friction-wear....(using the word stacking before any other word)
Should come from another coin and not some other thing.
In the above 2 examples, it is an unusual distribution of damage associated w/ stacking.
Is this stacking?
Grade this one and CAC / no-CAC it
@ReadyFireAim said: "I'm thinking stacking rub-damage-friction-wear....(using the word stacking before any other word) should come from another coin and not some other thing. In the above 2 examples, it is an unusual distribution of damage associated w/ stacking."
This is a typical, and very frustrating problem for me. Anyone can write anything, teach anything. make a video of anything and the more it is done and the more it is copied and spread around, the more it becomes accepted. Words used to describe the characteristics we see on coins are/were (before being debased) specific. Many of them were "coined" from a long examination of the microscopic characteristics of a surface. For what it is worth, the only thing factual/true in your statement above is this: "Stacking Rub" should come from another coin." Damage and friction wear MAY come from another coin. As I posted above, stacking rub is NOT CONSIDERED DAMAGE, even though at the microscopic level the surface luster has been damaged. Simply put, when coins are "STACKED" in tubes, rolls. Old Time banking houses, etc. they developed this particular "look." In the 1970's, when we noticed that the "look" of this characteristic was completely different microscopically from friction wear, we determined its source and named it: "Stacking Rub."
This would have been a great GTG to add to this thread during the day but at this time of night, it is just annoying me. I'll PM you with the answer concerning this circulated Saint. Oops, I guess I won't. Now, I'm grinning from ear-to-ear and appreciate your additions to the discussion. Good Night all.
PS I have no clue what this AU-57 is actually graded. The fields are nice. I've seen stuff as this graded as high as MS-63!
With Good pictures you can get an estimate and a close grade but with anything you have to know what it should look like and check weight, rims ,strike luster, diameters and metal content.
@Insider2 said: @ReadyFireAim said: "I'm thinking stacking rub-damage-friction-wear....(using the word stacking before any other word) should come from another coin and not some other thing. In the above 2 examples, it is an unusual distribution of damage associated w/ stacking."
This is a typical, and very frustrating problem for me. Anyone can write anything, teach anything. make a video of anything and the more it is done and the more it is copied and spread around, the more it becomes accepted. Words used to describe the characteristics we see on coins are/were (before being debased) specific. Many of them were "coined" from a long examination of the microscopic characteristics of a surface. For what it is worth, the only thing factual/true in your statement above is this: "Stacking Rub" should come from another coin." Damage and friction wear MAY come from another coin. As I posted above, stacking rub is NOT CONSIDERED DAMAGE, even though at the microscopic level the surface luster has been damaged. Simply put, when coins are "STACKED" in tubes, rolls. Old Time banking houses, etc. they developed this particular "look." In the 1970's, when we noticed that the "look" of this characteristic was completely different microscopically from friction wear, we determined its source and named it: "Stacking Rub."
This would have been a great GTG to add to this thread during the day but at this time of night, it is just annoying me. I'll PM you with the answer concerning this circulated Saint. Oops, I guess I won't. Now, I'm grinning from ear-to-ear and appreciate your additions to the discussion. Good Night all.
PS I have no clue what this AU-57 is actually graded. The fields are nice. I've seen stuff as this graded as high as MS-63!
I think your “AU-57” grade assessment is brutal. I’d call it a 58 minus😄 but will guess it’s graded MS62. And it does not display what I think of as “stacking rub” - the coin looks as if it’s been exposed to more than that.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@MFeld said: "[Insider] I think your “AU-57” grade assessment is brutal. I’d call it a 58 minus😄 but will guess it’s graded MS62. And it does not display what I think of as “stacking rub” - the coin looks as if it’s been exposed to more than that.
I agree 100%. And yes, I'm "brutal." IMO, while the fields are MS with just a few marks the amount of actual wear on the relief is closser to that found on a true AU-55 coin than a true MS (no trace of wear) coin. Nevertheless, AU-58 minus is a good, honest opinion that I can live with. Someone would buy a raw coin like this and get it into a TPGS MS-62 slab 8 times out of 10 because of the nice fields and what some graders would claim is "stacking rub" or "cabinet friction."
Even though MS-62 is the "old AU." I NEVER grade Saints with this much wear on the relief MS. Besides the obverse, the eagle has wear on the breast and upper wing. Lucky for me, the boss wants my honest, old-time conservative opinion to give our "market graders" something to consider.
PS @ReadyFireAim what is the coin graded? I'll be really disappointed if it is in an MS slab. If it is graded AU, I'll be pleasantly surprised and then it should get a bean.
Speaking of beans...I have one for you ! A BEAN OF A ...D
Sorry just found this with your page up .
Could not resest how funny.
That is a D..
3.1 weight , snowman 8..(Small Date) and dont forget the bean.
I keep it simple and understand I can't reliably grade from an online picture. it sems there are those among us who like to believe they can accuarately grade from those same pictures and are willing to MM about it.
@keets said:
I keep it simple and understand I can't reliably grade from an online picture. it sems there are those among us who like to believe they can accuarately grade from those same pictures and are willing to MM about it.
I think it depends upon the image and the viewer. For example, the 1929 Saint looks to have enough (obvious) wear to grade it AU. And even if it happens to have been graded mint state something or other, that doesn’t necessarily mean that it couldn’t be assessed accurately from the images. In other words, whoever grades it AU, based on the images might very well do the same if they see it in hand.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@keets said:
I keep it simple and understand I can't reliably grade from an online picture. it sems there are those among us who like to believe they can accuarately grade from those same pictures and are willing to MM about it.
Just because you cannot grade from a photo does not mean that others can't.
I grade from good photos, I grade from bad photos and I even grade from moon shots
I grade raw and certified coins daily form photos. Simple to do if you have an eye.
@keets said:
I keep it simple and understand I can't reliably grade from an online picture. it sems there are those among us who like to believe they can accuarately grade from those same pictures and are willing to MM about it.
Yes, some of us (including me) actually believe they can grade a coin using an excellent magnified image of a coin provided by our host! I think it may depend a lot on personal experience and how closely we examine actual coins in-hand.
man, you're really twisting a simple question/poll in the wind. I will say that given a high quality image from a trusted seller of a coin type I know well in grades that have well established parameters and no downside on an error from me that, yes, I feel confident in grading from an image.
I think most of us here know that wasn't what the question as posed was trying to illicit responses about. and Insider, you should know that most of all. you really eluded the fact that on the Hawaiian thread you clearly thought the coins were fake.
just suck it up and admit that from average quality pictures on the internet, the kind of thing we most often see, buying based on pictures isn't wise.it is something we shouldn't advise, or at least advise to do very, very cautiously. we are not serving the Numismatic community well when say that is a safe thing to do.
Keets that is horrible advice about not buying online from marginal photos. It is really really bad advice. So many killer deals will be missed if you follow his advise.
Here is that last raw coin that I bought from a seller's "moonshot image". I got the coin for half of what it is worth.
@ErrorsOnCoins said:
Keets that is horrible advice about not buying online from marginal photos. It is really really bad advice. So many killer deals will be missed if you follow his advise.
Here is that last raw coin that I bought from a seller's "moonshot image". I got the coin for half of what it is worth.
**Not a good example.* That type of error coin is worth a lot in just about any condition!
A collector who bought what looked like a "gem" Hawaiian 50c from an image and found out it was a polished AU is a better example. You, me, and others would probably be able to tell it was not original in the image but all of us are in the minority for sure!
When grading a coin from online photos, you must also consider the seller's description, the seller's feedback, and the seller's photographic ability.
I decide on a coin in about 2 to 3 seconds with 99.9% accuracy. It is not hard.
The best graders aren’t “right” anywhere near 99.9% of the time. So if you achieve that rate in your purchases, it has very little to do with being able to grade, based on images.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
When grading a coin from online photos, you must also consider the seller's description, the seller's feedback, and the seller's photographic ability.
I decide on a coin in about 2 to 3 seconds with 99.9% accuracy. It is not hard.
The best graders aren’t “right” anywhere near 99.9% of the time. So if you achieve that rate in your purchases, it has very little to do with being able to grade, based on images.
For me, the coin needs to be UNC, preferably MS64 or greater. That's all I am looking for so it works for me.
When grading a coin from online photos, you must also consider the seller's description, the seller's feedback, and the seller's photographic ability.
I decide on a coin in about 2 to 3 seconds with 99.9% accuracy. It is not hard.
The best graders aren’t “right” anywhere near 99.9% of the time. So if you achieve that rate in your purchases, it has very little to do with being able to grade, based on images.
While this is correct, IMO, when a knowledgeable collector puts their personal grade on a coin, they believe it is 99.9% correct by their personal standards. That's what make the world go around and what makes grading so subjective.
When grading a coin from online photos, you must also consider the seller's description, the seller's feedback, and the seller's photographic ability.
I decide on a coin in about 2 to 3 seconds with 99.9% accuracy. It is not hard.
The best graders aren’t “right” anywhere near 99.9% of the time. So if you achieve that rate in your purchases, it has very little to do with being able to grade, based on images.
