I think those are fair points. That said, personally, I struggle with how to evaluate such coins.
If the one being discussed here were unanimously considered to be otherwise perfect, how many points should it be penalized for the flaw? I don’t think there’s a clear standard that can be applied. Understandably, some knowledgeable numismatists will have an issue with a grade of 67 or higher. Others with 66 or higher. And still others, with any straight grade.
If you’re going to straight grade the coin, how many points could or should be deducted from 70, before it’s so many that the grade looks silly (low)?
You are correct. I have difficulty myself with these kinds of coins. I had a 26D Buffalo that had nice toning on both sides and the obverse was clearly "gem" but the reverse was mush city...terrible strike. How do you grade such a coin? NGC gave it a 63 and I thought they did a good job given the tough situation.
This Lincoln is similar in a way. I think it's a terrific coin except for that flaw and given my lack of experience with cents I haven't a clue how it should grade. Maybe you just have to decide what price you'd pay and go from there. Difficult for sure...
Hmmmm. Some interesting (and several useless) points here. I’m swayed a little bit by the otherwise exceptional nature of the coin as described by those who have seen it in-hand. I’m not a connoisseur of Lincolns of that era. If it’s otherwise a near top-pop coin, perhaps a bit of net grading downward a point or so is the right call. It is a bit perplexing what to do with a tremendously important coin with a single mint-made, perhaps forgivable flaw. The rim issue isn’t really any more distracting than a center plug, adjustment marks, or DPLs and we look past those routinely.
Still, I think the OP’s question “Has grading changed?” is a valid one. Does anyone really think this coin would have been put into an OGH or rattler at a 67 grade level? I think it’s unlikely, and the whole concept of net-grading or market-grading is one that has gained momentum as things have rolled along.
@BryceM said:
Hmmmm. Some interesting (and several useless) points here. I’m swayed a little bit by the otherwise exceptional nature of the coin as described by those who have seen it in-hand. I’m not a connoisseur of Lincolns of that era. If it’s otherwise a near top-pop coin, perhaps a bit of net grading downward a point or so is the right call. It is a bit perplexing what to do with a tremendously important coin with a single mint-made, perhaps forgivable flaw. The rim issue isn’t really any more distracting than a center plug, adjustment marks, or DPLs and we look past those routinely.
Still, I think the OP’s question “Has grading changed?” is a valid one. Does anyone really think this coin would have been put into an OGH or rattler at a 67 grade level? I think it’s unlikely, and the whole concept of net-grading or market-grading is one that has gained momentum as things have rolled along.
If you’ve seen enough old holder - the good and the bad - you wouldn’t be asking this question. There’s just as many net grade in old holders as new ones
Personally I don't think that it should have gotten a straight grade at all without going through error service. I have seen coins with defects that were smaller proportionally to the size of the coin get put in a genuine holder. So what makes this one an exception to the rule? From the true views the coin looks gorgeous, but it should be in an error holder with the grade assigned.
It’s like obsessing over the slight planchet flaw on my 1913 nickel. Again- WGAF?
Bruce, you, yourself, have said something to the effect that you avoid certain coins/sets these days because of gradeflation and its negative impact on value. So, while you might not gripe about particular coins and their grades, it seems that you do “GAF” (give a fatootie) and understandably so.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
This is absolutely my opinion and thoughts as well. I suspect the reason it was allowed is so it could earn the points for a registry set.
This does open a can of worms for other registry set builders who have an error coin they can't use in their sets.
@morgandollar1878 said:
Personally I don't think that it should have gotten a straight grade at all without going through error service. I have seen coins with defects that were smaller proportionally to the size of the coin get put in a genuine holder. So what makes this one an exception to the rule? From the true views the coin looks gorgeous, but it should be in an error holder with the grade assigned.
Ask Plutus’ opinion by resubmitting over and over until everyone is satisfied. Oh wait a minute that’ll never happen...Unless it came back the finest known 10 S error coin, subsequently worth more.
@coinbuf said:
However experts disagree all the time be it coins or the weather, differing opinions can bring to light different thought processes and should not be discouraged unless they are presented (or perceived) in a rude or confrontational way.
That sounds reasonable. I don't see anything wrong with someone asking for thoughts on their own coins but it seems to be rather poor form to criticize the appearance of somebody else's coins or how they're graded when they are currently up for sale or auction and the other party hasn't solicited your opinion.
It’s like obsessing over the slight planchet flaw on my 1913 nickel. Again- WGAF?
