@DollarAfterDollar said:
An excellent example to why market grading is BS. This just makes the professionals look sketchy in the eyes of the entire community.
That's why I like CAC, they will t least explain themselves.
How is this even an example of “market grading”? The assigned grade has little to do with the coin’s value, which is far greater than what an MS62 would typically bring. If “market grading” were involved, the grade would have been much higher.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
This could be solved if they provided a couple words on what was wrong.
100% positive transactions with SurfinxHI, bigole, 1madman, collectorcoins, proofmorgan, Luke Marshall, silver pop, golden egg, point five zero,coin22lover, alohagary, blaircountycoin,joebb21
Oh Wow! Time to dissect an MS62, I do not question the graders I just try to figure out how or why they arrived at their decision.
So, in this case obviously the coin looks great from a distance (doesn't count) but apparently has a weak strike, zero luster, and some hits. I wonder if it popped for the color or the opposite happened?
Wow!
This has really got me scratching my head.
The only hit I see is a little nick on the lower cheek.
I’m not an expert on this series, but the difference between the first submission and this one is baffling.
I might politely inquire as to whether a mistake might have been made, as far fetched as that may seem.
Is there even a mechanism in place for an issue like this?
Happy, humble, honored and proud recipient of the “You Suck” award 10/22/2014
Above kind of points out my take on this. We have 50 or 60 reasonably qualified Numismatists review a coin, the overwhelming consensus is that it's a quality, high grade coin. The coin is submitted for grading and an unexpected result occurs.
I think it was market graded because there's some hidden issue not clear in the photo. My definition of market grading is just that, a nice coin with a flaw that requires it to be downgraded from it's obvious lofty status but not so bad as to require a details grade. The end result being that it fetches money consistent with the findings of the grading room. I didn't make the rules. Feel free to enlighten me if my definition is materially incorrect.
Where this grinds my gears is that no explanation will ever be forthcoming. Fifty or 60 reasonably qualified Numismatists have graded the coin based upon suitable photo's and are all off by 4 grades with no clear reason why.
The only mechanism I'm aware of to verify if the coin's been properly graded is resubmission. If it were sent back claiming a mechanical error (mislabeled) who would make that determination?
My guess is we'll never know what happened here.
If you do what you always did, you get what you always got.
@DollarAfterDollar said:
Above kind of points out my take on this. We have 50 or 60 reasonably qualified Numismatists review a coin, the overwhelming consensus is that it's a quality, high grade coin. The coin is submitted for grading and an unexpected result occurs.
I think it was market graded because there's some hidden issue not clear in the photo. My definition of market grading is just that, a nice coin with a flaw that requires it to be downgraded from it's obvious lofty status but not so bad as to require a details grade. The end result being that it fetches money consistent with the findings of the grading room. I didn't make the rules. Feel free to enlighten me if my definition is materially incorrect.
Where this grinds my gears is that no explanation will ever be forthcoming. Fifty or 60 reasonably qualified Numismatists have graded the coin based upon suitable photo's and are all off by 4 grades with no clear reason why.
The only mechanism I'm aware of to verify if the coin's been properly graded is resubmission. If it were sent back claiming a mechanical error (mislabeled) who would make that determination?
My guess is we'll never know what happened here.
Your definition of “market grading” differs greatly from my understanding of it. And in fact, sounds much more like “technical grading”. Here’s a definition and explanation I read, which seems to sum up the general consensus of “market grading” quite nicely:
“Market grading is the attempt by the TPG's, or anyone for that matter, to subjectively assign a particular coin a higher grade, based on attributes (usually eye appeal), over and above the coin's actual technical merits. Market grading may also be referred to as "pricing or ranking" coins. Some people, mostly hobby traditionalists, flat out consider market grading "over grading" and would prefer TPG's to just grade coins versus ranking or pricing them.”
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Maybe we could see an actual pic of the coin rather than a fluffy TrueView pic. Then maybe that could explain away any misconceptions. In some of my experiences TrueViews are anything but.
At the same time, if you enlarge the pic you will find deep gouges in the upper left field for starters.
@CoinscratchFever said:
Maybe we could see an actual pic of the coin rather than a fluffy TrueView pic. Then maybe that could explain away any misconceptions. In some of my experiences TrueViews are anything but.
At the same time, if you enlarge the pic you will find deep gouges in the upper left field for starters.
I enlarged the pictures and didn’t see any marks in that area that I’d describe as “deep gouges”.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
If it is in a 62 holder, it is being silently net grade for problems not evident in the photo like being completely dipped out/stripped luster or hairlines.