For me, the coin needs to be UNC, preferably MS64 or greater. That's all I am looking for so it works for me.
Seriously, that’s good for you. But as I understand it, I don’t think it’s quite what the poll was about.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Comments
"True" technical grading as practiced for precise, unchanging identification of a coin's condition of preservation ONLY is easy because 98% of the subjective parts of the commercial grading system **were removed!" Using that system, even the "peanut gallery" could be quickly taught to grade a coin. Opinions are limited because things either ARE or ARE NOT present and value was not a consideration at all. That's why the "technical" system is obsolete and could not work in a commercial market.
@MFeld said: "Despite its lovely color and highly original appearance, I would have graded it 65, at best, based on the images. But perhaps I would agree with the 66 grade if I were to see it in hand. That’s a potential three point variance, so the pictures might not tell the story."
I would grade it MS-64 MAX (too baggy for a gem); and price it as at least MS-65 because of its beauty and originality.
The Saga - Part 2. The Plot Thickens
So cleaned was my first concern. As most of you know, NGC began offering a service with ebay in July which would confirm if a coin was authentic and an approximate grade based on the ebay photos. As John Candy said in Stripes, "this is perfect for me" as a numismatic newcomer. So I submit the coin for the "Expert Review". Here was the response:
****An NGC expert has reviewed your request for this listing:
1893 CC Morgan Dollar Nice AU
RESULTS:
Authenticity Opinion: Likely Genuine
Grade Opinion: Likely High Circulated (40-58)****
So I'm sold now. Even at XF40, this is a no brainer. And the purchase is completed.
More to come.....
The Saga Ends - Part 3
NGC offers to refund the $10 Review Fee when one sends the coin to them for grading. I receive the coin from the ebay seller, package it up and confidently send it off to them for grading. And the result is.....you guessed it:
Well, perturbed doesn't begin to describe my reaction to this result. Not only does the review miss the grade, it misses the Details grading. This was a minimum of a $500 loss on the purchase. I escalate to the Customer Service Manager at NGC from which I'm reminded this is not a "guaranteed" service. After a series of email communications over a two week period, we come to an "understanding". Long story long, I think you can now guess my poll response.
Post Script - I have submitted many ebay review requests to NGC. 75% have come back as "Likely Details Graded" and two came back as "Not Genuine" so maybe this result was a fluke. I'm not condemning the process just this particular experience.
It’s one thing to estimate grades, based upon pictures, like we often do here. Unfortunately, it’s another, altogether, to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars based upon such estimated grades, even if provided by experts. I’m sorry for your bad experience.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I was not going to bother posting about this coin because I get bored with long stories. IMO your coin is a beat-up borderline AU right at the start. A grade of XF-45 details should cover every base. It is NOT a VF-anything. That is the trouble when professional graders NET GRADE a coin while trying to put a VALUE on it. It is STUPID and now you may be both confused and angry.
PS We don't know the quality of the image you sent to NGC was in the first place. That is suspect because an opinion of "between XF-40 and AU-58" is worthless!!! Perhaps, you paid $10 for the cleaning lady to grade your coin from the image.
These are the options available:
Likely High Circulated (40-58)
Likely Low Circulated (1-35)
That's it.
Insider2 - in the NGC review process, one does not "send" photos. One simply enters the ebay auction number in their website link and the NGC cleaning lady reviews the pictures associated with the auction. The pictures in my original post were the two pictures in the auction listing.
Apologies for the long and boring posts.
MasonG - actually, here are the range of options on their reviews:
The title of the thread is....
"Is grading from online pictures reliable??"
My answer is yes for TV & more reliable than CAC
So far as your "point" goes...?
My Saint Set
WORTHLESS! The customer reps must be giving the opinions. I guess it saves them time and legal action.
It's NOT LIKELY they would get any money from me.
LOL.
Actually, the basic idea is excellent and should help many collectors.
@Heather Perhaps PCGS could refine this idea and improve it.
No picture will ever tell the full story. If you have done a lot of business with a particular seller, the images are consistent, and the images are of high quality, then yes I believe you can train your eye to interpret the photos reasonably well. I did this with Shane (before he went rogue) and aireplanenut's eBay auctions.
Yes, that's correct. I only listed the options for a circulated coin with a numerical grade. Sorry for the confusion.
Since there are only two choices for a numeric graded circulated coin, suppose their opinion based on the eBay listing puts the coin barely over the line into the XF/AU category but when they see it in hand, it doesn't make the cut.
I'm not defending NGC here, just suggesting a reason for what happened with the grade.
My answer: "A high percentage of the time, when images are of good enough quality."
