@1madman said:
Don’t need to see this one in hand. Just the easy pickin naked eye flaws are the break in frost speck on the bottom of the sun, and on the reverse the strike thru area on the “F” in of, plus the ~5 specks on the shield and speck under the first “U” in Pluribus on the eagle wing.
This is a 69.
I guess to be fair, they’ve basically never graded a modern coin, and so they’ve gotta learn somehow.
Wow you must be the most amazing grader in the history of graders, you don't even need to see the coin in hand to know everything about it. Even long-time numismatists and former graders like Mark Feld often acknowledge just how difficult it is to accurately grade proofs from photos, hats off to you sir that is some serious skill you have.
I appreciate the kind words because I do know my stuff on specific coin series, and can grade better than pcgs/NGC most of the time. I’ve looked at tens of thousands of coins in photos and pairing that information to in hand viewing of coins makes it easier to identify scratches on the coin and/or holder, and flaws hidden with lighting and shadows. I haven’t seen enough cac graded coins yet to get a feel on how they grade or what grading method they use, but it’s just gonna take time to learn their routine. I mean if they’re gonna grade that 95-w a 70, I can put together a pile of nicer pcgs 69s and submit to cac for automatic upgrades.
There you have it, @coinbuf. Since, according to him, he can grade better than PCGS/NGC “most of the time”, if he disagrees with them (or, no doubt, CAC), they’re wrong. It’s as simple as that.😉
Yes, unfortunately some coins have to go in many times before the grading companies get it right, but they will come around.
This makes no sense. The grading companies effectively set the standards and drive the market.
You can philosophically differ on those standards, but you can’t be “better” at their game than they are.
@ElmerFusterpuck said:
In hand this coin is very clean (not cleaned!) and very attractive. I've added a couple of pics taken with my phone which show the coin in a different light. In hand, I wonder about the strike on this coin. It does say that this date is usually well struck. I have a nice 1916-S in XF-45 with a CAC sticker. Of course there are more details but I can tell the thumb and that general area were not well struck. I do appreciate all the input and discussion, it's what the hobby (and holders) are all about!
Yup. That's a 35. And that's why people should not be so definitive based on photos
@1madman said:
Don’t need to see this one in hand. Just the easy pickin naked eye flaws are the break in frost speck on the bottom of the sun, and on the reverse the strike thru area on the “F” in of, plus the ~5 specks on the shield and speck under the first “U” in Pluribus on the eagle wing.
This is a 69.
I guess to be fair, they’ve basically never graded a modern coin, and so they’ve gotta learn somehow.
Wow you must be the most amazing grader in the history of graders, you don't even need to see the coin in hand to know everything about it. Even long-time numismatists and former graders like Mark Feld often acknowledge just how difficult it is to accurately grade proofs from photos, hats off to you sir that is some serious skill you have.
I appreciate the kind words because I do know my stuff on specific coin series, and can grade better than pcgs/NGC most of the time. I’ve looked at tens of thousands of coins in photos and pairing that information to in hand viewing of coins makes it easier to identify scratches on the coin and/or holder, and flaws hidden with lighting and shadows. I haven’t seen enough cac graded coins yet to get a feel on how they grade or what grading method they use, but it’s just gonna take time to learn their routine. I mean if they’re gonna grade that 95-w a 70, I can put together a pile of nicer pcgs 69s and submit to cac for automatic upgrades.
There you have it, @coinbuf. Since, according to him, he can grade better than PCGS/NGC “most of the time”, if he disagrees with them (or, no doubt, CAC), they’re wrong. It’s as simple as that.😉
Yes, unfortunately some coins have to go in many times before the grading companies get it right, but they will come around.
This makes no sense. The grading companies effectively set the standards and drive the market.
You can philosophically differ on those standards, but you can’t be “better” at their game than they are.
That's really not true. The standards are not set daily by the graders. He's not arguing about the standards they posted years ago. He's criticizing the daily execution of those standards.
@1madman said:
Don’t need to see this one in hand. Just the easy pickin naked eye flaws are the break in frost speck on the bottom of the sun, and on the reverse the strike thru area on the “F” in of, plus the ~5 specks on the shield and speck under the first “U” in Pluribus on the eagle wing.
This is a 69.
I guess to be fair, they’ve basically never graded a modern coin, and so they’ve gotta learn somehow.
Wow you must be the most amazing grader in the history of graders, you don't even need to see the coin in hand to know everything about it. Even long-time numismatists and former graders like Mark Feld often acknowledge just how difficult it is to accurately grade proofs from photos, hats off to you sir that is some serious skill you have.
I appreciate the kind words because I do know my stuff on specific coin series, and can grade better than pcgs/NGC most of the time. I’ve looked at tens of thousands of coins in photos and pairing that information to in hand viewing of coins makes it easier to identify scratches on the coin and/or holder, and flaws hidden with lighting and shadows. I haven’t seen enough cac graded coins yet to get a feel on how they grade or what grading method they use, but it’s just gonna take time to learn their routine. I mean if they’re gonna grade that 95-w a 70, I can put together a pile of nicer pcgs 69s and submit to cac for automatic upgrades.
There you have it, @coinbuf. Since, according to him, he can grade better than PCGS/NGC “most of the time”, if he disagrees with them (or, no doubt, CAC), they’re wrong. It’s as simple as that.😉
Yes, unfortunately some coins have to go in many times before the grading companies get it right, but they will come around.
This makes no sense. The grading companies effectively set the standards and drive the market.
You can philosophically differ on those standards, but you can’t be “better” at their game than they are.
That's really not true. The standards are not set daily by the graders. He's not arguing about the standards they posted years ago. He's criticizing the daily execution of those standards.
[Not that I agree with him]
What part isn’t true? You tore down a straw man (I never said standards are set daily). You haven’t articulated who, if not the TPGs, set the grading standards in the numismatic market. Nor have you clarified how you (or him) are better at grading to those standards or grading to them consistently.
@1madman said:
Don’t need to see this one in hand. Just the easy pickin naked eye flaws are the break in frost speck on the bottom of the sun, and on the reverse the strike thru area on the “F” in of, plus the ~5 specks on the shield and speck under the first “U” in Pluribus on the eagle wing.
This is a 69.
I guess to be fair, they’ve basically never graded a modern coin, and so they’ve gotta learn somehow.
Wow you must be the most amazing grader in the history of graders, you don't even need to see the coin in hand to know everything about it. Even long-time numismatists and former graders like Mark Feld often acknowledge just how difficult it is to accurately grade proofs from photos, hats off to you sir that is some serious skill you have.
I appreciate the kind words because I do know my stuff on specific coin series, and can grade better than pcgs/NGC most of the time. I’ve looked at tens of thousands of coins in photos and pairing that information to in hand viewing of coins makes it easier to identify scratches on the coin and/or holder, and flaws hidden with lighting and shadows. I haven’t seen enough cac graded coins yet to get a feel on how they grade or what grading method they use, but it’s just gonna take time to learn their routine. I mean if they’re gonna grade that 95-w a 70, I can put together a pile of nicer pcgs 69s and submit to cac for automatic upgrades.
There you have it, @coinbuf. Since, according to him, he can grade better than PCGS/NGC “most of the time”, if he disagrees with them (or, no doubt, CAC), they’re wrong. It’s as simple as that.😉
Yes, unfortunately some coins have to go in many times before the grading companies get it right, but they will come around.
This makes no sense. The grading companies effectively set the standards and drive the market.
You can philosophically differ on those standards, but you can’t be “better” at their game than they are.
I mean this in the most sincere honest way, I would love to browse your inventory for sale. If you set up at major shows or have a store/ebay store, please promote yourself to me because I am certain I would be a regular customer. It is very difficult finding fresh “virgin” coins that get immediate acceptance once they’re graded and not questioned.
@ElmerFusterpuck said:
In hand this coin is very clean (not cleaned!) and very attractive. I've added a couple of pics taken with my phone which show the coin in a different light. In hand, I wonder about the strike on this coin. It does say that this date is usually well struck. I have a nice 1916-S in XF-45 with a CAC sticker. Of course there are more details but I can tell the thumb and that general area were not well struck. I do appreciate all the input and discussion, it's what the hobby (and holders) are all about!