Bruce, you, yourself, have said something to the effect that you avoid certain coins/sets these days because of gradeflation and its negative impact on value. So, while you might not gripe about particular coins and their grades, it seems that you do “GAF” (give a fatootie) and understandably so.
Grade inflation in general is different than the OP’s question:
“ Didn't the rim (and strike) used to count in consideration of the grade, at least at this lofty 5 figure grade? I'm confused on this one...”
I see little correlation between obsession over a slight mint made flaw in the rim when the remaining 99% of the coin’s surface is amazing and gradeflation. I had a much more dramatic issue with the rim on one of my seated dollars - didn’t affect the grade one iota.
BryceM,
Without going into too much detail, this particular coin was graded 67RD 30+ years ago. With the advent of "+" grading,
I clearly don't put this coin in the "gradeflation" basket. Another discussion in this thread has to do with net graded coins.
There are many coins that were "net" graded years ago that would simply grade "genuine" today. When TPGS did not have "genuine" as an option, they would use the net grade for those coins they felt still
deserved to be holdered. Today it is simpler for them to use the Genuine grade IMO. Grading is not as easy as most people think. I can give many examples from my own personal experiences in just the past couple of months. I sent in a coin raw that had a Gold CAC sticker the came back "No Grade - Environmental Damage" (Huh??), and another just yesterday that was cracked out of a 64FH (SLQ) holder and came back "Counterfeit" (again, huh?). We can all sit in the stands and watch an NBA game and it looks easy. Try going out on the floor and play sometime...
That is a coin I wouldn't mind having in my collection, that flaw is not really in the main focus of the coin. Now if that flaw was cuasing a gap in Lincoln's face or another focal area, that I'd think differently. If this coin was an AU-50 or MS-63, there probably wouldn't have been a post about it.
As for the "Kelly" poster, they can just "skip" on outta here.
If the coin were in a 64+RD holder, would you say that it shouldn’t have been straight graded? (I wouldn’t.) If not, the same should hold true at any higher grade. The only question is if it was appropriately graded.> @MFeld said:
@MrEureka said:
For those of you that have a problem with the grade, a question: Is the grade the real problem, or is the problem that the market values a 67 at 10X the 66 price? Because if it were 2X, yawn.
Forget about the value in various grades. If you feel it should straight grade, lower the grade (further?) to (try to properly) account for the mint-made flaw.
Careful what you wish for! For a grader to do that, he would need to follow the market and monitor the pop reports before assigning a grade. I don't think that would be a healthy arrangement. Especially because, at the micro level, it would require grading standards to change just a little bit after every coin is graded. For example, when grading a coin can take the pop from 1 to 2, the price might drop, and standards would automatically loosen. (Not as significant a factor on higher pop coins, but the dynamic would still be in play.)
FWIW, if I were in the grading room, and if I didn't know the market on top pop Lincolns, I would think that a 67RD 10-S should be worth 2X or 3X the 66RD price, so grading this one 67 or even 67+RD wouldn't bother me. But if I knew the market said 10X, I'd be scared to grade it "right".
Bottom line, it's probably the market that's out of whack, not the graders.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
@MrEureka said:
If the coin were in a 64+RD holder, would you say that it shouldn’t have been straight graded? (I wouldn’t.) If not, the same should hold true at any higher grade. The only question is if it was appropriately graded.> @MFeld said:
@MrEureka said:
For those of you that have a problem with the grade, a question: Is the grade the real problem, or is the problem that the market values a 67 at 10X the 66 price? Because if it were 2X, yawn.
Forget about the value in various grades. If you feel it should straight grade, lower the grade (further?) to (try to properly) account for the mint-made flaw.
Careful what you wish for! For a grader to do that, he would need to follow the market and monitor the pop reports before assigning a grade. I don't think that would be a healthy arrangement. Especially because, at the micro level, it would require grading standards to change just a little bit after every coin is graded. For example, when grading a coin can take the pop from 1 to 2, the price might drop, and standards would automatically loosen. (Not as significant a factor on higher pop coins, but the dynamic would still be in play.)
FWIW, if I were in the grading room, and if I didn't know the market on top pop Lincolns, I would think that a 67RD 10-S should be worth 2X or 3X the 66RD price, so grading this one 67 or even 67+RD wouldn't bother me. But if I knew the market said 10X, I'd be scared to grade it "right".
Bottom line, it's probably the market that's out of whack, not the graders.
