I think another question is if the 1817/4 can be truly called a variety. There is not enough of the 4 to support that IMHO. Who wants a "variety" that can only be seen with a loupe with very young eyes?
But the scratch should be graded as a details coin........it is way too large and ugly to ignore. Lots of very nice 1817's available, why would one want an ugly and questionable variety?
@OldIndianNutKase said:
I think another question is if the 1817/4 can be truly called a variety. There is not enough of the 4 to support that IMHO. Who wants a "variety" that can only be seen with a loupe with very young eyes?
A 17/14 is technically an over date and a die marriage, not a “variety”. The over date in hand is actually quite distinct.
But the scratch should be graded as a details coin........it is way too large and ugly to ignore. Lots of very nice 1817's available, why would one want an ugly and questionable variety?
If you are just looking for the date or type, yes there are plenty nice coins to choose from. If, however, you are looking for the most popular (desirable) Capped Bust half dollar for your Redbook, PCGS Registry or Overton collection there are only about a dozen known to choose from. I’ll take it!
OINK
To each their own.
Q: When does a collector become a numismatist?
A: The year they spend more on their library than their coin collection.
A numismatist is judged more on the content of their library than the content of their cabinet.
There are lots of R.5s in details holders, should be no different for R.6 or R.7. If you want to create a new standard, just explicitly state that rarities R.6 and above are always straight-graded, regardless of levels of damage.
A grader once told me that the ANA grading standards do not spell out scratches that may be acceptable and those that should result in a details grade. I have gotten some coins back recently that got a details grade due to light scratches. Is it fair to let graders arbitrarily draw the line on this?
@logger7 said:
A grader once told me that the ANA grading standards do not spell out scratches that may be acceptable and those that should result in a details grade. I have gotten some coins back recently that got a details grade due to light scratches. Is it fair to let graders arbitrarily draw the line on this?
There are far too many possible combinations of scratches and other flaws to be able to spell it out in a meaningful way that covers most examples. Like it or not, it’s a judgment call and there will be unpopular decisions in both directions.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Interesting discussion. It's easy to argue this both ways, but in the end it's just one more example of the extremely subjective nature of grading. There really isn't such a thing as grading standards. Try explaining the nuances of this to a new collector. It's borderline impossible.
Rarity plays a role in the other direction too.
When I was collecting Peace dollars I noticed that it was much easier to get an upgrade on a common-date coin than on a key or semi-key date, especially when the higher grade didn't add much "book value".
So, more rarity = more leeway at the low end but more scrutiny at the top end.
OK . . . I can't take it anymore. I have reached the max.
I am always thrilled to be here, read for education, and very, VERY rarely post as I learn a lot more when I keep my mouth shut. But . . . . guys and gals . . . . .
I really thought the first responder to this post would just cite the obvious and this would die away to the logical and understandable death it should have. As soon as I saw the OP I anticipated it actually might get shot down so fast that it would be off the first page in an hour . . . BUT . . .
No . . . . it stays alive.
Board Members . . . . . . reading directly from my RCMR (Rare Coin Marketing Report), November-December 2020, pg. 34 ("No Grade Coins") . . . I see the obvious statement from our hosts:
"Some allowances are made for ultra-rarities, colonials, and territorial gold coins, in which there are some instances where "net grading" is used by PCGS as a service to the numismatic community."
This is a superb 'ultra-rarity', and well-appreciated by many of our posters here above. My knowledge in this area is quite frankly non-existent although I delight in the fervor of our Bust-Half enthusiasts! But . . . . I do have 41 years teaching English, and this magazine is perched right next to the throne in my downstairs bathroom and I read and re-read it so much I wonder about my statistical OCD.
Enjoy the coin. Why are were debating what PCGS has already stated is their mission . . . . to help collectors in very rare and extreme circumstances????
Sorry . . . . I will go back to my man-cave and watch NFL football . . . .
@DRUNNER said:
OK . . . I can't take it anymore. I have reached the max.
I am always thrilled to be here, read for education, and very, VERY rarely post as I learn a lot more when I keep my mouth shut. But . . . . guys and gals . . . . .
I really thought the first responder to this post would just cite the obvious and this would die away to the logical and understandable death it should have. As soon as I saw the OP I anticipated it actually might get shot down so fast that it would be off the first page in an hour . . . BUT . . .
No . . . . it stays alive.
Board Members . . . . . . reading directly from my RCMR (Rare Coin Marketing Report), November-December 2020, pg. 34 ("No Grade Coins") . . . I see the obvious statement from our hosts:
"Some allowances are made for ultra-rarities, colonials, and territorial gold coins, in which there are some instances where "net grading" is used by PCGS as a service to the numismatic community."