First I’ll say I really like the coin, but this set of pictures makes that rim ding really stand out. On both the obverse and reverse.
Difficult needle to thread for CACG. I’m not saying it doesn’t deserve a straight grade. I’ve certainly seen a lot more damage in straight graded holders. But, it would’t surprise me if this didn’t pass CAC if it were submitted for sticker.
So if their standards are that all coins in any given grade are solid for grade, what’s the ruling on a coin with this kind of flaw? Do they ignore it and go with the notion solid for VF35? Or net grade it? Or details grade it?
@1madman said:
Don’t need to see this one in hand. Just the easy pickin naked eye flaws are the break in frost speck on the bottom of the sun, and on the reverse the strike thru area on the “F” in of, plus the ~5 specks on the shield and speck under the first “U” in Pluribus on the eagle wing.
This is a 69.
I guess to be fair, they’ve basically never graded a modern coin, and so they’ve gotta learn somehow.
Wow you must be the most amazing grader in the history of graders, you don't even need to see the coin in hand to know everything about it. Even long-time numismatists and former graders like Mark Feld often acknowledge just how difficult it is to accurately grade proofs from photos, hats off to you sir that is some serious skill you have.
I appreciate the kind words because I do know my stuff on specific coin series, and can grade better than pcgs/NGC most of the time. I’ve looked at tens of thousands of coins in photos and pairing that information to in hand viewing of coins makes it easier to identify scratches on the coin and/or holder, and flaws hidden with lighting and shadows. I haven’t seen enough cac graded coins yet to get a feel on how they grade or what grading method they use, but it’s just gonna take time to learn their routine. I mean if they’re gonna grade that 95-w a 70, I can put together a pile of nicer pcgs 69s and submit to cac for automatic upgrades.
There you have it, @coinbuf. Since, according to him, he can grade better than PCGS/NGC “most of the time”, if he disagrees with them (or, no doubt, CAC), they’re wrong. It’s as simple as that.😉
Yes, unfortunately some coins have to go in many times before the grading companies get it right, but they will come around.
This makes no sense. The grading companies effectively set the standards and drive the market.
You can philosophically differ on those standards, but you can’t be “better” at their game than they are.
That's really not true. The standards are not set daily by the graders. He's not arguing about the standards they posted years ago. He's criticizing the daily execution of those standards.
[Not that I agree with him]
What part isn’t true? You tore down a straw man (I never said standards are set daily). You haven’t articulated who, if not the TPGs, set the grading standards in the numismatic market. Nor have you clarified how you (or him) are better at grading to those standards or grading to them consistently.
There is no "straw man". You said the TPGs set the standard. Sure. But that is different than saying that wvery grading team "sets the standard" with every grade they assigned.
Imagine you have a coin that is the actual XF45 coin from the grading set of a TPG. Quite literally the standard setter for the company and, by extension, the market. And imagine I break it out and start submitting it and get an AU50, vf35, XF40, and XF45 for grades. The 45 standard is showing wide variance in the outcome because of the execution of different grading teams on different days.
So, yes, I can get "better" at the execution of the steadfast standards of I consistently grade that coin as XF40 or XF45 because my variance is smaller.
Of course, if that happened, the market might punish them for their variance and they would lose the ability to "set the standard". But there is variance in results. Send in the same coin 5 times and you will see more than one result.
@Manifest_Destiny said:
People who specialize are capable of grading more consistently in their series than TPG's.
Yep, how many of the best graders at PCGS get stuck grading silver eagles unless maybe it's a very expensive one?
How many people who aren’t professional graders, examine/grade anywhere near as many silver eagles as any of the graders at PCGS?
Doesn't matter, it takes only one who knows his or her stuff. I imagine that there are a few out there who are just as good as the pros in a particular series. I don't know who does what at PCGS, but if I had to guess I'd posit that they don't waste their best talent grading silver eagles.
If you remember this, going to work and having to grade this would be the groan heard round the world.
@Manifest_Destiny said:
People who specialize are capable of grading more consistently in their series than TPG's.
Yep, how many of the best graders at PCGS get stuck grading silver eagles unless maybe it's a very expensive one?
How many people who aren’t professional graders, examine/grade anywhere near as many silver eagles as any of the graders at PCGS?
Doesn't matter, it takes only one who knows his or her stuff. I imagine that there are a few out there who are just as good as the pros in a particular series. I don't know who does what at PCGS, but if I had to guess I'd posit that they don't waste their best talent grading silver eagles.
It absolutely matters. Large quantities of coins need to be examined in order to acquire the necessary knowledge and experience. And most people either can’t or choose not to do that.
Yes, some dealers and collectors obtain a professional grader’s level of expertise. However, this path of this thread started when, based only on images, a certain poster stated that CACG had mis-graded a coin. I’ll take their in-hand opinion over his, from just a photo.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@Manifest_Destiny said:
People who specialize are capable of grading more consistently in their series than TPG's.
Yep, how many of the best graders at PCGS get stuck grading silver eagles unless maybe it's a very expensive one?
How many people who aren’t professional graders, examine/grade anywhere near as many silver eagles as any of the graders at PCGS?
Doesn't matter, it takes only one who knows his or her stuff. I imagine that there are a few out there who are just as good as the pros in a particular series. I don't know who does what at PCGS, but if I had to guess I'd posit that they don't waste their best talent grading silver eagles.
It absolutely matters. Large quantities of coins need to be examined in order to acquire the necessary knowledge and experience. And most people either can’t or choose not to do that.
Yes, some dealers and collectors obtain a professional grader’s level of expertise. However, this path of this thread started when, based only on images, a certain poster stated that CACG had mis-graded a coin. I’ll take their in-hand opinion over his, from just a photo.
And the later picture shows much more detail on the coin than the first. Photos do not always accurately reflect a coin.
@Manifest_Destiny said:
People who specialize are capable of grading more consistently in their series than TPG's.
Yep, how many of the best graders at PCGS get stuck grading silver eagles unless maybe it's a very expensive one?
How many people who aren’t professional graders, examine/grade anywhere near as many silver eagles as any of the graders at PCGS?
Doesn't matter, it takes only one who knows his or her stuff. I imagine that there are a few out there who are just as good as the pros in a particular series. I don't know who does what at PCGS, but if I had to guess I'd posit that they don't waste their best talent grading silver eagles.
It absolutely matters. Large quantities of coins need to be examined in order to acquire the necessary knowledge and experience. And most people either can’t or choose not to do that.
Yes, some dealers and collectors obtain a professional grader’s level of expertise. However, this path of this thread started when, based only on images, a certain poster stated that CACG had mis-graded a coin. I’ll take their in-hand opinion over his, from just a photo.
And the later picture shows much more detail on the coin than the first. Photos do not always accurately reflect a coin.
That’s especially true in the case of pictures of Proof coins.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@1madman said:
Don’t need to see this one in hand. Just the easy pickin naked eye flaws are the break in frost speck on the bottom of the sun, and on the reverse the strike thru area on the “F” in of, plus the ~5 specks on the shield and speck under the first “U” in Pluribus on the eagle wing.
This is a 69.
I guess to be fair, they’ve basically never graded a modern coin, and so they’ve gotta learn somehow.
Wow you must be the most amazing grader in the history of graders, you don't even need to see the coin in hand to know everything about it. Even long-time numismatists and former graders like Mark Feld often acknowledge just how difficult it is to accurately grade proofs from photos, hats off to you sir that is some serious skill you have.
I appreciate the kind words because I do know my stuff on specific coin series, and can grade better than pcgs/NGC most of the time. I’ve looked at tens of thousands of coins in photos and pairing that information to in hand viewing of coins makes it easier to identify scratches on the coin and/or holder, and flaws hidden with lighting and shadows. I haven’t seen enough cac graded coins yet to get a feel on how they grade or what grading method they use, but it’s just gonna take time to learn their routine. I mean if they’re gonna grade that 95-w a 70, I can put together a pile of nicer pcgs 69s and submit to cac for automatic upgrades.