Andy, right or wrong, my suggestion wouldn't include monitoring the pop reports.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@MrEureka said:
If the coin were in a 64+RD holder, would you say that it shouldn’t have been straight graded? (I wouldn’t.) If not, the same should hold true at any higher grade. The only question is if it was appropriately graded.> @MFeld said:
@MrEureka said:
For those of you that have a problem with the grade, a question: Is the grade the real problem, or is the problem that the market values a 67 at 10X the 66 price? Because if it were 2X, yawn.
Forget about the value in various grades. If you feel it should straight grade, lower the grade (further?) to (try to properly) account for the mint-made flaw.
Careful what you wish for! For a grader to do that, he would need to follow the market and monitor the pop reports before assigning a grade. I don't think that would be a healthy arrangement. Especially because, at the micro level, it would require grading standards to change just a little bit after every coin is graded. For example, when grading a coin can take the pop from 1 to 2, the price might drop, and standards would automatically loosen. (Not as significant a factor on higher pop coins, but the dynamic would still be in play.)
FWIW, if I were in the grading room, and if I didn't know the market on top pop Lincolns, I would think that a 67RD 10-S should be worth 2X or 3X the 66RD price, so grading this one 67 or even 67+RD wouldn't bother me. But if I knew the market said 10X, I'd be scared to grade it "right".
Bottom line, it's probably the market that's out of whack, not the graders.
Andy, right or wrong, my suggestion wouldn't include monitoring the pop reports.
OK. I probably read too much into your suggestion that (to properly account for the mint-made flaw) the grade might be lowered "further". To me, the hint of double-dip discount suggested that you would be looking at more than just the coin. Which is what we would do as dealers, but not what I would want graders to do.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Andy
You said something there that is surprising to me. I have always assumed that at least the finalizer is well aware of top pop for a particular issue. For instance, PCGS has still never graded a 35-D Walker as MS67 and I have always assumed (maybe incorrectly) that graders grading Walkers are well aware of that.
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
@coinbuf said:
However experts disagree all the time be it coins or the weather, differing opinions can bring to light different thought processes and should not be discouraged unless they are presented (or perceived) in a rude or confrontational way.
That sounds reasonable. I don't see anything wrong with someone asking for thoughts on their own coins but it seems to be rather poor form to criticize the appearance of somebody else's coins or how they're graded when they are currently up for sale or auction and the other party hasn't solicited your opinion.
But then, that's just me.
While I can agree with you on that two thoughts; in the internet world people will and do offer opinions solicited or not all the time. Just last week I posted a coin photo to a thread here and did not solicit any opinions, that however did not preclude one member from throwing out a rather insultingly low grade.
Also the op did not mention this is up for sale nor has anyone else that has commented so far that I recall, so any opinion that I have offered was not done so to derail any auction result. And to be very candid I cannot imagine anyone that is in the market for this coin that would care what I think anyway.
I appreciate the insights here. Obviously the plus is a relatively new development, and not terribly important to the discussion. The fact that it was graded 67RD thirty years ago gives it additional credibility in my book and it must be phenomenal in hand, an otherwise easy 68. I like the coin and I have a few coins in my collection with somewhat similar little issues that are (mostly) forgivable.
Great discussion and fabulous input from some wicked-smaht folks, as they say in Boston.
To summarize, it’s a truly stellar coin with a single borderline-no-grade problem, net graded (appropriately all along, it seems). I can live with that. It must be nice to have been given a 67 way back then.
@MrEureka said:
If the coin were in a 64+RD holder, would you say that it shouldn’t have been straight graded? (I wouldn’t.) If not, the same should hold true at any higher grade. The only question is if it was appropriately graded.> @MFeld said:
@MrEureka said:
For those of you that have a problem with the grade, a question: Is the grade the real problem, or is the problem that the market values a 67 at 10X the 66 price? Because if it were 2X, yawn.
Forget about the value in various grades. If you feel it should straight grade, lower the grade (further?) to (try to properly) account for the mint-made flaw.
Careful what you wish for! For a grader to do that, he would need to follow the market and monitor the pop reports before assigning a grade. I don't think that would be a healthy arrangement. Especially because, at the micro level, it would require grading standards to change just a little bit after every coin is graded. For example, when grading a coin can take the pop from 1 to 2, the price might drop, and standards would automatically loosen. (Not as significant a factor on higher pop coins, but the dynamic would still be in play.)