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947):
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/
It would be great for there to be a TrueView grading contest.
Is "stacking rub" the cause of the ugly "broken noses" I see on so many St. Gaudens $20?
@BryceM, Is a fare statement which I fully agree with. Saved me some typing. NO is my vote.
My answer is no for sure.
I think you can get an idea but you can’t tell what the surfaces look like until it’s in hand. You might have a cleaned or polished coin that pictures can hide.
Usually it's top or bottom of the obverse just inside the edge but it could be other places.
) in MS65+
Here is a 15-S bean (that I agree with the grade/CAC & maybe minus $125 on price
http://www.collectorscorner.com/Products/Item.aspx?id=44530380
It has stacking rub between the capital & the date.
Here is stacking rub on my 14-S on the top that that involves the word liberty & the torch.
My Saint Set
@ReadyFireAim said:
I disagree. The mark on the Capitol is not due to stacking. "Stacking rub occurs on the high points of a coin and is an area where the original surface luster becomes impaired. We invented the term in the 1970's to describe an area of "compression" (smashed out luster) on a coin that left a shiny surface. This was different than "friction wear" on the high points that was "dull." Note that at that time, any loss of original surface luster on a coin dropped it out of the MS grade because at that time the definition of MS was: : "No Trace of Wear."
Stacking rub is now tolerated (as it should be) on coins graded MS. True "stacking rub" can be seen on the breast of this coin when it is magnified using the original post above.
I bought a coin today from online photos.
It is in an old white ANACS slab graded AU58
The seller provided good photos of the coin.
I graded the coin AU58 as well, easy peasy.
A very high percentage of my coins were purchased online from photographs. In all my years; I've only had to return a few of them. I think that says a lot. Of course; I don't buy raw from images---that is something I would have to see in hand. Buying PCGS and NGC only helps to level the playing field. Yes, I know a lot of problem coins are straight graded in those slabs but it still helps a lot. It has definitely stacked the deck in my favor. After many years; I have learned a great deal about interpreting images correctly, as well, especially when the images are good.
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947):
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/
I'm thinking stacking rub-damage-friction-wear....(using the word stacking before any other word)
Should come from another coin and not some other thing.
In the above 2 examples, it is an unusual distribution of damage associated w/ stacking.
Is this stacking?
Grade this one and CAC / no-CAC it
My Saint Set
@ReadyFireAim said: "I'm thinking stacking rub-damage-friction-wear....(using the word stacking before any other word) should come from another coin and not some other thing. In the above 2 examples, it is an unusual distribution of damage associated w/ stacking."
This is a typical, and very frustrating problem for me. Anyone can write anything, teach anything. make a video of anything and the more it is done and the more it is copied and spread around, the more it becomes accepted. Words used to describe the characteristics we see on coins are/were (before being debased) specific. Many of them were "coined" from a long examination of the microscopic characteristics of a surface. For what it is worth, the only thing factual/true in your statement above is this: "Stacking Rub" should come from another coin." Damage and friction wear MAY come from another coin. As I posted above, stacking rub is NOT CONSIDERED DAMAGE, even though at the microscopic level the surface luster has been damaged. Simply put, when coins are "STACKED" in tubes, rolls. Old Time banking houses, etc. they developed this particular "look." In the 1970's, when we noticed that the "look" of this characteristic was completely different microscopically from friction wear, we determined its source and named it: "Stacking Rub."
@ReadyFireAim asked: "Is this stacking?"
This would have been a great GTG to add to this thread during the day but at this time of night, it is just
annoying me. 
I'll PM you with the answer concerning this circulated Saint. Oops, I guess I won't. 
Now, I'm grinning from ear-to-ear and appreciate your 
additions to the discussion. Good Night all.
PS I have no clue what this AU-57 is actually graded. The fields are nice. I've seen stuff as this graded as high as MS-63!
With Good pictures you can get an estimate and a close grade but with anything you have to know what it should look like and check weight, rims ,strike luster, diameters and metal content.
Best place to buy !
Bronze Associate member
I think your “AU-57” grade assessment is brutal. I’d call it a 58 minus😄 but will guess it’s graded MS62. And it does not display what I think of as “stacking rub” - the coin looks as if it’s been exposed to more than that.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Brown & Dunn did it best.
@MFeld said: "[Insider] I think your “AU-57” grade assessment is brutal. I’d call it a 58 minus😄 but will guess it’s graded MS62. And it does not display what I think of as “stacking rub” - the coin looks as if it’s been exposed to more than that.