There you have it, @coinbuf. Since, according to him, he can grade better than PCGS/NGC “most of the time”, if he disagrees with them (or, no doubt, CAC), they’re wrong. It’s as simple as that.😉
Yes, unfortunately some coins have to go in many times before the grading companies get it right, but they will come around.
This makes no sense. The grading companies effectively set the standards and drive the market.
You can philosophically differ on those standards, but you can’t be “better” at their game than they are.
That's really not true. The standards are not set daily by the graders. He's not arguing about the standards they posted years ago. He's criticizing the daily execution of those standards.
[Not that I agree with him]
What part isn’t true? You tore down a straw man (I never said standards are set daily). You haven’t articulated who, if not the TPGs, set the grading standards in the numismatic market. Nor have you clarified how you (or him) are better at grading to those standards or grading to them consistently.
There is no "straw man". You said the TPGs set the standard. Sure. But that is different than saying that wvery grading team "sets the standard" with every grade they assigned.
Imagine you have a coin that is the actual XF45 coin from the grading set of a TPG. Quite literally the standard setter for the company and, by extension, the market. And imagine I break it out and start submitting it and get an AU50, vf35, XF40, and XF45 for grades. The 45 standard is showing wide variance in the outcome because of the execution of different grading teams on different days.
So, yes, I can get "better" at the execution of the steadfast standards of I consistently grade that coin as XF40 or XF45 because my variance is smaller.
Of course, if that happened, the market might punish them for their variance and they would lose the ability to "set the standard". But there is variance in results. Send in the same coin 5 times and you will see more than one result.
I never claimed a ‘grading team’ sets the standard every morning.
In fact, I raised the issue of TPG variance leading to gradeflation in another thread this week which you also participated in.
And no, I don’t think you can become a better grader. Sit there for 8 hours a day until your eyes are red and you have a headache and let me know how consistent you are. Professional graders are far more consistent than you can hope to be. They do it day and day out. Doesn’t mean they won’t make errors and that collectors can’t catch the errors - they will. Catching other people’s errors occasionally doesn’t make you better at their profession. (See: armchair quarterback)
@ElmerFusterpuck said:
In hand this coin is very clean (not cleaned!) and very attractive. I've added a couple of pics taken with my phone which show the coin in a different light. In hand, I wonder about the strike on this coin. It does say that this date is usually well struck. I have a nice 1916-S in XF-45 with a CAC sticker. Of course there are more details but I can tell the thumb and that general area were not well struck. I do appreciate all the input and discussion, it's what the hobby (and holders) are all about!
This thought had also crossed my mind. The 1917 S obverse is not known for being well struck. I would say that the strike is usually mediocre on this issue. So, The strike could possibly be a factor, though I am still skeptical. Weakness is usually limited to the thumb and skirt line area and would not have such a profound effect on Miss liberty‘s breast.
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
The OP has piqued my interest in the definition of a WLH VF35, at least for a 17S obverse, how the OP coin stands among others for that year/mint, as well as CACG's new grading standard and if it was looser then just the CAC sticker of another TPG.
So I pulled 2 random PCGS Auction photos of VF35 CAC. Overall the price range of just VF35 went from $500 - 1000. The OP coin is definitely much better then the first coin below that went for around $750. I pulled the photos of a $1000 coin and although slightly better then the OP, still not sure it has the full collar and breast line mentioned by others. Anyway, although a small sample, looks like CAC probably would have stickered this coin if it was in a PCGS slab, and CACG is in line with prior CAC standards.
Maybe the 17S is given a little leniency by the TPGs for whatever reason based upon their evaluations of hundreds of coins they have seen over the years. Grade-flation over the years maybe, but the OP coin is within recent standards.
Just to clarify…early walkers in VF do not have fully rounded breasts. Even XF40-45 coins don’t always have fully rounded breasts. I just think that they have a little bit better detail than the OP’s Coin.
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
@MFeld said:m @ElmerFusterpuck, regardless of the turns that this thread has taken, that’s a very nice, wholesome looking coin you acquired. Congratulations.
I like his cell phone images. They look very wholesome and have better detail than the original pictures.
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
@1madman said:
Don’t need to see this one in hand. Just the easy pickin naked eye flaws are the break in frost speck on the bottom of the sun, and on the reverse the strike thru area on the “F” in of, plus the ~5 specks on the shield and speck under the first “U” in Pluribus on the eagle wing.
This is a 69.
I guess to be fair, they’ve basically never graded a modern coin, and so they’ve gotta learn somehow.
Wow you must be the most amazing grader in the history of graders, you don't even need to see the coin in hand to know everything about it. Even long-time numismatists and former graders like Mark Feld often acknowledge just how difficult it is to accurately grade proofs from photos, hats off to you sir that is some serious skill you have.
I appreciate the kind words because I do know my stuff on specific coin series, and can grade better than pcgs/NGC most of the time. I’ve looked at tens of thousands of coins in photos and pairing that information to in hand viewing of coins makes it easier to identify scratches on the coin and/or holder, and flaws hidden with lighting and shadows. I haven’t seen enough cac graded coins yet to get a feel on how they grade or what grading method they use, but it’s just gonna take time to learn their routine. I mean if they’re gonna grade that 95-w a 70, I can put together a pile of nicer pcgs 69s and submit to cac for automatic upgrades.
There you have it, @coinbuf. Since, according to him, he can grade better than PCGS/NGC “most of the time”, if he disagrees with them (or, no doubt, CAC), they’re wrong. It’s as simple as that.😉
Yes, unfortunately some coins have to go in many times before the grading companies get it right, but they will come around.
This makes no sense. The grading companies effectively set the standards and drive the market.
You can philosophically differ on those standards, but you can’t be “better” at their game than they are.
That's really not true. The standards are not set daily by the graders. He's not arguing about the standards they posted years ago. He's criticizing the daily execution of those standards.
[Not that I agree with him]
What part isn’t true? You tore down a straw man (I never said standards are set daily). You haven’t articulated who, if not the TPGs, set the grading standards in the numismatic market. Nor have you clarified how you (or him) are better at grading to those standards or grading to them consistently.
There is no "straw man". You said the TPGs set the standard. Sure. But that is different than saying that wvery grading team "sets the standard" with every grade they assigned.
Imagine you have a coin that is the actual XF45 coin from the grading set of a TPG. Quite literally the standard setter for the company and, by extension, the market. And imagine I break it out and start submitting it and get an AU50, vf35, XF40, and XF45 for grades. The 45 standard is showing wide variance in the outcome because of the execution of different grading teams on different days.
So, yes, I can get "better" at the execution of the steadfast standards of I consistently grade that coin as XF40 or XF45 because my variance is smaller.
Of course, if that happened, the market might punish them for their variance and they would lose the ability to "set the standard". But there is variance in results. Send in the same coin 5 times and you will see more than one result.
I never claimed a ‘grading team’ sets the standard every morning.
In fact, I raised the issue of TPG variance leading to gradeflation in another thread this week which you also participated in.
And no, I don’t think you can become a better grader. Sit there for 8 hours a day until your eyes are red and you have a headache and let me know how consistent you are. Professional graders are far more consistent than you can hope to be. They do it day and day out. Doesn’t mean they won’t make errors and that collectors can’t catch the errors - they will. Catching other people’s errors occasionally doesn’t make you better at their profession. (See: armchair quarterback)
In any particular series, the best grader probably does not work at a TPG. You think the TPG has a better small cent grader than Rick Snow?
You also forget that graders look at a coin for less than a minute. An amateur could study it for hours. I would also add that a new grader has probably not looked at one-tenth the coins of a 50 year veteran dealer. It really is apples and oranges.
That said, however, I already said that I don't agree with the OP you were responding to. I simply pointed out that it is possible to be a better grader than the TPG when it comes to execution of the standard they set.
If you want the best example, JA himself. He was a dealer with the best eye in the business. 40 years later he's so considered to be the best eye in the business even though he never trained as a professional grader and spent must of those 40 years on the business side of things.