FWIW, if I were in the grading room, and if I didn't know the market on top pop Lincolns, I would think that a 67RD 10-S should be worth 2X or 3X the 66RD price, so grading this one 67 or even 67+RD wouldn't bother me. But if I knew the market said 10X, I'd be scared to grade it "right".
Bottom line, it's probably the market that's out of whack, not the graders.
Andy, right or wrong, my suggestion wouldn't include monitoring the pop reports.
OK. I probably read too much into your suggestion that (to properly account for the mint-made flaw) the grade might be lowered "further". To me, the hint of double-dip discount suggested that you would be looking at more than just the coin. Which is what we would do as dealers, but not what I would want graders to do.
Sorry for the confusion. The "further?" was in reference to my thought that the grade might have already been lowered by some amount to account for the flaw. But that either way, if there's going to be a straight grade, it should take the flaw into consideration.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@breakdown said:
Andy
You said something there that is surprising to me. I have always assumed that at least the finalizer is well aware of top pop for a particular issue. For instance, PCGS has still never graded a 35-D Walker as MS67 and I have always assumed (maybe incorrectly) that graders grading Walkers are well aware of that.
With 145 in MS66 and 9 in 66+, I'm very doubtful any TPG grader will spend 2 seconds more on it than if it were another white 1944-D. The verifier might check. It would be trivial to have ongoing easily-calculable "pop-toppish" grade "alerts" available to that person.
I'm not knocking your logic. The example you used is a great one.
Yet, how many white MS67 WLH's just sit there among a monster set of post-1929 coins?.
I'm doubtful any TPG grader would spend more than an extra 5 seconds (maybe 10) on the penny, but its color and lustre would stop them dead in their tracks with no knowledge of pops.
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
@coinbuf said:
While I can agree with you on that two thoughts; in the internet world people will and do offer opinions solicited or not all the time. Just last week I posted a coin photo to a thread here and did not solicit any opinions, that however did not preclude one member from throwing out a rather insultingly low grade.
Sure, I understand that you can't do anything about what other people say.
@coinbuf said:
Also the op did not mention this is up for sale nor has anyone else that has commented so far that I recall, so any opinion that I have offered was not done so to derail any auction result.
My comment wasn't directed at a specific post, either the op's or any other. And I certainly don't expect someone responding to a "What do you think?" question to research the coin to see if it's for sale before offering their thoughts if the person asking for the opinion doesn't say anything about whether or not it's currently up for auction.
The intent of my post was more of a general application of the Golden Rule to coin collectors... "How would you feel if somebody else disparaged coins you had up for sale?"
@breakdown said:
Andy
You said something there that is surprising to me. I have always assumed that at least the finalizer is well aware of top pop for a particular issue. For instance, PCGS has still never graded a 35-D Walker as MS67 and I have always assumed (maybe incorrectly) that graders grading Walkers are well aware of that.
Agree.
And it seems that when a new top pop is made, the gates open to others. Experienced that multiple time with my sig line mint set.
It’s like obsessing over the slight planchet flaw on my 1913 nickel. Again- WGAF?
You could counterstamp your initials on your nickel and it would still be a desirable coin. Defacing the subject coin makes it worth a penny.
With a coin that is valued strictly on its condition, not it's absolute rarity, I view the coins appearance as a larger factor in it's desirability. The technical or net grade may be completely appropriate, but my eyes would be drawn to the defect every time I picked it up.
It’s like obsessing over the slight planchet flaw on my 1913 nickel. Again- WGAF?
You could counterstamp your initials on your nickel and it would still be a desirable coin. Defacing the subject coin makes it worth a penny.
With a coin that is valued strictly on its condition, not it's absolute rarity, I view the coins appearance as a larger factor in it's desirability. The technical or net grade may be completely appropriate, but my eyes would be drawn to the defect every time I picked it up.
After all, at normal size it’s just so darn noticeable...
@BryceM said:
You can rationalize this away a number of different ways, but it bugs me. To answer the OP's actual question, yes, I think it grading has fundamentally changed - at least I don't think it's likely to have received that grade (or maybe any grade) if submitted 15-20 years ago.
I don’t 30 years ago I used to buy coins out of coin world graded
Choice AU w/minor pin scratches over removed spot Grading has always been a game of weighting market priorities. As made is as old as a description as it come in the hobby
When something has a distracting flaw my eyes go to the flaw. I can't help it, that may be my flaw. I wouldn't buy the coin as shown in the OP for that reason, but I have no grounds nor am I qualified to pass judgement on the technical grade or the marketability of the coin. Oddly, I agree that it is a beautiful coin.