@CoinscratchFever said:
Maybe we could see an actual pic of the coin rather than a fluffy TrueView pic. Then maybe that could explain away any misconceptions. In some of my experiences TrueViews are anything but.
At the same time, if you enlarge the pic you will find deep gouges in the upper left field for starters.
I enlarged the pictures and didn’t see any marks in that area that I’d describe as “deep gouges”.
Maybe "deep" was a little bit overkill. Like anyone else I'm just trying to understand.
Comments
It's a Mostly Peaceful Protest... 😆
Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value. Zero. Voltaire. Ebay coinbowlllc
I'll pay you 63 money to ease your pain...
Did not see that one...
Who even collects MS62 ???
HaHa
BST: KindaNewish (3/21/21), WQuarterFreddie (3/30/21), Meltdown (4/6/21), DBSTrader2 (5/5/21) AKA- unclemonkey on Blow Out
An excellent example to why market grading is BS. This just makes the professionals look sketchy in the eyes of the entire community.
That's why I like CAC, they will t least explain themselves.
I have a half dollar that got lower than expected. I wish they would have given it a AU58+. The thread with my half.
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1049061/gtg-on-1971-d-kennedy-half#latest
How is this even an example of “market grading”? The assigned grade has little to do with the coin’s value, which is far greater than what an MS62 would typically bring. If “market grading” were involved, the grade would have been much higher.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
This could be solved if they provided a couple words on what was wrong.
100% positive transactions with SurfinxHI, bigole, 1madman, collectorcoins, proofmorgan, Luke Marshall, silver pop, golden egg, point five zero,coin22lover, alohagary, blaircountycoin,joebb21
Oh Wow! Time to dissect an MS62, I do not question the graders I just try to figure out how or why they arrived at their decision.
So, in this case obviously the coin looks great from a distance (doesn't count) but apparently has a weak strike, zero luster, and some hits. I wonder if it popped for the color or the opposite happened?
Wow!
This has really got me scratching my head.
The only hit I see is a little nick on the lower cheek.
I’m not an expert on this series, but the difference between the first submission and this one is baffling.
I might politely inquire as to whether a mistake might have been made, as far fetched as that may seem.
Is there even a mechanism in place for an issue like this?
Happy, humble, honored and proud recipient of the “You Suck” award 10/22/2014
Above kind of points out my take on this. We have 50 or 60 reasonably qualified Numismatists review a coin, the overwhelming consensus is that it's a quality, high grade coin. The coin is submitted for grading and an unexpected result occurs.
I think it was market graded because there's some hidden issue not clear in the photo. My definition of market grading is just that, a nice coin with a flaw that requires it to be downgraded from it's obvious lofty status but not so bad as to require a details grade. The end result being that it fetches money consistent with the findings of the grading room. I didn't make the rules. Feel free to enlighten me if my definition is materially incorrect.
Where this grinds my gears is that no explanation will ever be forthcoming. Fifty or 60 reasonably qualified Numismatists have graded the coin based upon suitable photo's and are all off by 4 grades with no clear reason why.
The only mechanism I'm aware of to verify if the coin's been properly graded is resubmission. If it were sent back claiming a mechanical error (mislabeled) who would make that determination?
My guess is we'll never know what happened here.
Your definition of “market grading” differs greatly from my understanding of it. And in fact, sounds much more like “technical grading”. Here’s a definition and explanation I read, which seems to sum up the general consensus of “market grading” quite nicely:
“Market grading is the attempt by the TPG's, or anyone for that matter, to subjectively assign a particular coin a higher grade, based on attributes (usually eye appeal), over and above the coin's actual technical merits. Market grading may also be referred to as "pricing or ranking" coins. Some people, mostly hobby traditionalists, flat out consider market grading "over grading" and would prefer TPG's to just grade coins versus ranking or pricing them.”
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Maybe we could see an actual pic of the coin rather than a fluffy TrueView pic. Then maybe that could explain away any misconceptions. In some of my experiences TrueViews are anything but.
At the same time, if you enlarge the pic you will find deep gouges in the upper left field for starters.
I enlarged the pictures and didn’t see any marks in that area that I’d describe as “deep gouges”.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
If it is in a 62 holder, it is being silently net grade for problems not evident in the photo like being completely dipped out/stripped luster or hairlines.
I wish there was some why to ask PCGS why it's a 62. The pictures make at look easily like a MS67, in my opinion.
Maybe "deep" was a little bit overkill. Like anyone else I'm just trying to understand.
I'd guess there are hairlines (when the coin is titled) that are not seen in the TrueView.
peacockcoins
no one can accurately grade from photos