@1madman said:
Don’t need to see this one in hand. Just the easy pickin naked eye flaws are the break in frost speck on the bottom of the sun, and on the reverse the strike thru area on the “F” in of, plus the ~5 specks on the shield and speck under the first “U” in Pluribus on the eagle wing.
This is a 69.
I guess to be fair, they’ve basically never graded a modern coin, and so they’ve gotta learn somehow.
Wow you must be the most amazing grader in the history of graders, you don't even need to see the coin in hand to know everything about it. Even long-time numismatists and former graders like Mark Feld often acknowledge just how difficult it is to accurately grade proofs from photos, hats off to you sir that is some serious skill you have.
I appreciate the kind words because I do know my stuff on specific coin series, and can grade better than pcgs/NGC most of the time. I’ve looked at tens of thousands of coins in photos and pairing that information to in hand viewing of coins makes it easier to identify scratches on the coin and/or holder, and flaws hidden with lighting and shadows. I haven’t seen enough cac graded coins yet to get a feel on how they grade or what grading method they use, but it’s just gonna take time to learn their routine. I mean if they’re gonna grade that 95-w a 70, I can put together a pile of nicer pcgs 69s and submit to cac for automatic upgrades.
There you have it, @coinbuf. Since, according to him, he can grade better than PCGS/NGC “most of the time”, if he disagrees with them (or, no doubt, CAC), they’re wrong. It’s as simple as that.😉
Yes, unfortunately some coins have to go in many times before the grading companies get it right, but they will come around.
This makes no sense. The grading companies effectively set the standards and drive the market.
You can philosophically differ on those standards, but you can’t be “better” at their game than they are.
That's really not true. The standards are not set daily by the graders. He's not arguing about the standards they posted years ago. He's criticizing the daily execution of those standards.
[Not that I agree with him]
What part isn’t true? You tore down a straw man (I never said standards are set daily). You haven’t articulated who, if not the TPGs, set the grading standards in the numismatic market. Nor have you clarified how you (or him) are better at grading to those standards or grading to them consistently.
There is no "straw man". You said the TPGs set the standard. Sure. But that is different than saying that wvery grading team "sets the standard" with every grade they assigned.
Imagine you have a coin that is the actual XF45 coin from the grading set of a TPG. Quite literally the standard setter for the company and, by extension, the market. And imagine I break it out and start submitting it and get an AU50, vf35, XF40, and XF45 for grades. The 45 standard is showing wide variance in the outcome because of the execution of different grading teams on different days.
So, yes, I can get "better" at the execution of the steadfast standards of I consistently grade that coin as XF40 or XF45 because my variance is smaller.
Of course, if that happened, the market might punish them for their variance and they would lose the ability to "set the standard". But there is variance in results. Send in the same coin 5 times and you will see more than one result.
I never claimed a ‘grading team’ sets the standard every morning.
In fact, I raised the issue of TPG variance leading to gradeflation in another thread this week which you also participated in.
And no, I don’t think you can become a better grader. Sit there for 8 hours a day until your eyes are red and you have a headache and let me know how consistent you are. Professional graders are far more consistent than you can hope to be. They do it day and day out. Doesn’t mean they won’t make errors and that collectors can’t catch the errors - they will. Catching other people’s errors occasionally doesn’t make you better at their profession. (See: armchair quarterback)
… If you want the best example, JA himself. He was a dealer with the best eye in the business. 40 years later he's so considered to be the best eye in the business even though he never trained as a professional grader and spent must of those 40 years on the business side of things.
Many professional graders (myself, included) don’t “train” as professional graders - other than through buying, selling, studying and assessing coins. They earn their reputations as sharp graders through the business they transact. Any official training they receive at a grading company is likely aimed at just tweaking their grading a bit.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@1madman said:
Don’t need to see this one in hand. Just the easy pickin naked eye flaws are the break in frost speck on the bottom of the sun, and on the reverse the strike thru area on the “F” in of, plus the ~5 specks on the shield and speck under the first “U” in Pluribus on the eagle wing.
This is a 69.
I guess to be fair, they’ve basically never graded a modern coin, and so they’ve gotta learn somehow.
Wow you must be the most amazing grader in the history of graders, you don't even need to see the coin in hand to know everything about it. Even long-time numismatists and former graders like Mark Feld often acknowledge just how difficult it is to accurately grade proofs from photos, hats off to you sir that is some serious skill you have.
I appreciate the kind words because I do know my stuff on specific coin series, and can grade better than pcgs/NGC most of the time. I’ve looked at tens of thousands of coins in photos and pairing that information to in hand viewing of coins makes it easier to identify scratches on the coin and/or holder, and flaws hidden with lighting and shadows. I haven’t seen enough cac graded coins yet to get a feel on how they grade or what grading method they use, but it’s just gonna take time to learn their routine. I mean if they’re gonna grade that 95-w a 70, I can put together a pile of nicer pcgs 69s and submit to cac for automatic upgrades.
Shall we test this?
I have a coin in at PCGS right now. Here it is, care to guess the grade and prove your skill? Personally, I think @MFeld, @coinbuf, and others are right - you can't accurately grade from pics. Think we're wrong - take a gander at the below coin then and prove it.
@1madman said:
Don’t need to see this one in hand. Just the easy pickin naked eye flaws are the break in frost speck on the bottom of the sun, and on the reverse the strike thru area on the “F” in of, plus the ~5 specks on the shield and speck under the first “U” in Pluribus on the eagle wing.
This is a 69.
I guess to be fair, they’ve basically never graded a modern coin, and so they’ve gotta learn somehow.
Wow you must be the most amazing grader in the history of graders, you don't even need to see the coin in hand to know everything about it. Even long-time numismatists and former graders like Mark Feld often acknowledge just how difficult it is to accurately grade proofs from photos, hats off to you sir that is some serious skill you have.
I appreciate the kind words because I do know my stuff on specific coin series, and can grade better than pcgs/NGC most of the time. I’ve looked at tens of thousands of coins in photos and pairing that information to in hand viewing of coins makes it easier to identify scratches on the coin and/or holder, and flaws hidden with lighting and shadows. I haven’t seen enough cac graded coins yet to get a feel on how they grade or what grading method they use, but it’s just gonna take time to learn their routine. I mean if they’re gonna grade that 95-w a 70, I can put together a pile of nicer pcgs 69s and submit to cac for automatic upgrades.
Shall we test this?
I have a coin in at PCGS right now. Here it is, care to guess the grade and prove your skill? Personally, I think @MFeld, @coinbuf, and others are right - you can't accurately grade from pics. Think we're wrong - take a gander at the below coin then and prove it.
PROOF coinage is a WHOLE 'nother world and impossible to grade from images alone...Even MORE SO than business strikes. I will NOT even attempt to grade this coin. I will just make two remarks:
it is lovely.
It likely didn't grade, as high as it it appears, likely due to hairlines that are not clearly visible in the images.
That is only my guess...
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
@P0CKETCHANGE said: @FlyingAl looks like a 66 from the photos but I know I’m a fool to even try.
The coin should grade somewhere between 66 and 68...that is, unless there are hairlines not apparent in the image. In that case, the grade could be lower than 66. How's that for precision in grading from images?
But more seriously, as I've posted many times before - in the case of Proof coins, the extent of hairlines often (largely) determines the grade. And even the best images usually don't adequately show hairlines. So, while some of us correctly guess the grade of Proof coins from time to time, it's largely due to luck.
Now just for fun, I'll guess PR67+ on that beautiful 1942 half dollar.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Thanks for posting your new purchase. Congratulations on the completion of your early set. Nice looking coin for the grade. I'm glad you were happy enough with your purchase to post it here.
Student of numismatics and collector of Morgan dollars
Successful BST transactions with: Namvet Justindan Mattniss RWW olah_in_MA
Dantheman984 Toyz4geo SurfinxHI greencopper RWW bigjpst bretsan MWallace logger7
@coastaljerseyguy said:
The OP has piqued my interest in the definition of a WLH VF35, at least for a 17S obverse, how the OP coin stands among others for that year/mint, as well as CACG's new grading standard and if it was looser then just the CAC sticker of another TPG.
So I pulled 2 random PCGS Auction photos of VF35 CAC. Overall the price range of just VF35 went from $500 - 1000. The OP coin is definitely much better then the first coin below that went for around $750. I pulled the photos of a $1000 coin and although slightly better then the OP, still not sure it has the full collar and breast line mentioned by others. Anyway, although a small sample, looks like CAC probably would have stickered this coin if it was in a PCGS slab, and CACG is in line with prior CAC standards.
Maybe the 17S is given a little leniency by the TPGs for whatever reason based upon their evaluations of hundreds of coins they have seen over the years. Grade-flation over the years maybe, but the OP coin is within recent standards.
that second coin looks like it could be the ops coin. I see a similar flat spot on the rim. Photo is too small though. IF so, it would be that CAC did sticker the coin with the rim ding.
@1madman said:
I like the 42 proof walker as a pr65 because of the hits on the obverse and what look to be hairlines.
Where do you see obverse hits? Maybe I need to put on my glasses.
Three hits in a cluster between the B and E of liberty. Two or three hits between the sun ray close to liberty. Rub or hit (can’t be 100% sure) between L and I in liberty. Hit near the rim behind liberty’s back foot. Hit between R and T, and also between T and Y of liberty.
@1madman said:
Don’t need to see this one in hand. Just the easy pickin naked eye flaws are the break in frost speck on the bottom of the sun, and on the reverse the strike thru area on the “F” in of, plus the ~5 specks on the shield and speck under the first “U” in Pluribus on the eagle wing.
This is a 69.
I guess to be fair, they’ve basically never graded a modern coin, and so they’ve gotta learn somehow.
Wow you must be the most amazing grader in the history of graders, you don't even need to see the coin in hand to know everything about it. Even long-time numismatists and former graders like Mark Feld often acknowledge just how difficult it is to accurately grade proofs from photos, hats off to you sir that is some serious skill you have.
I appreciate the kind words because I do know my stuff on specific coin series, and can grade better than pcgs/NGC most of the time. I’ve looked at tens of thousands of coins in photos and pairing that information to in hand viewing of coins makes it easier to identify scratches on the coin and/or holder, and flaws hidden with lighting and shadows. I haven’t seen enough cac graded coins yet to get a feel on how they grade or what grading method they use, but it’s just gonna take time to learn their routine. I mean if they’re gonna grade that 95-w a 70, I can put together a pile of nicer pcgs 69s and submit to cac for automatic upgrades.
There you have it, @coinbuf. Since, according to him, he can grade better than PCGS/NGC “most of the time”, if he disagrees with them (or, no doubt, CAC), they’re wrong. It’s as simple as that.😉
Yes, unfortunately some coins have to go in many times before the grading companies get it right, but they will come around.
This makes no sense. The grading companies effectively set the standards and drive the market.
You can philosophically differ on those standards, but you can’t be “better” at their game than they are.
That's really not true. The standards are not set daily by the graders. He's not arguing about the standards they posted years ago. He's criticizing the daily execution of those standards.
[Not that I agree with him]
What part isn’t true? You tore down a straw man (I never said standards are set daily). You haven’t articulated who, if not the TPGs, set the grading standards in the numismatic market. Nor have you clarified how you (or him) are better at grading to those standards or grading to them consistently.
There is no "straw man". You said the TPGs set the standard. Sure. But that is different than saying that wvery grading team "sets the standard" with every grade they assigned.
Imagine you have a coin that is the actual XF45 coin from the grading set of a TPG. Quite literally the standard setter for the company and, by extension, the market. And imagine I break it out and start submitting it and get an AU50, vf35, XF40, and XF45 for grades. The 45 standard is showing wide variance in the outcome because of the execution of different grading teams on different days.
So, yes, I can get "better" at the execution of the steadfast standards of I consistently grade that coin as XF40 or XF45 because my variance is smaller.
Of course, if that happened, the market might punish them for their variance and they would lose the ability to "set the standard". But there is variance in results. Send in the same coin 5 times and you will see more than one result.
I never claimed a ‘grading team’ sets the standard every morning.
In fact, I raised the issue of TPG variance leading to gradeflation in another thread this week which you also participated in.
And no, I don’t think you can become a better grader. Sit there for 8 hours a day until your eyes are red and you have a headache and let me know how consistent you are. Professional graders are far more consistent than you can hope to be. They do it day and day out. Doesn’t mean they won’t make errors and that collectors can’t catch the errors - they will. Catching other people’s errors occasionally doesn’t make you better at their profession. (See: armchair quarterback)
… If you want the best example, JA himself. He was a dealer with the best eye in the business. 40 years later he's so considered to be the best eye in the business even though he never trained as a professional grader and spent must of those 40 years on the business side of things.
Many professional graders (myself, included) don’t “train” as professional graders - other than through buying, selling, studying and assessing coins. They earn their reputations as sharp graders through the business they transact. Any official training they receive at a grading company is likely aimed at just tweaking their grading a bit.
That's the point. People with "grader's eyes" got them before they were graders.
@1madman said:
I like the 42 proof walker as a pr65 because of the hits on the obverse and what look to be hairlines.
I guarantee the 1942 will not grade below PR67. If it does, it will be cracked.
I'm not the only one who thinks this as well, as I've received several offers for it putting it well in 67+ range and starting into 68 range. Again - one cannot grade a coin accurately from images, particularly Proofs. Perhaps videos, but not images.
@1madman said:
Don’t need to see this one in hand. Just the easy pickin naked eye flaws are the break in frost speck on the bottom of the sun, and on the reverse the strike thru area on the “F” in of, plus the ~5 specks on the shield and speck under the first “U” in Pluribus on the eagle wing.
This is a 69.
I guess to be fair, they’ve basically never graded a modern coin, and so they’ve gotta learn somehow.
Wow you must be the most amazing grader in the history of graders, you don't even need to see the coin in hand to know everything about it. Even long-time numismatists and former graders like Mark Feld often acknowledge just how difficult it is to accurately grade proofs from photos, hats off to you sir that is some serious skill you have.
I appreciate the kind words because I do know my stuff on specific coin series, and can grade better than pcgs/NGC most of the time. I’ve looked at tens of thousands of coins in photos and pairing that information to in hand viewing of coins makes it easier to identify scratches on the coin and/or holder, and flaws hidden with lighting and shadows. I haven’t seen enough cac graded coins yet to get a feel on how they grade or what grading method they use, but it’s just gonna take time to learn their routine. I mean if they’re gonna grade that 95-w a 70, I can put together a pile of nicer pcgs 69s and submit to cac for automatic upgrades.
There you have it, @coinbuf. Since, according to him, he can grade better than PCGS/NGC “most of the time”, if he disagrees with them (or, no doubt, CAC), they’re wrong. It’s as simple as that.😉
Yes, unfortunately some coins have to go in many times before the grading companies get it right, but they will come around.
This makes no sense. The grading companies effectively set the standards and drive the market.
You can philosophically differ on those standards, but you can’t be “better” at their game than they are.
That's really not true. The standards are not set daily by the graders. He's not arguing about the standards they posted years ago. He's criticizing the daily execution of those standards.
[Not that I agree with him]
What part isn’t true? You tore down a straw man (I never said standards are set daily). You haven’t articulated who, if not the TPGs, set the grading standards in the numismatic market. Nor have you clarified how you (or him) are better at grading to those standards or grading to them consistently.
There is no "straw man". You said the TPGs set the standard. Sure. But that is different than saying that wvery grading team "sets the standard" with every grade they assigned.
Imagine you have a coin that is the actual XF45 coin from the grading set of a TPG. Quite literally the standard setter for the company and, by extension, the market. And imagine I break it out and start submitting it and get an AU50, vf35, XF40, and XF45 for grades. The 45 standard is showing wide variance in the outcome because of the execution of different grading teams on different days.
So, yes, I can get "better" at the execution of the steadfast standards of I consistently grade that coin as XF40 or XF45 because my variance is smaller.
Of course, if that happened, the market might punish them for their variance and they would lose the ability to "set the standard". But there is variance in results. Send in the same coin 5 times and you will see more than one result.
I never claimed a ‘grading team’ sets the standard every morning.
In fact, I raised the issue of TPG variance leading to gradeflation in another thread this week which you also participated in.
And no, I don’t think you can become a better grader. Sit there for 8 hours a day until your eyes are red and you have a headache and let me know how consistent you are. Professional graders are far more consistent than you can hope to be. They do it day and day out. Doesn’t mean they won’t make errors and that collectors can’t catch the errors - they will. Catching other people’s errors occasionally doesn’t make you better at their profession. (See: armchair quarterback)
In any particular series, the best grader probably does not work at a TPG. You think the TPG has a better small cent grader than Rick Snow?
You also forget that graders look at a coin for less than a minute. An amateur could study it for hours. I would also add that a new grader has probably not looked at one-tenth the coins of a 50 year veteran dealer. It really is apples and oranges.
That said, however, I already said that I don't agree with the OP you were responding to. I simply pointed out that it is possible to be a better grader than the TPG when it comes to execution of the standard they set.
If you want the best example, JA himself. He was a dealer with the best eye in the business. 40 years later he's so considered to be the best eye in the business even though he never trained as a professional grader and spent must of those 40 years on the business side of things.
Are you comparing yourself to Rick Snow ?
I didn't forget that graders look at coins for less than a minute - that is part of being a good and professional grader - being able to move through coins quickly.
You can't take 10mins at lot viewing or on the bourse to review each coin!
Does spending 10mins reviewing the interception replay make you a better a quarterback than Patrick Mahomes?
@1madman said:
Don’t need to see this one in hand. Just the easy pickin naked eye flaws are the break in frost speck on the bottom of the sun, and on the reverse the strike thru area on the “F” in of, plus the ~5 specks on the shield and speck under the first “U” in Pluribus on the eagle wing.
This is a 69.
I guess to be fair, they’ve basically never graded a modern coin, and so they’ve gotta learn somehow.
Wow you must be the most amazing grader in the history of graders, you don't even need to see the coin in hand to know everything about it. Even long-time numismatists and former graders like Mark Feld often acknowledge just how difficult it is to accurately grade proofs from photos, hats off to you sir that is some serious skill you have.
I appreciate the kind words because I do know my stuff on specific coin series, and can grade better than pcgs/NGC most of the time. I’ve looked at tens of thousands of coins in photos and pairing that information to in hand viewing of coins makes it easier to identify scratches on the coin and/or holder, and flaws hidden with lighting and shadows. I haven’t seen enough cac graded coins yet to get a feel on how they grade or what grading method they use, but it’s just gonna take time to learn their routine. I mean if they’re gonna grade that 95-w a 70, I can put together a pile of nicer pcgs 69s and submit to cac for automatic upgrades.
There you have it, @coinbuf. Since, according to him, he can grade better than PCGS/NGC “most of the time”, if he disagrees with them (or, no doubt, CAC), they’re wrong. It’s as simple as that.😉
Yes, unfortunately some coins have to go in many times before the grading companies get it right, but they will come around.
This makes no sense. The grading companies effectively set the standards and drive the market.
You can philosophically differ on those standards, but you can’t be “better” at their game than they are.
That's really not true. The standards are not set daily by the graders. He's not arguing about the standards they posted years ago. He's criticizing the daily execution of those standards.
[Not that I agree with him]
What part isn’t true? You tore down a straw man (I never said standards are set daily). You haven’t articulated who, if not the TPGs, set the grading standards in the numismatic market. Nor have you clarified how you (or him) are better at grading to those standards or grading to them consistently.
There is no "straw man". You said the TPGs set the standard. Sure. But that is different than saying that wvery grading team "sets the standard" with every grade they assigned.
Imagine you have a coin that is the actual XF45 coin from the grading set of a TPG. Quite literally the standard setter for the company and, by extension, the market. And imagine I break it out and start submitting it and get an AU50, vf35, XF40, and XF45 for grades. The 45 standard is showing wide variance in the outcome because of the execution of different grading teams on different days.
So, yes, I can get "better" at the execution of the steadfast standards of I consistently grade that coin as XF40 or XF45 because my variance is smaller.
Of course, if that happened, the market might punish them for their variance and they would lose the ability to "set the standard". But there is variance in results. Send in the same coin 5 times and you will see more than one result.
I never claimed a ‘grading team’ sets the standard every morning.
In fact, I raised the issue of TPG variance leading to gradeflation in another thread this week which you also participated in.
And no, I don’t think you can become a better grader. Sit there for 8 hours a day until your eyes are red and you have a headache and let me know how consistent you are. Professional graders are far more consistent than you can hope to be. They do it day and day out. Doesn’t mean they won’t make errors and that collectors can’t catch the errors - they will. Catching other people’s errors occasionally doesn’t make you better at their profession. (See: armchair quarterback)
In any particular series, the best grader probably does not work at a TPG. You think the TPG has a better small cent grader than Rick Snow?
You also forget that graders look at a coin for less than a minute. An amateur could study it for hours. I would also add that a new grader has probably not looked at one-tenth the coins of a 50 year veteran dealer. It really is apples and oranges.
That said, however, I already said that I don't agree with the OP you were responding to. I simply pointed out that it is possible to be a better grader than the TPG when it comes to execution of the standard they set.
If you want the best example, JA himself. He was a dealer with the best eye in the business. 40 years later he's so considered to be the best eye in the business even though he never trained as a professional grader and spent must of those 40 years on the business side of things.
Are you comparing yourself to Rick Snow ?
I didn't forget that graders look at coins for less than a minute - that is part of being a good and professional grader - being able to move through coins quickly.
You can't take 10mins at lot viewing or on the bourse to review each coin!
Does spending 10mins reviewing the interception replay make you a better a quarterback than Patrick Mahomes?
I'm not making any statement about myself. I'm speaking purely in the hypothetical.
Respectfully, we're not taking about a physical skill here. I'm talking about execution of a standard with consistency. Yes, spending 10 minutes or longer on a coin would allow an educated amateur to be more consistent than a professional who takes seconds. Imho
@1madman said:
I like the 42 proof walker as a pr65 because of the hits on the obverse and what look to be hairlines.
I guarantee the 1942 will not grade below PR67. If it does, it will be cracked.
I'm not the only one who thinks this as well, as I've received several offers for it putting it well in 67+ range and starting into 68 range. Again - one cannot grade a coin accurately from images, particularly Proofs. Perhaps videos, but not images.
This coin doesn’t start to become interesting regarding pricing unless it is 68 or higher. Here’s a 67+ from a month ago (albeit not the most attractive):
Appears these trade in ~$450-$650 range for grades from 65-67+. If this comes back as a 67, I can’t see the added value by dumping more money into getting it to upgrade to a 67+. It has to 68 to recoup the grading fees. Also this thing has to cac sticker to pull a premium price for the grade.
Don’t lose the person’s number who started to offer in the 68 range while it was raw.
@1madman said:
I like the 42 proof walker as a pr65 because of the hits on the obverse and what look to be hairlines.
I guarantee the 1942 will not grade below PR67. If it does, it will be cracked.
I'm not the only one who thinks this as well, as I've received several offers for it putting it well in 67+ range and starting into 68 range. Again - one cannot grade a coin accurately from images, particularly Proofs. Perhaps videos, but not images.
This coin doesn’t start to become interesting regarding pricing unless it is 68 or higher. Here’s a 67+ from a month ago (albeit not the most attractive):
Appears these trade in ~$450-$650 range for grades from 65-67+. If this comes back as a 67, I can’t see the added value by dumping more money into getting it to upgrade to a 67+. It has to 68 to recoup the grading fees. Also this thing has to cac sticker to pull a premium price for the grade.
Don’t lose the person’s number who started to offer in the 68 range while it was raw.
That coin doesn’t need a CAC sticker “to pull a premium price for the grade”. The color will bring a premium, with or without a sticker.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@1madman said:
Best case the coin grades 65 or 66 and it gold stickers at cac.
Worst case the coin grades 66 or 67 and won’t sticker at cac.
But I think what we’ve learned from this thread is you should just send to cac grading where it will grade either a 69 or 70.
Previously, you wrote “I like the 42 proof walker as a pr65 because of the hits on the obverse and what look to be hairlines.”
Based on that, neither your “best case” nor your “worst case” scenario should apply. But you did a fine job of confirming my point that people can’t grade Proof coins accurately from images. And as a bonus, you also gave yourself a great deal of wiggle room in your grade guess. Well done!😀
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@FlyingAl said: Think we're wrong - take a gander at the below coin then and prove it.
PR66+.
What I've thought for many years is exactly what you said, you can't accurately grade from pictures. All the GTG threads are good exercises but about all they prove is what a group consensus might be. I think with the majority of threads you cane guess MS64/65 without even looking at the pictures and you'll be close.
I grade very conservatively so there is no disappointment. This is a $500 pr65 coin if I’m looking to buy this coin raw in a dealers case. If pcgs puts this in a 67 holder, it only strengthens my skills because I have more insight of what flaws they forgive.
Once you fall down the rabbit hole of “ownership adds a point” style grading, you’ve lost credibility.
I hope the coin grades out a 68 so he can make some money, but don’t be disappointed if it grades 65 or 66 or 67 and break even / lose.
@1madman said:
I like the 42 proof walker as a pr65 because of the hits on the obverse and what look to be hairlines.
I guarantee the 1942 will not grade below PR67. If it does, it will be cracked.
I'm not the only one who thinks this as well, as I've received several offers for it putting it well in 67+ range and starting into 68 range. Again - one cannot grade a coin accurately from images, particularly Proofs. Perhaps videos, but not images.
I use the words "always" and "never" only in extremely rare instances. But never guarantee what a coin will grade!
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Wow you must be the most amazing grader in the history of graders, you don't even need to see the coin in hand to know everything about it. Even long-time numismatists and former graders like Mark Feld often acknowledge just how difficult it is to accurately grade proofs from photos, hats off to you sir that is some serious skill you have.
I appreciate the kind words because I do know my stuff on specific coin series, and can grade better than pcgs/NGC most of the time. I’ve looked at tens of thousands of coins in photos and pairing that information to in hand viewing of coins makes it easier to identify scratches on the coin and/or holder, and flaws hidden with lighting and shadows. I haven’t seen enough cac graded coins yet to get a feel on how they grade or what grading method they use, but it’s just gonna take time to learn their routine. I mean if they’re gonna grade that 95-w a 70, I can put together a pile of nicer pcgs 69s and submit to cac for automatic upgrades.
And humble too...
-----Burton ANA 50 year/Life Member (now "Emeritus")
I have learned that this hobby of mine humbles me regularly and as taught me to be careful with making absolute declarations. Better this way so that the learning never ends.
OP congratulations are in order!
Seated Half Society member #38 "Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
@1madman said:
I like the 42 proof walker as a pr65 because of the hits on the obverse and what look to be hairlines.
I guarantee the 1942 will not grade below PR67. If it does, it will be cracked.
I'm not the only one who thinks this as well, as I've received several offers for it putting it well in 67+ range and starting into 68 range. Again - one cannot grade a coin accurately from images, particularly Proofs. Perhaps videos, but not images.
I use the words "always" and "never" only in extremely rare instances. But never guarantee what a coin will grade!
This is fair Mark, so I'll revise my statement.
I cannot guarantee the coin will grade above or at PR67. However, I can guarantee it won't stay in that below PR67 holder for long. Of course, I have the in hand opinion of the coin, which aids me considerably. I think we all can agree that no matter what grade this coin is, the color will carry a significant premium, and it is not a $500 coin, even as a 65.
@Maywood made an excellent comment above I fully agree with.
Comments
…> @1madman said:
This makes no sense. The grading companies effectively set the standards and drive the market.
You can philosophically differ on those standards, but you can’t be “better” at their game than they are.
People who specialize are capable of grading more consistently in their series than TPG's.
Yup. That's a 35. And that's why people should not be so definitive based on photos
That's really not true. The standards are not set daily by the graders. He's not arguing about the standards they posted years ago. He's criticizing the daily execution of those standards.
[Not that I agree with him]
What part isn’t true? You tore down a straw man (I never said standards are set daily). You haven’t articulated who, if not the TPGs, set the grading standards in the numismatic market. Nor have you clarified how you (or him) are better at grading to those standards or grading to them consistently.
I mean this in the most sincere honest way, I would love to browse your inventory for sale. If you set up at major shows or have a store/ebay store, please promote yourself to me because I am certain I would be a regular customer. It is very difficult finding fresh “virgin” coins that get immediate acceptance once they’re graded and not questioned.
First I’ll say I really like the coin, but this set of pictures makes that rim ding really stand out. On both the obverse and reverse.
Difficult needle to thread for CACG. I’m not saying it doesn’t deserve a straight grade. I’ve certainly seen a lot more damage in straight graded holders. But, it would’t surprise me if this didn’t pass CAC if it were submitted for sticker.
So if their standards are that all coins in any given grade are solid for grade, what’s the ruling on a coin with this kind of flaw? Do they ignore it and go with the notion solid for VF35? Or net grade it? Or details grade it?
My Ebay Store
There is no "straw man". You said the TPGs set the standard. Sure. But that is different than saying that wvery grading team "sets the standard" with every grade they assigned.
Imagine you have a coin that is the actual XF45 coin from the grading set of a TPG. Quite literally the standard setter for the company and, by extension, the market. And imagine I break it out and start submitting it and get an AU50, vf35, XF40, and XF45 for grades. The 45 standard is showing wide variance in the outcome because of the execution of different grading teams on different days.
So, yes, I can get "better" at the execution of the steadfast standards of I consistently grade that coin as XF40 or XF45 because my variance is smaller.
Of course, if that happened, the market might punish them for their variance and they would lose the ability to "set the standard". But there is variance in results. Send in the same coin 5 times and you will see more than one result.
I am disappointed in the CACG pics for this coin.
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
Yep, how many of the best graders at PCGS get stuck grading silver eagles unless maybe it's a very expensive one?
How many people who aren’t professional graders, examine/grade anywhere near as many silver eagles as any of the graders at PCGS?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Doesn't matter, it takes only one who knows his or her stuff. I imagine that there are a few out there who are just as good as the pros in a particular series. I don't know who does what at PCGS, but if I had to guess I'd posit that they don't waste their best talent grading silver eagles.
If you remember this, going to work and having to grade this would be the groan heard round the world.
It absolutely matters. Large quantities of coins need to be examined in order to acquire the necessary knowledge and experience. And most people either can’t or choose not to do that.
Yes, some dealers and collectors obtain a professional grader’s level of expertise. However, this path of this thread started when, based only on images, a certain poster stated that CACG had mis-graded a coin. I’ll take their in-hand opinion over his, from just a photo.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
And the later picture shows much more detail on the coin than the first. Photos do not always accurately reflect a coin.
That’s especially true in the case of pictures of Proof coins.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I never claimed a ‘grading team’ sets the standard every morning.
In fact, I raised the issue of TPG variance leading to gradeflation in another thread this week which you also participated in.
And no, I don’t think you can become a better grader. Sit there for 8 hours a day until your eyes are red and you have a headache and let me know how consistent you are. Professional graders are far more consistent than you can hope to be. They do it day and day out. Doesn’t mean they won’t make errors and that collectors can’t catch the errors - they will. Catching other people’s errors occasionally doesn’t make you better at their profession. (See: armchair quarterback)
Pleasing example. 👍
My YouTube Channel
This thought had also crossed my mind. The 1917 S obverse is not known for being well struck. I would say that the strike is usually mediocre on this issue. So, The strike could possibly be a factor, though I am still skeptical. Weakness is usually limited to the thumb and skirt line area and would not have such a profound effect on Miss liberty‘s breast.
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947):
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/
Do they have anything like a reconsideration service? I'm too lazy to look.
The OP has piqued my interest in the definition of a WLH VF35, at least for a 17S obverse, how the OP coin stands among others for that year/mint, as well as CACG's new grading standard and if it was looser then just the CAC sticker of another TPG.