Planchet / striking flaws are common and routinely ignored in grading some coins. The 1855 Large and Half Cents, even in MS 65, typically have mushy dentils on 1/3 of the coin's obverse. I have yet to see one of either with full dentils. A Capped Bust Half specialist can point to some MS 65s and 6s of some varieties that are routinely not fully struck, missing detail, etc.
"Vou invadir o Nordeste, "Seu cabra da peste, "Sou Mangueira......."
Hey, isn't that 10-S in the story the coin in this thread which just happens to currently be at auction? Probably just a coincidence.
Just to note: I couldn't agree more with the statement "it's impossible to grade a coin from an image" (or a label and certainly a sticker from profit based entities) and it must be done in hand and to one's own standards. However I don't think (but I certainly could be wrong) that intended parts of a coin that are missing in an image magically reappear in person.
But, if they do, I'd be mightyyyyy nervous if I owned one of the 1975 No S dimes!
@MrEureka said:
For those of you that have a problem with the grade, a question: Is the grade the real problem, or is the problem that the market values a 67 at 10X the 66 price? Because if it were 2X, yawn.
Or is it because it's a POP 1000/1/0? Because if it were 1000/100/50, yawn.
Hey, isn't that 10-S in the story the coin in this thread which just happens to currently be at auction? Probably just a coincidence.
Just to note: I couldn't agree more with the statement "it's impossible to grade a coin from an image" (or a label and certainly a sticker from profit based entities) and it must be done in hand and to one's own standards. However I don't think (but I certainly could be wrong) that intended parts of a coin that are missing in an image magically reappear in person.
But, if they do, I'd be mightyyyyy nervous if I owned one of the 1975 No S dimes!
I’m super concerned about the 1912-S in RD shown.
Is the color that far off?
Feast your eyes on the 26-S
Is that faux-Irish guy here again?
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
@MrEureka said:
For those of you that have a problem with the grade, a question: Is the grade the real problem, or is the problem that the market values a 67 at 10X the 66 price? Because if it were 2X, yawn.
Or is it because it's a POP 1000/1/0? Because if it were 1000/100/50, yawn.
Well, the pops certainly drive the prices, but it’s the prices that warp our grading standards.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
@MrEureka said:
For those of you that have a problem with the grade, a question: Is the grade the real problem, or is the problem that the market values a 67 at 10X the 66 price? Because if it were 2X, yawn.
Or is it because it's a POP 1000/1/0? Because if it were 1000/100/50, yawn.
Well, the pops certainly drive the prices, but it’s the prices that warp our grading standards.
Shouldn't grades warp prices and not the other way around?
I've always felt the job of graders (and by definition PCGS in this case) was to grade coins according to the published standards, regardless of the pops, values or anything else. It's the market's job (supply/demand) to determine prices, not the services IMO.
@cnncoins said:
I've always felt the job of graders (and by definition PCGS in this case) was to grade coins according to the published standards, regardless of the pops, values or anything else. It's the market's job (supply/demand) to determine prices, not the services IMO.
Of course. (Never mind that there aren't really any published standards.) But when their are big discontinuities in pops and prices from one grade to the next, the standards do get warped, even if that's not the intention.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
@cnncoins said:
I've always felt the job of graders (and by definition PCGS in this case) was to grade coins according to the published standards, regardless of the pops, values or anything else. It's the market's job (supply/demand) to determine prices, not the services IMO.
Of course. (Never mind that there aren't really any published standards.) But when their are big discontinuities in pops and prices from one grade to the next, the standards do get warped, even if that's not the intention.
Andy
This is certainly true but when the registry is rewarding "bonuses" for top pops, the price distortions become inevitable, particularly in sets like Lincoln cents, post-1929 Walkers, Mercury dimes, Buffalo nickels, etc.
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
I realize I am super late to this thread, but the coin has a genuine rim clip. I have seen many coins in all denominations in TPG holders with no mention of a small clip, just as I have seen many raw coins sold the same way. There is a 1917 DDO in a PCGS 65RD holder with an even more prominent rim clip that is not mentioned on the holder, as but one example. Some people consider this a minor error, and some of those people don't feel minor errors are worth mentioning.
This entire thread is a perfect dissertation on the "white elephant" phenomenon. Collectors of high grade Lincolns would generally prefer a coin that is error free, while error collectors like me would never pay 67RD+ pop-top money for an error type available in more affordable grades, even for the same date.