This is a superb 'ultra-rarity', and well-appreciated by many of our posters here above. My knowledge in this area is quite frankly non-existent although I delight in the fervor of our Bust-Half enthusiasts! But . . . . I do have 41 years teaching English, and this magazine is perched right next to the throne in my downstairs bathroom and I read and re-read it so much I wonder about my statistical OCD.
Enjoy the coin. Why are were debating what PCGS has already stated is their mission . . . . to help collectors in very rare and extreme circumstances????
Sorry . . . . I will go back to my man-cave and watch NFL football . . . .
Drunner
I still don't understand how ignoring problems on some coins and not on other coins help collectors?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
Comments
I think another question is if the 1817/4 can be truly called a variety. There is not enough of the 4 to support that IMHO. Who wants a "variety" that can only be seen with a loupe with very young eyes?
But the scratch should be graded as a details coin........it is way too large and ugly to ignore. Lots of very nice 1817's available, why would one want an ugly and questionable variety?
OINK
A 17/14 is technically an over date and a die marriage, not a “variety”. The over date in hand is actually quite distinct.
If you are just looking for the date or type, yes there are plenty nice coins to choose from. If, however, you are looking for the most popular (desirable) Capped Bust half dollar for your Redbook, PCGS Registry or Overton collection there are only about a dozen known to choose from. I’ll take it!
To each their own.
A: The year they spend more on their library than their coin collection.
A numismatist is judged more on the content of their library than the content of their cabinet.
There are lots of R.5s in details holders, should be no different for R.6 or R.7. If you want to create a new standard, just explicitly state that rarities R.6 and above are always straight-graded, regardless of levels of damage.
A grader once told me that the ANA grading standards do not spell out scratches that may be acceptable and those that should result in a details grade. I have gotten some coins back recently that got a details grade due to light scratches. Is it fair to let graders arbitrarily draw the line on this?
There are far too many possible combinations of scratches and other flaws to be able to spell it out in a meaningful way that covers most examples. Like it or not, it’s a judgment call and there will be unpopular decisions in both directions.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Interesting discussion. It's easy to argue this both ways, but in the end it's just one more example of the extremely subjective nature of grading. There really isn't such a thing as grading standards. Try explaining the nuances of this to a new collector. It's borderline impossible.
Rarity plays a role in the other direction too.
When I was collecting Peace dollars I noticed that it was much easier to get an upgrade on a common-date coin than on a key or semi-key date, especially when the higher grade didn't add much "book value".
So, more rarity = more leeway at the low end but more scrutiny at the top end.
So, if a coin is really rare,the grade on the holder doesnt necessarily have to reflect the condition of the coin?
My thinking is that everything with an obvious blemish is net graded.
The whole "sight unseen" thing is a dead relic of "investment numismatics".
My Saint Set
To me, in these situations, the coin is market graded vs condition graded. This is the pricing level that the coin likely deserves.
OK . . . I can't take it anymore. I have reached the max.
I am always thrilled to be here, read for education, and very, VERY rarely post as I learn a lot more when I keep my mouth shut. But . . . . guys and gals . . . . .
I really thought the first responder to this post would just cite the obvious and this would die away to the logical and understandable death it should have. As soon as I saw the OP I anticipated it actually might get shot down so fast that it would be off the first page in an hour . . . BUT . . .
No . . . . it stays alive.
Board Members . . . . . . reading directly from my RCMR (Rare Coin Marketing Report), November-December 2020, pg. 34 ("No Grade Coins") . . . I see the obvious statement from our hosts:
"Some allowances are made for ultra-rarities, colonials, and territorial gold coins, in which there are some instances where "net grading" is used by PCGS as a service to the numismatic community."
This is a superb 'ultra-rarity', and well-appreciated by many of our posters here above. My knowledge in this area is quite frankly non-existent although I delight in the fervor of our Bust-Half enthusiasts! But . . . . I do have 41 years teaching English, and this magazine is perched right next to the throne in my downstairs bathroom and I read and re-read it so much I wonder about my statistical OCD.
Enjoy the coin. Why are were debating what PCGS has already stated is their mission . . . . to help collectors in very rare and extreme circumstances????
Sorry . . . . I will go back to my man-cave and watch NFL football . . . .
Drunner
I still don't understand how ignoring problems on some coins and not on other coins help collectors?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
At least it wasn't based on ownership.
At least rarity is intrinsic to the coin that is.