So I pulled 2 random PCGS Auction photos of VF35 CAC. Overall the price range of just VF35 went from $500 - 1000. The OP coin is definitely much better then the first coin below that went for around $750. I pulled the photos of a $1000 coin and although slightly better then the OP, still not sure it has the full collar and breast line mentioned by others. Anyway, although a small sample, looks like CAC probably would have stickered this coin if it was in a PCGS slab, and CACG is in line with prior CAC standards.
Maybe the 17S is given a little leniency by the TPGs for whatever reason based upon their evaluations of hundreds of coins they have seen over the years. Grade-flation over the years maybe, but the OP coin is within recent standards.
Just to clarify…early walkers in VF do not have fully rounded breasts. Even XF40-45 coins don’t always have fully rounded breasts. I just think that they have a little bit better detail than the OP’s Coin.
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947):
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/
@ElmerFusterpuck, regardless of the turns that this thread has taken, that’s a very nice, wholesome looking coin you acquired. Congratulations.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I like his cell phone images. They look very wholesome and have better detail than the original pictures.
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947):
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/
In any particular series, the best grader probably does not work at a TPG. You think the TPG has a better small cent grader than Rick Snow?
You also forget that graders look at a coin for less than a minute. An amateur could study it for hours. I would also add that a new grader has probably not looked at one-tenth the coins of a 50 year veteran dealer. It really is apples and oranges.
That said, however, I already said that I don't agree with the OP you were responding to. I simply pointed out that it is possible to be a better grader than the TPG when it comes to execution of the standard they set.
If you want the best example, JA himself. He was a dealer with the best eye in the business. 40 years later he's so considered to be the best eye in the business even though he never trained as a professional grader and spent must of those 40 years on the business side of things.
Many professional graders (myself, included) don’t “train” as professional graders - other than through buying, selling, studying and assessing coins. They earn their reputations as sharp graders through the business they transact. Any official training they receive at a grading company is likely aimed at just tweaking their grading a bit.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Shall we test this?
I have a coin in at PCGS right now. Here it is, care to guess the grade and prove your skill? Personally, I think @MFeld, @coinbuf, and others are right - you can't accurately grade from pics. Think we're wrong - take a gander at the below coin then and prove it.
Coin Photographer.
PROOF coinage is a WHOLE 'nother world and impossible to grade from images alone...Even MORE SO than business strikes. I will NOT even attempt to grade this coin. I will just make two remarks:
it is lovely.
It likely didn't grade, as high as it it appears, likely due to hairlines that are not clearly visible in the images.
That is only my guess...
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947):
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/
@FlyingAl looks like a 66 from the photos but I know I’m a fool to even try.
Nothing is as expensive as free money.
The coin should grade somewhere between 66 and 68...that is, unless there are hairlines not apparent in the image. In that case, the grade could be lower than 66. How's that for precision in grading from images?
But more seriously, as I've posted many times before - in the case of Proof coins, the extent of hairlines often (largely) determines the grade. And even the best images usually don't adequately show hairlines. So, while some of us correctly guess the grade of Proof coins from time to time, it's largely due to luck.
Now just for fun, I'll guess PR67+ on that beautiful 1942 half dollar.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Thanks for posting your new purchase. Congratulations on the completion of your early set. Nice looking coin for the grade. I'm glad you were happy enough with your purchase to post it here.
Student of numismatics and collector of Morgan dollars
Successful BST transactions with: Namvet Justindan Mattniss RWW olah_in_MA
Dantheman984 Toyz4geo SurfinxHI greencopper RWW bigjpst bretsan MWallace logger7
My Ebay Store
I like the 42 proof walker as a pr65 because of the hits on the obverse and what look to be hairlines.
Where do you see obverse hits? Maybe I need to put on my glasses.
Nothing is as expensive as free money.
Three hits in a cluster between the B and E of liberty. Two or three hits between the sun ray close to liberty. Rub or hit (can’t be 100% sure) between L and I in liberty. Hit near the rim behind liberty’s back foot. Hit between R and T, and also between T and Y of liberty.
I’m sure it grades somewhere between 65 and 68 lol but it doesn’t really matter, because the blue rim toning is what really sets it apart.
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947):
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/
That's the point. People with "grader's eyes" got them before they were graders.
I guarantee the 1942 will not grade below PR67. If it does, it will be cracked.
I'm not the only one who thinks this as well, as I've received several offers for it putting it well in 67+ range and starting into 68 range. Again - one cannot grade a coin accurately from images, particularly Proofs. Perhaps videos, but not images.
Coin Photographer.
Are you comparing yourself to Rick Snow
?
I didn't forget that graders look at coins for less than a minute - that is part of being a good and professional grader - being able to move through coins quickly.
You can't take 10mins at lot viewing or on the bourse to review each coin!
Does spending 10mins reviewing the interception replay make you a better a quarterback than Patrick Mahomes?
I'm not making any statement about myself. I'm speaking purely in the hypothetical.
Respectfully, we're not taking about a physical skill here. I'm talking about execution of a standard with consistency. Yes, spending 10 minutes or longer on a coin would allow an educated amateur to be more consistent than a professional who takes seconds. Imho
This coin doesn’t start to become interesting regarding pricing unless it is 68 or higher. Here’s a 67+ from a month ago (albeit not the most attractive):
https://www.greatcollections.com/Coin/1142674/1942-Walking-Liberty-Half-Dollar-NGC-Proof-67
Appears these trade in ~$450-$650 range for grades from 65-67+. If this comes back as a 67, I can’t see the added value by dumping more money into getting it to upgrade to a 67+. It has to 68 to recoup the grading fees. Also this thing has to cac sticker to pull a premium price for the grade.
Don’t lose the person’s number who started to offer in the 68 range while it was raw.
That coin doesn’t need a CAC sticker “to pull a premium price for the grade”. The color will bring a premium, with or without a sticker.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Best case the coin grades 65 or 66 and it gold stickers at cac.
Worst case the coin grades 66 or 67 and won’t sticker at cac.
But I think what we’ve learned from this thread is you should just send to cac grading where it will grade either a 69 or 70.
@BAJJERFAN said: If you remember this, going to work and having to grade this would be the groan heard round the world.
If I showed up for work and that was what I was facing I'd quit.
Previously, you wrote “I like the 42 proof walker as a pr65 because of the hits on the obverse and what look to be hairlines.”
Based on that, neither your “best case” nor your “worst case” scenario should apply. But you did a fine job of confirming my point that people can’t grade Proof coins accurately from images. And as a bonus, you also gave yourself a great deal of wiggle room in your grade guess. Well done!😀
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@FlyingAl said: Think we're wrong - take a gander at the below coin then and prove it.
PR66+.
What I've thought for many years is exactly what you said, you can't accurately grade from pictures. All the GTG threads are good exercises but about all they prove is what a group consensus might be. I think with the majority of threads you cane guess MS64/65 without even looking at the pictures and you'll be close.
I grade very conservatively so there is no disappointment. This is a $500 pr65 coin if I’m looking to buy this coin raw in a dealers case. If pcgs puts this in a 67 holder, it only strengthens my skills because I have more insight of what flaws they forgive.
Once you fall down the rabbit hole of “ownership adds a point” style grading, you’ve lost credibility.
I hope the coin grades out a 68 so he can make some money, but don’t be disappointed if it grades 65 or 66 or 67 and break even / lose.
I use the words "always" and "never" only in extremely rare instances. But never guarantee what a coin will grade!
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
[ snip ]
And humble too...
ANA 50 year/Life Member (now "Emeritus")
I have learned that this hobby of mine humbles me regularly and as taught me to be careful with making absolute declarations. Better this way so that the learning never ends.
OP congratulations are in order!
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
This is fair Mark, so I'll revise my statement.
I cannot guarantee the coin will grade above or at PR67. However, I can guarantee it won't stay in that below PR67 holder for long. Of course, I have the in hand opinion of the coin, which aids me considerably. I think we all can agree that no matter what grade this coin is, the color will carry a significant premium, and it is not a $500 coin, even as a 65.
@Maywood made an excellent comment above I fully agree with.
Coin Photographer.