This coin is in such an exceptional state of preservation that it almost (but not quite) transcends white elephant status, but still a few folks have said in the thread that they wouldn't want it at any price. Whatever you feel about the error, the coin is as struck by the Mint and doesn't belong in a problem holder. It boils down then to personal taste - personally, I love it (duh ), but I get why it is unappealing to others.
Sean Reynolds
Incomplete planchets wanted, especially Lincoln Cents & type coins.
"Keep in mind that most of what passes as numismatic information is no more than tested opinion at best, and marketing blather at worst. However, I try to choose my words carefully, since I know that you guys are always watching." - Joe O'Connor
Comments
I personally love the coin. What’s that old saying? Nattering nabobs of negativity....
You are correct. I have difficulty myself with these kinds of coins. I had a 26D Buffalo that had nice toning on both sides and the obverse was clearly "gem" but the reverse was mush city...terrible strike. How do you grade such a coin? NGC gave it a 63 and I thought they did a good job given the tough situation.
This Lincoln is similar in a way. I think it's a terrific coin except for that flaw and given my lack of experience with cents I haven't a clue how it should grade. Maybe you just have to decide what price you'd pay and go from there. Difficult for sure...
jom
Hmmmm. Some interesting (and several useless) points here. I’m swayed a little bit by the otherwise exceptional nature of the coin as described by those who have seen it in-hand. I’m not a connoisseur of Lincolns of that era. If it’s otherwise a near top-pop coin, perhaps a bit of net grading downward a point or so is the right call. It is a bit perplexing what to do with a tremendously important coin with a single mint-made, perhaps forgivable flaw. The rim issue isn’t really any more distracting than a center plug, adjustment marks, or DPLs and we look past those routinely.
Still, I think the OP’s question “Has grading changed?” is a valid one. Does anyone really think this coin would have been put into an OGH or rattler at a 67 grade level? I think it’s unlikely, and the whole concept of net-grading or market-grading is one that has gained momentum as things have rolled along.
I like it too! The only question I have is where is the planchet that was struck just before or after this one?!
Once it’s in the holder, WGAF?
It’s like obsessing over the slight planchet flaw on my 1913 nickel. Again- WGAF?
If you’ve seen enough old holder - the good and the bad - you wouldn’t be asking this question. There’s just as many net grade in old holders as new ones
Celebrate what’s there instead of obsessing over what’s not.
@tradedollarnut,
Genuinely asking here.... You think this coin would have been graded this way, more-or-less consistently from 1986 until now?
Personally I don't think that it should have gotten a straight grade at all without going through error service. I have seen coins with defects that were smaller proportionally to the size of the coin get put in a genuine holder. So what makes this one an exception to the rule? From the true views the coin looks gorgeous, but it should be in an error holder with the grade assigned.
Bruce, you, yourself, have said something to the effect that you avoid certain coins/sets these days because of gradeflation and its negative impact on value. So, while you might not gripe about particular coins and their grades, it seems that you do “GAF” (give a fatootie) and understandably so.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
WGAF?
DILLIGAFF !!!
Do I Look Like I Give A Flying F@@k Fatootie?
Tomorrow's word of the day PIDGAS
This is absolutely my opinion and thoughts as well. I suspect the reason it was allowed is so it could earn the points for a registry set.
This does open a can of worms for other registry set builders who have an error coin they can't use in their sets.
Does it CAC?
BST: KindaNewish (3/21/21), WQuarterFreddie (3/30/21), Meltdown (4/6/21), DBSTrader2 (5/5/21) AKA- unclemonkey on Blow Out
Ask Plutus’ opinion by resubmitting over and over until everyone is satisfied. Oh wait a minute that’ll never happen...Unless it came back the finest known 10 S error coin, subsequently worth more.
Flawed or not it is a beautiful coin.
Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value. Zero. Voltaire. Ebay coinbowlllc
That sounds reasonable. I don't see anything wrong with someone asking for thoughts on their own coins but it seems to be rather poor form to criticize the appearance of somebody else's coins or how they're graded when they are currently up for sale or auction and the other party hasn't solicited your opinion.
But then, that's just me.
Grade inflation in general is different than the OP’s question:
“ Didn't the rim (and strike) used to count in consideration of the grade, at least at this lofty 5 figure grade? I'm confused on this one...”
I see little correlation between obsession over a slight mint made flaw in the rim when the remaining 99% of the coin’s surface is amazing and gradeflation. I had a much more dramatic issue with the rim on one of my seated dollars - didn’t affect the grade one iota.