I agree 100%. And yes, I'm "brutal." IMO, while the fields are MS with just a few marks the amount of actual wear on the relief is closser to that found on a true AU-55 coin than a true MS (no trace of wear) coin. Nevertheless, AU-58 minus is a good, honest opinion that I can live with. Someone would buy a raw coin like this and get it into a TPGS MS-62 slab 8 times out of 10 because of the nice fields and what some graders would claim is "stacking rub" or "cabinet friction."
Even though MS-62 is the "old AU." I NEVER grade Saints with this much wear on the relief MS. Besides the obverse, the eagle has wear on the breast and upper wing. Lucky for me, the boss wants my honest, old-time conservative opinion to give our "market graders" something to consider.
PS @ReadyFireAim what is the coin graded? I'll be really disappointed if it is in an MS slab. If it is graded AU, I'll be pleasantly surprised and then it should get a bean.
Speaking of beans...I have one for you ! A BEAN OF A ...D
Sorry just found this with your page up .
Could not resest how funny.
That is a D..
3.1 weight , snowman 8..(Small Date) and dont forget the bean.
Coin looks MS71 to me.
I keep it simple and understand I can't reliably grade from an online picture. it sems there are those among us who like to believe they can accuarately grade from those same pictures and are willing to MM about it.
LOL. What's :MM." Motor Mouth?
I think it depends upon the image and the viewer. For example, the 1929 Saint looks to have enough (obvious) wear to grade it AU. And even if it happens to have been graded mint state something or other, that doesn’t necessarily mean that it couldn’t be assessed accurately from the images. In other words, whoever grades it AU, based on the images might very well do the same if they see it in hand.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Just because you cannot grade from a photo does not mean that others can't.
I grade from good photos, I grade from bad photos and I even grade from moon shots
I grade raw and certified coins daily form photos. Simple to do if you have an eye.
dude, you're grading mistakes so it really doesn't matter!!
Yes, some of us (including me) actually believe they can grade a coin using an excellent magnified image of a coin provided by our host! I think it may depend a lot on personal experience and how closely we examine actual coins in-hand.
Many error coins are damaged in counting machines. Some of TPG's grade those as UNC. You need to analyze the coin closely.
Most major error coins are in UNC condition. I could care less if it grades MS64 or a MS64+ or a MS65. Make no difference to me.
man, you're really twisting a simple question/poll in the wind. I will say that given a high quality image from a trusted seller of a coin type I know well in grades that have well established parameters and no downside on an error from me that, yes, I feel confident in grading from an image.
I think most of us here know that wasn't what the question as posed was trying to illicit responses about. and Insider, you should know that most of all. you really eluded the fact that on the Hawaiian thread you clearly thought the coins were fake.
just suck it up and admit that from average quality pictures on the internet, the kind of thing we most often see, buying based on pictures isn't wise.it is something we shouldn't advise, or at least advise to do very, very cautiously. we are not serving the Numismatic community well when say that is a safe thing to do.
suck it up, act responsibly.
really?
I buy 99.9% of my coins from photos online.
I am 99.9% right on my purchases.
I love buying coins from poor to bad photos.
When grading a coin from online photos, you must also consider the seller's description, the seller's feedback, and the seller's photographic ability.
I decide on a coin in about 2 to 3 seconds with 99.9% accuracy. It is not hard.
Keets that is horrible advice about not buying online from marginal photos. It is really really bad advice. So many killer deals will be missed if you follow his advise.
Here is that last raw coin that I bought from a seller's "moonshot image". I got the coin for half of what it is worth.
I think you're misunderstanding keets' advice. And if you can properly identify the coin, it's hardly a moonshot image.
**Not a good example.* That type of error coin is worth a lot in just about any condition!
A collector who bought what looked like a "gem" Hawaiian 50c from an image and found out it was a polished AU is a better example. You, me, and others would probably be able to tell it was not original in the image but all of us are in the minority for sure!
The best graders aren’t “right” anywhere near 99.9% of the time. So if you achieve that rate in your purchases, it has very little to do with being able to grade, based on images.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
.
I may not know what I'm doing most of the time, but I'm Damn good at it. 😇 😈
For me, the coin needs to be UNC, preferably MS64 or greater. That's all I am looking for so it works for me.
While this is correct, IMO, when a knowledgeable collector puts their personal grade on a coin, they believe it is 99.9% correct by their personal standards. That's what make the world go around and what makes grading so subjective.
Here's a current thread that shows not all can "grade by pics only". Maybe an outlier, but is an eye opener for most.
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/comment/12431805#Comment_12431805
I may not know what I'm doing most of the time, but I'm Damn good at it. 😇 😈
Seriously, that’s good for you. But as I understand it, I don’t think it’s quite what the poll was about.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.