BryceM,
Without going into too much detail, this particular coin was graded 67RD 30+ years ago. With the advent of "+" grading,
I clearly don't put this coin in the "gradeflation" basket. Another discussion in this thread has to do with net graded coins.
There are many coins that were "net" graded years ago that would simply grade "genuine" today. When TPGS did not have "genuine" as an option, they would use the net grade for those coins they felt still
deserved to be holdered. Today it is simpler for them to use the Genuine grade IMO. Grading is not as easy as most people think. I can give many examples from my own personal experiences in just the past couple of months. I sent in a coin raw that had a Gold CAC sticker the came back "No Grade - Environmental Damage" (Huh??), and another just yesterday that was cracked out of a 64FH (SLQ) holder and came back "Counterfeit" (again, huh?). We can all sit in the stands and watch an NBA game and it looks easy. Try going out on the floor and play sometime...
It would never have gotten a plus grade in 1986.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
That is a coin I wouldn't mind having in my collection, that flaw is not really in the main focus of the coin. Now if that flaw was cuasing a gap in Lincoln's face or another focal area, that I'd think differently. If this coin was an AU-50 or MS-63, there probably wouldn't have been a post about it.
As for the "Kelly" poster, they can just "skip" on outta here.
10-4,
My Instagram picturesErik
My registry sets
If the coin were in a 64+RD holder, would you say that it shouldn’t have been straight graded? (I wouldn’t.) If not, the same should hold true at any higher grade. The only question is if it was appropriately graded.> @MFeld said:
Careful what you wish for! For a grader to do that, he would need to follow the market and monitor the pop reports before assigning a grade. I don't think that would be a healthy arrangement. Especially because, at the micro level, it would require grading standards to change just a little bit after every coin is graded. For example, when grading a coin can take the pop from 1 to 2, the price might drop, and standards would automatically loosen. (Not as significant a factor on higher pop coins, but the dynamic would still be in play.)
FWIW, if I were in the grading room, and if I didn't know the market on top pop Lincolns, I would think that a 67RD 10-S should be worth 2X or 3X the 66RD price, so grading this one 67 or even 67+RD wouldn't bother me. But if I knew the market said 10X, I'd be scared to grade it "right".
Bottom line, it's probably the market that's out of whack, not the graders.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Andy, right or wrong, my suggestion wouldn't include monitoring the pop reports.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
OK. I probably read too much into your suggestion that (to properly account for the mint-made flaw) the grade might be lowered "further". To me, the hint of double-dip discount suggested that you would be looking at more than just the coin. Which is what we would do as dealers, but not what I would want graders to do.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Andy
You said something there that is surprising to me. I have always assumed that at least the finalizer is well aware of top pop for a particular issue. For instance, PCGS has still never graded a 35-D Walker as MS67 and I have always assumed (maybe incorrectly) that graders grading Walkers are well aware of that.
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
While I can agree with you on that two thoughts; in the internet world people will and do offer opinions solicited or not all the time. Just last week I posted a coin photo to a thread here and did not solicit any opinions, that however did not preclude one member from throwing out a rather insultingly low grade.
Also the op did not mention this is up for sale nor has anyone else that has commented so far that I recall, so any opinion that I have offered was not done so to derail any auction result. And to be very candid I cannot imagine anyone that is in the market for this coin that would care what I think anyway.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
I appreciate the insights here. Obviously the plus is a relatively new development, and not terribly important to the discussion. The fact that it was graded 67RD thirty years ago gives it additional credibility in my book and it must be phenomenal in hand, an otherwise easy 68. I like the coin and I have a few coins in my collection with somewhat similar little issues that are (mostly) forgivable.
Great discussion and fabulous input from some wicked-smaht folks, as they say in Boston.
To summarize, it’s a truly stellar coin with a single borderline-no-grade problem, net graded (appropriately all along, it seems). I can live with that. It must be nice to have been given a 67 way back then.
Sorry for the confusion. The "further?" was in reference to my thought that the grade might have already been lowered by some amount to account for the flaw. But that either way, if there's going to be a straight grade, it should take the flaw into consideration.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
With 145 in MS66 and 9 in 66+, I'm very doubtful any TPG grader will spend 2 seconds more on it than if it were another white 1944-D. The verifier might check. It would be trivial to have ongoing easily-calculable "pop-toppish" grade "alerts" available to that person.
I'm not knocking your logic. The example you used is a great one.
Yet, how many white MS67 WLH's just sit there among a monster set of post-1929 coins?.
I'm doubtful any TPG grader would spend more than an extra 5 seconds (maybe 10) on the penny, but its color and lustre would stop them dead in their tracks with no knowledge of pops.
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/comment/12929708/#Comment_12929708
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/comment/12926381/#Comment_12926381
Sure, I understand that you can't do anything about what other people say.
My comment wasn't directed at a specific post, either the op's or any other. And I certainly don't expect someone responding to a "What do you think?" question to research the coin to see if it's for sale before offering their thoughts if the person asking for the opinion doesn't say anything about whether or not it's currently up for auction.
The intent of my post was more of a general application of the Golden Rule to coin collectors... "How would you feel if somebody else disparaged coins you had up for sale?"
Agree.
And it seems that when a new top pop is made, the gates open to others. Experienced that multiple time with my sig line mint set.
Great thread.
My 1866 Philly Mint Set
You could counterstamp your initials on your nickel and it would still be a desirable coin. Defacing the subject coin makes it worth a penny.
With a coin that is valued strictly on its condition, not it's absolute rarity, I view the coins appearance as a larger factor in it's desirability. The technical or net grade may be completely appropriate, but my eyes would be drawn to the defect every time I picked it up.
After all, at normal size it’s just so darn noticeable...
And in the holder, even more so:
I don’t 30 years ago I used to buy coins out of coin world graded
Choice AU w/minor pin scratches over removed spot
Grading has always been a game of weighting market priorities. As made is as old as a description as it come in the hobby
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
When something has a distracting flaw my eyes go to the flaw. I can't help it, that may be my flaw. I wouldn't buy the coin as shown in the OP for that reason, but I have no grounds nor am I qualified to pass judgement on the technical grade or the marketability of the coin. Oddly, I agree that it is a beautiful coin.
Planchet / striking flaws are common and routinely ignored in grading some coins. The 1855 Large and Half Cents, even in MS 65, typically have mushy dentils on 1/3 of the coin's obverse. I have yet to see one of either with full dentils. A Capped Bust Half specialist can point to some MS 65s and 6s of some varieties that are routinely not fully struck, missing detail, etc.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
I’m super concerned about the 1912-S in RD shown.
Would love to hear @STEWARTBLAYNUMIS opinion!
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
Or is it because it's a POP 1000/1/0? Because if it were 1000/100/50, yawn.
Is the color that far off?
Feast your eyes on the 26-S
Is that faux-Irish guy here again?
Well, the pops certainly drive the prices, but it’s the prices that warp our grading standards.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Shouldn't grades warp prices and not the other way around?
I've always felt the job of graders (and by definition PCGS in this case) was to grade coins according to the published standards, regardless of the pops, values or anything else. It's the market's job (supply/demand) to determine prices, not the services IMO.
Of course. (Never mind that there aren't really any published standards.) But when their are big discontinuities in pops and prices from one grade to the next, the standards do get warped, even if that's not the intention.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Andy
This is certainly true but when the registry is rewarding "bonuses" for top pops, the price distortions become inevitable, particularly in sets like Lincoln cents, post-1929 Walkers, Mercury dimes, Buffalo nickels, etc.
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
I realize I am super late to this thread, but the coin has a genuine rim clip. I have seen many coins in all denominations in TPG holders with no mention of a small clip, just as I have seen many raw coins sold the same way. There is a 1917 DDO in a PCGS 65RD holder with an even more prominent rim clip that is not mentioned on the holder, as but one example. Some people consider this a minor error, and some of those people don't feel minor errors are worth mentioning.
This entire thread is a perfect dissertation on the "white elephant" phenomenon. Collectors of high grade Lincolns would generally prefer a coin that is error free, while error collectors like me would never pay 67RD+ pop-top money for an error type available in more affordable grades, even for the same date.
This coin is in such an exceptional state of preservation that it almost (but not quite) transcends white elephant status, but still a few folks have said in the thread that they wouldn't want it at any price. Whatever you feel about the error, the coin is as struck by the Mint and doesn't belong in a problem holder. It boils down then to personal taste - personally, I love it (duh
), but I get why it is unappealing to others.
Sean Reynolds
"Keep in mind that most of what passes as numismatic information is no more than tested opinion at best, and marketing blather at worst. However, I try to choose my words carefully, since I know that you guys are always watching." - Joe O'Connor
That's a major planchet issue into the letters. I am not OK with that.
@RedCopper
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
Perhaps this is a MS69 that's been net graded?
Here's one of the MS67 Reds: