Based on the images I like the 58 better than the 67, call it friction, rub, ex-wife, or whatever you want to call it, again based solely on the images. I'll take the so-called high point rub over those horrendous looking scratches on the 67 any day of the week. But I also understand that all numbers count.
I find it very interesting that the powers that be can be so confident in their assessment again, based on a image.
@Clackamas1 said:
Has anyone not had a CAC PCGS or NGC not strait cross?
CAC has this on their website and it applies to what they consider Legacy coins (received a CAC sticker anytime from November 2007 through June 5, 2023). It appears that all November 2007-June 5, 2023 coins that received a CAC sticker will automatically be considered the base grade in the current holder. As for coins that receive a CAC sticker after June 5, 2023...I don't know.
"Legacy Crossover
This process is essentially the same as a regular crossover except that the coin(s) submitted have already met CAC approval and bear a CAC sticker. All coins stickered during the "Legacy" period from November 2007 to June 5, 2023, will earn a "Legacy" designation whether or not they earn a "plus" when graded (CAC does not acknowledge the "plus" grade when stickering coins). Gold-stickered coins will also be eligible for "Legacy" designations with no ceiling on the grade.
MS64 and MS64+ coins bearing a green sticker are guaranteed to cross at MS64. MS64 and MS64+ coins with a gold sticker are guaranteed to cross at a minimum of 65. If you have a CAC stickered coin and want to know if it is eligible for a "Legacy" designation, please visit our coin lookup page and enter the certification number on the holder."
@Rexford said:
Just because grading is tight doesn’t mean it’s correct.
No worries for you then, just keep your coins in whatever holders they are in now and everything will be fine.
Ok . . . I don’t collect US coins, so it doesn’t affect me. I’ve seen multiple ridiculously graded CACG coins at this point though. It isn’t “brutally honest” to drop a PCGS MS65 Walking Liberty to an AU58 - it’s just inaccurate. And my point stands in general - tight doesn’t mean right. Tight means tight. Consistency is more important than being tight or loose anyway, and there isn’t enough data to show that CACG has been consistent.
Your statement assumes a great bit, why do you assume that PCGS got it correct? Maybe CACG did get it correct.
Because I can grade well enough to tell the difference between a 58 and a 65. And PCGS is not misgrading WLHs that much. They’re not that difficult to grade. I don’t have pics of it in the PCGS holder, but here:
It seems that it’s harder to grade coins when they’re not already in the holders.
Dear Rexford,
I'm mostly a thread reader and not a poster here but I do collect U.S. coins. I'm in the middle of my second plunge into the hobby. I have learned to be a very strict grader because years ago I had to sell my PCGS graded cshort set of Walkers to raise money. The dealer took pity on me and educated me as to why practically all of them were AU's. Since then, with a little study, I believe I can tell an AU from a Mint State coin in seconds. Unfortunately, your examples are just like mine were. In truth, anyone who knows what an original BU coin looks like can see that the Walking Liberty half you posted is not Mint State. It is a very attractive coin - just as mine were; yet it is not MS! The wear down the leg of the Standing Liberty 25c is even easier to see!
I am shocked that others here are agreeing that the CAC grades of AU-58 are incorrect. Grading is much different today than when I put together my short set. It is worse! The fact that the new grading service is calling an AU an AU is going to spare a lot of collectors the same experience I had when I trusted slab labels rather than learning to grade for myself. I plan to be a little more brave and possibly post more in the future as I'm sure most reading this will not agree with my comments. Until then, I'll leave you with these thoughts. True BU coins don't change their color on the high spots. All MS coins are not equal so buy the coin and not the label. If you are single, the only person you should need to please is yourself so if you wish to buy very attractive coins that are not MS, no harm done (until you go to sell). Since I learned to be a strict grader, life be beri, beri good.
@slider23 said:
Most of the coins in the video, I would not have sent into CAC for a sticker as it would be a waste of time and >money. It appears that if the coin is not worthy of a sticker at grade, it is not going into a straight grade CACG >holder. I remember my first submission of 20 Morgans to CAC and I got two green stickers. It looks like there is >going to be a learning curve on what coins to submit to CACG. I am considering crossing over all my NGC coins with >CAC stickers to CACG.
I understand things change, and it seems like JA/CACG are making a lean into technical grading more than market grading (let's see if that holds when the next big price rise or bubble hits).....and I understand things change over time like opinions and standards....but when CAC was formed, JA was very insistent that "A" and "B" coins were CAC-worthy and that while "C" coins were NOT....they were still good for the same grade, just not without the sticker.
Now it appears that the "C" coins are NOT good enough for the number grade at CACG but are at PCGS and NGC.
@coinbuf said: @Rexford for a non US collector and someone that hates CAC grading you sure do have a bunch of US coins that you clearly cracked out and sent to CAC to grade.
PS. I have not seen anything in your photos or video that would prove that CACG got it wrong when grading on a technical basis.
Maybe you have trouble differentiating wear and strike then?
That sure could be true, however, a former grader did see what I saw so maybe it is you with the bias and inability to discern the difference.
I am a former grader.
I'm sorry. I didn't read past the first page when I gave you some suggestions and told my bad coin experience. You certaintly know more about grading than I do but your revelation in this post cracked me up! So please allow me to add some levity to this discussion as a way to apologize. The first thought that struck me after reading your post here was "What exactly did you grade?"
@Rexford said:
Good god, reading comprehension is not this forum’s strong suit.
I fully understand what is being suggested that CAC is doing, but there is clearly some major confusion about these coins in this thread. These coins display superficial stacking friction, if anything. They do not have high-point luster breaks and dullness to a degree that has or would have ever merited a 58. They probably never really circulated. These coins are far better quality than the average “true 58” that does have significant high-point luster loss. They are not coins that that PCGS or NGC accidentally called 63/64/65 instead of 58. They are not coins that ever would have been considered 58 by a leading TPG - not now, not 30 years ago. Therefore these coins that are being dropped from gem/near-gem are not “overgraded”, and they are not now being “correctly graded”, because they are being adjusted to a scale that has never actually existed on the marketplace. If CAC wants to attempt to make a new “technical” scale in this regard, they may have at it - but, as I noted in my very long comment above - that would seem to be a wholly useless endeavor. If collectors have to distinguish for themselves the “65” quality coin from the “63” quality coin from the “58” quality coin within the 58 grade, grading no longer serves a purpose, and, to repeat myself from MUCH earlier in this thread, we may as well then go back to collecting raw coins.
And the inconsistencies in CACG grading are clear in this thread - some coins with stacking friction are getting dropped to 58, and some are being granted nice MS grades.
With that, I exit this discussion. I’ve pretty clearly spelled this out, at this point, and there’s not much more I can do here.
Yes, you’ve clearly “spelled this out”. It’s just that, based on coins some of us have seen in hand, and images posted here, not everyone agrees with your opinions. And it’s been an interesting discussion.
Of course, all are welcome to agree or disagree with my opinions and with those of the graders who originally graded these coins. And since everyone in this thread is a professional grader, we can just move on from TPGs! I don’t personally need them, so I’m very excited that we’ve all gotten to this point. This will be fun 😁
I suspect that the majority of members commenting in this thread don't need TPGS grading either but are forced to use them due to Registry Sets, preservation, establishing value after death for relatives, and to sell coins to those who cannot grade. It just appears that some of us have stricter standards than others. For example, your standards are not as strict as mine. Nevertheless, that does not make you a bad grader. In fact, it allows you to be satisisfied with millons more of the coins I would turn my nose up on. And yes, most early cents are environmentaly damaged which is usually overlooked except in extreme cases.
@P0CKETCHANGE said:
I love the contention in this thread.
The debate is the perfect reminder that all grading is simply an opinion at one point in time, and that learning to evaluate a coin’s merits according to one’s own standards is a key to this hobby.
This is the usual comment I read on forums and who can argue. Grading is an opinion and we only need to be pleased with our own opinion. Since virtually all of the characteristics (both good and bad) found on any coin can be catagorized, and measured free from any personal preference (eye appeal is the one exception), some opinions are better than others.
@coinbuf said: @Rexford for a non US collector and someone that hates CAC grading you sure do have a bunch of US coins that you clearly cracked out and sent to CAC to grade.
PS. I have not seen anything in your photos or video that would prove that CACG got it wrong when grading on a technical basis.
Maybe you have trouble differentiating wear and strike then?
That sure could be true, however, a former grader did see what I saw so maybe it is you with the bias and inability to discern the difference.
I am a former grader.
I'm sorry. I didn't read past the first page when I gave you some suggestions and told my bad coin experience. You certaintly know more about grading than I do but your revelation in this post cracked me up! So please allow me to add some levity to this discussion as a way to apologize. The first thought that struck me after reading your post here was "What exactly did you grade?"
Vintage world coins (600 AD to 1960), which incidentally requires an extremely in-depth understanding of the distinction between strike and wear. This is not to say that grading US coins doesn’t, but US coins are struck using a limited number of methods, over a limited amount of time, within a limited number of series. With world coins, you have screw presses, steam presses, roller presses, cast coins, hammered coins, coins struck on cast planchets, coins struck over other coins, and within all those categories you have coins struck to vastly different levels of quality by different mints throughout the globe over 1400 years and hundreds of thousands of eligible types. You can have hammered coins that look like this in AU55:
or that look like this in XF45:
or that look like this in MS62:
and you can have circulating coinage with much higher relief designs than WLHs, and which thus have much more glaring high point weakness and superficial friction:
PCGS MS64+:
whereas this is an AU58:
and this is an AU55:
Tricky, huh? You need to be able to understand the technical aspects of grading to make those distinctions, and to not rely on struck detail. You have to make judgements regarding the amount of wear on poorly-struck coins many, many times a day, and to line up with the other graders when doing so. So I guess I consider myself qualified to understand whether a basic modern WLH has legitimate wear on par with an AU58, or simply strike deficiencies and superficial friction/high-point contact. And I’m pretty sure the graders at PCGS do too - that’s an extreme difference, and they see these coins all day, every day.
@bignubnumismatics1 said:
These replies are making me lose brain cells. 99.99% of collectors don’t think for themselves and just repeat what sour boomers say.
Friction DOES NOT MEAN Wear.
It seems the majority of “numismatists” want to revert back to the days of ‘technical grading’, but what does that mean exactly? The Sheldon scale was invented soley for the purpose of market grading.
CACG has the incorrect notion that being ridiculously strict on coins somehow helps the hobby and the people buying/selling these coins.
Just because certain series display friction on the most prominent areas doesn’t change the fact that the majority of 60-64 have friction on them, and a substantial proportion of 65s as well from any series. Bust halves are the most ‘market graded’ followed by SLQs.
I think many of you should observe how coins have been graded in the past, and what the market has deemed acceptable. I’ve only observed a change in grade limiting factors and that TPGs are much less willing to net grade now than in the beginning.
Remember, we can only comment on what we know from our age of reason. Those of us born in the 30's, 40's, 50's, 60's etc. have very different views of grading. Nevertheless, this member has posted the reason some here might consider CACG to be strict: " Just because certain series display friction on the most prominent areas doesn’t change the fact that the majority of 60-64 have friction on them, and a substantial proportion of 65s as well from any series. Bust halves are the most ‘market graded’ followed by SLQs."
Apparently, CACG will no longer be grading coins with loss of original surface on their high points due to friction rub as Mint State. Talk about throwing a grenade into the room. I don't see how they can afford to be so strict. I would be like cutting a spoiled teenagers allowance to zero, kicking them out of the house, and telling them to find a job and pay their own way!
PS I suggest some of you look up the definitions of "wear" and "friction." The word "Rub" is common to both.
@coinbuf said: @Rexford for a non US collector and someone that hates CAC grading you sure do have a bunch of US coins that you clearly cracked out and sent to CAC to grade.
PS. I have not seen anything in your photos or video that would prove that CACG got it wrong when grading on a technical basis.
Maybe you have trouble differentiating wear and strike then?
That sure could be true, however, a former grader did see what I saw so maybe it is you with the bias and inability to discern the difference.
I am a former grader.
I'm sorry. I didn't read past the first page when I gave you some suggestions and told my bad coin experience. You certaintly know more about grading than I do but your revelation in this post cracked me up! So please allow me to add some levity to this discussion as a way to apologize. The first thought that struck me after reading your post here was "What exactly did you grade?"
Vintage world coins (600 AD to 1960), which incidentally requires an extremely in-depth understanding of the distinction between strike and wear. This is not to say that grading US coins doesn’t, but US coins are struck using a limited number of methods, over a limited amount of time, within a limited number of series. With world coins, you have screw presses, steam presses, roller presses, cast coins, hammered coins, coins struck on cast planchets, coins struck over other coins, and within all those categories you have coins struck to vastly different levels of quality by different mints throughout the globe over 1400 years and hundreds of thousands of eligible types. You can have hammered coins that look like this in AU55:
and you can have hammered coins that look like this in XF45:
and you can have circulating coinage with much higher relief designs than WLHs, and which thus have much more glaring (but still superficial) high point weakness and friction:
PCGS MS64+:
whereas this is an AU58:
and this is an AU55:
Tricky, huh? You need to be able to understand the technical aspects of grading to make those distinctions, and to not rely on struck detail. You have to make judgements regarding the amount of wear on poorly-struck coins many, many times a day, and to line up with the other graders when doing so. So I guess I consider myself qualified to understand whether a basic modern WLH has legitimate wear on par with an AU58, or simply strike deficiencies and superficial friction/high-point contact. And I’m pretty sure the graders at PCGS do too - that’s an extreme difference, and they see these coins all day, every day.
Not tricky at all. All three of the Russian (?) coins are AU. It appears NGC is trying to make a distinction as to which coin is worth more money. Otherwise, the overgraded one of the AU coins. "Friction" is a mechanical action that removes original surface by rubbing two surfaces together. Call that wear anything you wish. Some greedy dealer in the past coined the words "Cabinet Friction" so he could ignore one type of wearnot associated with circulation.
PS Thanks for the reply to my initial reaction. Grading world, tokens, medals, and ancients takes a great deal of skill that most don't have. It is my pleasure to post with you.
@coinbuf said: @Rexford for a non US collector and someone that hates CAC grading you sure do have a bunch of US coins that you clearly cracked out and sent to CAC to grade.
PS. I have not seen anything in your photos or video that would prove that CACG got it wrong when grading on a technical basis.
Maybe you have trouble differentiating wear and strike then?
That sure could be true, however, a former grader did see what I saw so maybe it is you with the bias and inability to discern the difference.
I am a former grader.
I'm sorry. I didn't read past the first page when I gave you some suggestions and told my bad coin experience. You certaintly know more about grading than I do but your revelation in this post cracked me up! So please allow me to add some levity to this discussion as a way to apologize. The first thought that struck me after reading your post here was "What exactly did you grade?"
Vintage world coins (600 AD to 1960), which incidentally requires an extremely in-depth understanding of the distinction between strike and wear. This is not to say that grading US coins doesn’t, but US coins are struck using a limited number of methods, over a limited amount of time, within a limited number of series. With world coins, you have screw presses, steam presses, roller presses, cast coins, hammered coins, coins struck on cast planchets, coins struck over other coins, and within all those categories you have coins struck to vastly different levels of quality by different mints throughout the globe over 1400 years and hundreds of thousands of eligible types. You can have hammered coins that look like this in AU55:
and you can have hammered coins that look like this in XF45:
and you can have circulating coinage with much higher relief designs than WLHs, and which thus have much more glaring (but still superficial) high point weakness and friction:
PCGS MS64+:
whereas this is an AU58:
and this is an AU55:
Tricky, huh? You need to be able to understand the technical aspects of grading to make those distinctions, and to not rely on struck detail. You have to make judgements regarding the amount of wear on poorly-struck coins many, many times a day, and to line up with the other graders when doing so. So I guess I consider myself qualified to understand whether a basic modern WLH has legitimate wear on par with an AU58, or simply strike deficiencies and superficial friction/high-point contact. And I’m pretty sure the graders at PCGS do too - that’s an extreme difference, and they see these coins all day, every day.
Not tricky at all. All three of the Russian (?) coins are AU. It appears NGC is trying to make a distinction as to which coin is worth more money. Otherwise, the overgraded one of the AU coins. "Friction" is a mechanical action that removes original surface by rubbing two surfaces together. Call that wear anything you wish. Some greedy dealer in the past coined the words "Cabinet Friction" so he could ignore one type of wearnot associated with circulation.
PS Thanks for the reply to my initial reaction. Grading world, tokens, medals, and ancients takes a great deal of skill that most don't have. It is my pleasure to post with you.
You seem very confident in those statements regarding wear and motives for grading! There is no distinction being made about which coin is worth more money, there is only a distinction of condition. The first coin is graded by PCGS, incidentally, and the next two by NGC. I understand this coin looks AU, in part because of the elevational toning, but it does not really have legitimate wear.
I want to make another point about “color change”. That refers to a certain distinction between wear and superficial friction. But if you have a weak strike, there can also be a loss of luster. Think about it this way - what is a weak strike? Well, it’s when the planchet’s metal does not flow into highest pockets of the die, often because the design is high-relief. In other words, that metal does not get struck. Luster is primarily an effect of the texture of the dies imparted onto the coin. But with a weak strike, the planchet metal does not come into contact with the highest points of the dies, so the texture on those areas is that of unstruck planchet. Unstruck planchets are generally rough - so naturally there will be a difference in the luster and texture in those areas than in the surrounding areas that were impacted by the dies. That’s why there is that slight dullness and rough texture on the WLH along the length of Liberty - most of those marks are actually the texture of the planchet, not surface hits. On the Rouble, those weak areas were never lustrous to begin with. And as you can see, the reverse and the rims of the coin have no wear to speak of.
@davewesen said:
welcome to the boards Married2Coins
I agree with Rexford in weakly struck coins will also look like they have areas of rub in middle widest area of struck coin
This is a frequent issue with Walking Liberty halves and Buffalo nickels
Yep, it’s especially common on Buffalo nickels, Jefferson nickels, and Ikes, due to copper-nickel being an extremely hard metal - that means it is more difficult for it to flow into the highest points of the dies.
@slider23 said:
Most of the coins in the video, I would not have sent into CAC for a sticker as it would be a waste of time and >money. It appears that if the coin is not worthy of a sticker at grade, it is not going into a straight grade CACG >holder. I remember my first submission of 20 Morgans to CAC and I got two green stickers. It looks like there is >going to be a learning curve on what coins to submit to CACG. I am considering crossing over all my NGC coins with >CAC stickers to CACG.
I understand things change, and it seems like JA/CACG are making a lean into technical grading more than market grading (let's see if that holds when the next big price rise or bubble hits).....and I understand things change over time like opinions and standards....but when CAC was formed, JA was very insistent that "A" and "B" coins were CAC-worthy and that while "C" coins were NOT....they were still good for the same grade, just not without the sticker.
Now it appears that the "C" coins are NOT good enough for the number grade at CACG but are at PCGS and NGC.
Confusing and potential trouble, IMO.
This is not accurate. CAC indicated that coins that failed to sticker were not NECESSARILY overgraded. They never said that ALL of them were correctly graded.
Amazing 1893 Ruble- looks to be worthy of the assigned grade
Interesting read. The one statement/observation that stands out paraphrased is simply Tight grading is not always right.
Just a few other observations in connection with an objective view of subjective grading:
-Opinions of a coin's grade can and often do change over time.
-Submitting the same coin multiple times - here... there... and everywhere...especially the WLH's posted herein as examples here is just not productive. Period.
-This reads is if there is an obsession with TPG more so than with the coins within the slab.
-Grading will remain subjective- just be selective and develop the necessary skills to enjoy the hobby on your terms with the understanding that grading is an opinion captured at the moment of submission.
-Recognize and use available resources that you have wisely to develop and meet your collecting objectives.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Rexford said "but as far as I understand it he’s not even a grader at CACG."
Incorrect, J/A is a finalizer at CACG one week a month. He is the finalizer for the coins which the graders were not in agreement or if they want his assistance. It's likely he views additional coins as well.
Rexford said, "And JA’s scale is not objective or technical - it’s personal to his tastes, just like at CAC."
So what's your point? All graders in fact all numismatists have" tastes" including you, J/A is no different.
bignubnumismaticts said, "I think many of you should observe how coins have been graded in the past, and what the market has deemed acceptable. I’ve only observed a change in grade limiting factors and that TPGs are much less willing to net grade now than in the beginning.
TPG grading has fluctuated over the years due to many factors. Exactly how do you determine what the market has deemed acceptable? If you're suggesting that we should rely solely on TPG's then I strongly disagree. No one has mentioned the fact that the graders are spending only an average of 5 to 10 seconds viewing each coin. This is ok on many coins but it certainly is the cause of errors on others.
Goldfinger1968 said "Now it appears that the "C" coins are NOT good enough for the number grade at CACG but are at PCGS and NGC."
Nothing new, this has always been the case for many C coins. They did not meet CAC standards and were not approved by CAC. Therefore they will not receive the same grade at CACG as they did at PCGS or NGC.
Several posters have said, J/A (CACG) are now using technical grading rather than market grading.
Incorrect, they continue to use market grading, their technical and market standards are simply stricter than the other TPG's. IMHO CACG has been a little too tough on circulated early coins. Insider mentioned that tight grading has been the case at all new grading companies. I sincerely hope that's the case.
@shish said:
Rexford said "but as far as I understand it he’s not even a grader at CACG."
Incorrect, J/A is a finalizer at CACG one week a month. He is the finalizer for the coins which the graders were not in agreement or if they want his assistance. It's likely he views additional coins as well.
Ok, good to know. He’s still not seeing the majority of the coins, but this was a minor point of discussion.
Rexford said, "And JA’s scale is not objective or technical - it’s personal to his tastes, just like at CAC."
So what's your point? All graders in fact all numismatists have" tastes" including you, J/A is no different.
My point was that he is not grading technically, pretty simple. Others in the thread were claiming that he was grading technically.
Yes, you’ve clearly “spelled this out”. It’s just that, based on coins some of us have seen in hand, and images posted here, not everyone agrees with your opinions. And it’s been an interesting discussion.
Of course, all are welcome to agree or disagree with my opinions and with those of the graders who originally graded these coins. And**** since everyone in this thread is a professional grader****, we can just move on from TPGs! I don’t personally need them, so I’m very excited that we’ve all gotten to this point. This will be fun 😁
This was the best post in the whole rant. Rexford's response is to Mark Feld, the one guy on here that is indisputably a former grader.
I am indisputably a former grader as well, and have been much more recently employed as one. But you’re missing my point, which wasn’t so much about me or Mr. Feld and more so directed at everyone else in this thread:
1) All grades granted by humans are opinions, but not opinions are equal in merit. I wouldn’t try to tell my doctor how to diagnose me after a few WebMD searches. One hundred amateur opinions does not equal one trained opinion.
2) If you are all comfortable in discerning the difference between grades well enough to discern a 65 from 64 from a 63 from a 58, using the current standards, if all lumped into the 58 grade - because I assure you, these are coins of different qualities, and are not being granted random grades within that range by PCGS and NGC - then you don’t need a TPG. And if all opinions are of the same merit, then we definitely don’t need TPGs. Right?
Yikes...........
A little arrogance always helps make people want to agree with you...NOT.
@coinbuf said: @Rexford for a non US collector and someone that hates CAC grading you sure do have a bunch of US coins that
> Tricky, huh? You **need to be able to understand the technical aspects of grading to make those distinctions,** and
Not at all. The toned coin is the only MS coin. I think that is actually a good grading set for all three.
Good! Some may find those coins difficult to approach and some may not. They are a sample of the various unusual circumstances of the strike/wear and UNC/AU questions that can be found in the field of world coins and that are not really seen with US coins.
Yes, you’ve clearly “spelled this out”. It’s just that, based on coins some of us have seen in hand, and images posted here, not everyone agrees with your opinions. And it’s been an interesting discussion.
Of course, all are welcome to agree or disagree with my opinions and with those of the graders who originally graded these coins. And**** since everyone in this thread is a professional grader****, we can just move on from TPGs! I don’t personally need them, so I’m very excited that we’ve all gotten to this point. This will be fun 😁
This was the best post in the whole rant. Rexford's response is to Mark Feld, the one guy on here that is indisputably a former grader.
I am indisputably a former grader as well, and have been much more recently employed as one. But you’re missing my point, which wasn’t so much about me or Mr. Feld and more so directed at everyone else in this thread:
1) All grades granted by humans are opinions, but not opinions are equal in merit. I wouldn’t try to tell my doctor how to diagnose me after a few WebMD searches. One hundred amateur opinions does not equal one trained opinion.
2) If you are all comfortable in discerning the difference between grades well enough to discern a 65 from 64 from a 63 from a 58, using the current standards, if all lumped into the 58 grade - because I assure you, these are coins of different qualities, and are not being granted random grades within that range by PCGS and NGC - then you don’t need a TPG. And if all opinions are of the same merit, then we definitely don’t need TPGs. Right?
Yikes...........
A little arrogance always helps make people want to agree with you...NOT.
I think it’s arrogant to attempt to teach a grader how to grade without having worked that profession. That has happened several times in this thread, and is a big reason why I don’t like to make that fact known. I believe this is the first thread in which I have mentioned that I’m a former grader. The Dunning-Kruger effect in this hobby is unbelievable, as is the mob mentality on this forum. Currently the comment telling me that a Russian coin is AU, while in the same breath asking what kind of coin it is, has four “Agrees” and “Likes”, while my thorough and detailed explanation of the condition of that coin, as a professional grader with a specialty in world coins, has zero. I think that says a LOT about this forum as a whole. People believe what they want to believe.
Do you think that all grading opinions are of equal merit? If so, we have no need for graders or grading services. Fine by me. If not, then then nothing I wrote was inaccurate or arrogant.
In any case, this has been a much lengthier conversation than I intended, and I truly regret entering it at all. I don’t have a dog in this fight - I don’t involve myself in US coins, and people can and should collect however they like. I can sit on the sidelines and rail against what I find to be illogical, but in the end it is of no benefit to me or anyone else, does very little to change minds, and only fosters negativity.
"Ok, good to know. He’s still not seeing the majority of the coins, but this was a minor point of discussion."
Glad I was able to provide accurate information. You're correct he is not seeing the majority of the coins. However, he carefully selected and has great confidence in the CACG graders. I'm believe Ron and John are world class graders.
We agree J/A is not grading technically.
I think your statement regarding a loss of luster due to a weak strike has merit.
Yes, you’ve clearly “spelled this out”. It’s just that, based on coins some of us have seen in hand, and images posted here, not everyone agrees with your opinions. And it’s been an interesting discussion.
Of course, all are welcome to agree or disagree with my opinions and with those of the graders who originally graded these coins. And**** since everyone in this thread is a professional grader****, we can just move on from TPGs! I don’t personally need them, so I’m very excited that we’ve all gotten to this point. This will be fun 😁
This was the best post in the whole rant. Rexford's response is to Mark Feld, the one guy on here that is indisputably a former grader.
I am indisputably a former grader as well, and have been much more recently employed as one. But you’re missing my point, which wasn’t so much about me or Mr. Feld and more so directed at everyone else in this thread:
1) All grades granted by humans are opinions, but not opinions are equal in merit. I wouldn’t try to tell my doctor how to diagnose me after a few WebMD searches. One hundred amateur opinions does not equal one trained opinion.
2) If you are all comfortable in discerning the difference between grades well enough to discern a 65 from 64 from a 63 from a 58, using the current standards, if all lumped into the 58 grade - because I assure you, these are coins of different qualities, and are not being granted random grades within that range by PCGS and NGC - then you don’t need a TPG. And if all opinions are of the same merit, then we definitely don’t need TPGs. Right?
Yikes...........
A little arrogance always helps make people want to agree with you...NOT.
I think it’s arrogant to attempt to teach a grader how to grade without having worked that profession. That has happened several times in this thread, and is a big reason why I don’t like to make that fact known. I believe this is the first thread in which I have mentioned that I’m a former grader. The Dunning-Kruger effect in this hobby is unbelievable, as is the mob mentality on this forum. Currently the comment telling me that a Russian coin is AU, while in the same breath asking what kind of coin it is, has four “Agrees” and “Likes”, while my thorough and detailed explanation of the condition of that coin, as a professional grader with a specialty in world coins, has zero. I think that says a LOT about this forum as a whole. People believe what they want to believe.
Do you think that all grading opinions are of equal merit? If so, we have no need for graders or grading services. Fine by me. If not, then then nothing I wrote was inaccurate or arrogant.
Honestly, a lot of the grading information and opinions you've put forth in this thread are accurate and informative. I agree about the loss of luster and planchet imperfections due to a weak strike, agree about stacking friction vs wear, and I'll concede that CACG isn't strict technical grading, but earlier what was getting at was that they lean more towards technical than the other services.
I think it's just the way that you entered this thread guns a'blazing rallying against CACG and the forum which has caused many to push back. Here we all are, trying to dissect the assigned grade based on near imperceptible differences from 2-D images, and from the beginning, I said that I couldn't confidently make a determination without seeing these coins in hand. PCGS makes mistakes, NGC makes mistakes, and CACG will make mistakes too. You know very well that it's an art, not a science, and all we can do is collect the coins that we like and get them into the holder that we desire.
With that, I'll excuse myself from the thread. Despite your negative views toward the forum, this has been an interesting discussion and perhaps we'll find each other on the same side of an argument on the next topic if you decide to stick around. Hope you and your loved ones have a happy and healthy New Years, and may 2024 treat you well.
A little arrogance always helps make people want to agree with you...NOT.
I think it’s arrogant to attempt to teach a grader how to grade without having worked that profession.
I think it is arrogant that you think others that have not been professional graders can not grade.Every single coin dealer that can make it is a professional grader. I would submit that all the high end collectors are probably the best graders (for high end shit) I turned down a job at PCGS, 20+ years ago for location and pay reasons. So apparently I can't grade. I will say I have weakness in certain realms.
Let me know when ya'll are done Seriously though, the 67 looks worse to me th
@Rexford said:
In any case, this has been a much lengthier conversation than I intended, and I truly regret entering it at all. I don’t have a dog in this fight - I don’t involve myself in US coins, and people can and should collect however they like. I can sit on the sidelines and rail against what I find to be illogical, but in the end it is of no benefit to me or anyone else, does very little to change minds, and only fosters negativity.
Actually, this was a very informative read that will end up helping others in their quest including my own.
Another good take away here is that there’s a new sheriff in town. And he could very well turn the town upside down for a good old fashion shake down. I believe it’s happening already.
Yes, you’ve clearly “spelled this out”. It’s just that, based on coins some of us have seen in hand, and images posted here, not everyone agrees with your opinions. And it’s been an interesting discussion.
Of course, all are welcome to agree or disagree with my opinions and with those of the graders who originally graded these coins. And**** since everyone in this thread is a professional grader****, we can just move on from TPGs! I don’t personally need them, so I’m very excited that we’ve all gotten to this point. This will be fun 😁
This was the best post in the whole rant. Rexford's response is to Mark Feld, the one guy on here that is indisputably a former grader.
I am indisputably a former grader as well, and have been much more recently employed as one. But you’re missing my point, which wasn’t so much about me or Mr. Feld and more so directed at everyone else in this thread:
1) All grades granted by humans are opinions, but not opinions are equal in merit. I wouldn’t try to tell my doctor how to diagnose me after a few WebMD searches. One hundred amateur opinions does not equal one trained opinion.
2) If you are all comfortable in discerning the difference between grades well enough to discern a 65 from 64 from a 63 from a 58, using the current standards, if all lumped into the 58 grade - because I assure you, these are coins of different qualities, and are not being granted random grades within that range by PCGS and NGC - then you don’t need a TPG. And if all opinions are of the same merit, then we definitely don’t need TPGs. Right?
Yikes...........
A little arrogance always helps make people want to agree with you...NOT.
I think it’s arrogant to attempt to teach a grader how to grade without having worked that profession. That has happened several times in this thread, and is a big reason why I don’t like to make that fact known. I believe this is the first thread in which I have mentioned that I’m a former grader. The Dunning-Kruger effect in this hobby is unbelievable, as is the mob mentality on this forum. Currently the comment telling me that a Russian coin is AU, while in the same breath asking what kind of coin it is, has four “Agrees” and “Likes”, while my thorough and detailed explanation of the condition of that coin, as a professional grader with a specialty in world coins, has zero. I think that says a LOT about this forum as a whole. People believe what they want to believe.
Do you think that all grading opinions are of equal merit? If so, we have no need for graders or grading services. Fine by me. If not, then then nothing I wrote was inaccurate or arrogant.
You have said insulting things in this thread such as questioning people's reading comprehension which is unnecessary.
Not all opinions are necessarily equal, however your opinion based on a photo is of lower merit than the opinion on the slab since you haven't seen the coin in hand. So a little humility might be in order. I would hate that coin as a 65 with the rub (as I see it).
While you may be a former grader and, therefore, more experienced than the average coin collector, that does not mean you are the best grader on this thread.
There are plenty of savvy, experienced individuals in the mix along with newbies and less experienced collectors. So, again, a little humility might be in order.
To my eyes 😊, the video is a small-bore attempt at intimidation or, more likely, an expression of fear that PCGS (and NGC) will modify their grading standards to mirror those perceived to exist at CACG. I remember a (failed) attempt years ago, when several large submitters threatened to abandon PCGS for NGC if the former didn’t “liberalize” (at least for their coins). Classless behavior then, classless now…
The AU/MS split has been one of the more "problematic" areas of grading for collectors as long as I've been doing it. I think PCGS and NGCs tendency to recognize high point rub as not a disqualifier from an MS as one of the better moves you can make on this subject.
They should be considering multiple criteria when assigning a grade. If discoloration in the high point is the only indication, then I don't think that should necessarily make it au58. A coin like that would be decidedly better than the vast majority of coins I'm AU58 holders and even coins in lower MS holders. I personally will tolerate a little rub over a large bagmark in my collecting choices.
I can pull an MS coin from circulation and also find an AU coin that never saw circulation.
When you have coins on a 70 point system in the 50s that are better than coins in the 60s, that should be a clear indication that the system is broken (not as good as it could be). This is also validated by the fact that many of us preferentially buy coins graded 58. Because they can be disproportionately nice compared to their score/grade. Often all that is is taking advantage of an inefficiency in our grading .
I feel like I'm seeing some old school people doubling down on what I think is one of the greatest weaknesses of our grading system here.
Dear Rexford, I hope you continue to post with me because I disagree with so much of your post that I don't know "wear" to start.
I am extremely confident in my opinions until they are proven to be incorrect. I appreciate that you are yaking as much time as you have to keep posting unlike one of the other well-regarded aposters who has removed himself from this thread.
IMO, putting a numerical grade on a coin is making a distinction about the worth of a coin. You state that you disagree. The distinction about condition does put a value on a coin. That's what TPGS say they do don't they. I think that is what net graders do also. The fact that you (a professional grader of foreign coins) cannot see that the amount of wear on each of these coins is virtually identical disturbs me very much.
Yours is one of the clearest explanations of a weak strike that I have ever read: "I want to make another point about “color change”. That refers to a certain distinction between wear and superficial friction. But if you have a weak strike, there can also be a loss of luster. Think about it this way - what is a weak strike? Well, it’s when the planchet’s metal does not flow into highest pockets of the die, often because the design is high-relief. In other words, that metal does not get struck. Luster is primarily an effect of the texture of the dies imparted onto the coin. But with a weak strike, the planchet metal does not come into contact with the highest points of the dies, so the texture on those areas is that of unstruck planchet. Unstruck planchets are generally rough - so naturally there will be a difference in the luster and texture in those areas than in the surrounding areas that were impacted by the dies."
Unfortunately, IMO it appeared to start out badly because I have observed that the color of a weakly struck original surface is different from the color of the rest of the coin because (as you wrote) that part of the coin did not touch the die. Any friction to this weak, original surface whill change its color again from the original part that remains. Additionally, your conclusions about the coins you originally posted such as the WLH have been smacked down by every poster. Ok, so you don't collect US coins but as a former professional grader of world coins I am shocked by what you have posted about those dirty Russian AU's. Every die struck coin (hammer, roller, screw, knuckle, ram) has some form of original luster! When it is broken by sliding friction (rub) from contact, it becoms my AU. That is my opinion from what I learned. When dirt is added to the equation, it makes the distinction between AU and MS even eaiser.
I truly understan what you are trying to say by this with regard to coins: "no wear to speak of." I hear that a lot from professionals and well known forum members. However, from my bad experiences in the past, I have become more of an unrealistic, strictly "Black or White" kind of guy. That's why I would laugh in the face of someone who told my my two month pregnant girlfreind she has "no pregnancy to speak of either."
@davewesen said:
welcome to the boards Married2Coins
I agree with Rexford in weakly struck coins will also look like they have areas of rub in middle widest area of struck coin
This is a frequent issue with Walking Liberty halves and Buffalo nickels
I've been reading comments on this forum for a very long time. I'm disapointed to some of your post. I may be an unrealistic collector and very strict grader. Nevertheless, I have two functioning eyes and I am not color blind. Thus, I am able to confirm the opinion of others posting on another forum and write here that the surface quality and color of a totally original (no friction of any kind) weakly struck coin has a distinct appearance that is totally different from a well struck coin or one with any loss of luster from friction. My opinion (we all have one) remains the same. Not one of thse Russian coins is even close to Mint State! From what I have heard the overseas dealers would laugh at that grading.
@wondercoin said:
I could be wrong, but the irony is many of the very coins that were once graded 63/64/65 and are now 58 have been likely graded by the very same graders in both cases! 😂
It’s been explained to me by the strongest world class graders ever to work for the grading services…. they are simply told what is expected from them at the particular job they take. At grading service “A”, these coins are 64’s, at grading service “B” these coins are 65’s and at grading service “C”, these coins are 58’s. The graders are “hired guns” - told exactly what is expected of them. It’s that simple. These graders didn’t “magically forget” how to grade a 64 or 65 and now wake up with an epiphany that they are 58’s. Did a number of these world class graders simply lie to me? Perhaps I will hear that now.
In the meantime, enjoy all the inconsistency in the coin world, buy the undergraded coins you love and simply get them into higher graded holders elsewhere. What fun!
Just my 2 cents!
Wondercoin.
This is the best post in the thread. Didn't see much rebuttal but did see many "Likes" & "Agrees".
The line toward the end of the second paragraph sums up my thoughts. Friends, this isn't magic.
A little arrogance always helps make people want to agree with you...NOT.
I think it’s arrogant to attempt to teach a grader how to grade without having worked that profession.
I think it is arrogant that you think others that have not been professional graders can not grade.Every single coin dealer that can make it is a professional grader. I would submit that all the high end collectors are probably the best graders (for high end shit) I turned down a job at PCGS, 20+ years ago for location and pay reasons. So apparently I can't grade. I will say I have weakness in certain realms.
I’m sorry, but this is simply untrue. I’ve personally seen the difficulty that the TPGs have had with hiring new people, in part due to a lack of ability. Most professional dealers would mistakenly certify large quantities of transfer die counterfeits and deceptively altered coins. Every single person who is hired at my old place of employment must go through years of training as a grader to become a grading finalizer - they will need to fine-tune their grading line, to learn new things, and to unlearn things that have initially been learned mistakenly. The first thing I had to do when I was initially hired was pretend that I knew nothing, so that I could learn properly - everyone gets humbled pretty quickly coming in. No one comes in and finalizes off the bat; becoming a top-notch grader is a commitment of time.
This isn’t to denigrate anyone, it’s just that grading involves a different sort of action than dealing or collecting. Plenty of dealers have a solid enough grading ability to do their job quite successfully. But the finalizers have all spent years (often decades) looking at every different type of coin there is, in every possible condition there is, at random - looking at all sorts of counterfeits and deceptive surface alterations - at a rate of hundreds of coins a day, every single day of the week - and they are surrounded by other experts on the physical qualities of coins and the minting process from whom they can also learn. That’s their entire job, and it’s not really an experience that can be done elsewhere. Once you leave the job, you inevitably start to get a little rusty, because that visual memory is no longer being kept fresh on a constant basis. I have massive respect for the current finalizers - they’re all far better graders than I am.
LOL, this is an example of the king with no chlothes to the max:
"I think it’s arrogant to attempt to teach a grader how to grade without having worked that profession. That has happened several times in this thread, and is a big reason why I don’t like to make that fact known. I believe this is the first thread in which I have mentioned that I’m a former grader. The Dunning-Kruger effect in this hobby is unbelievable, as is the mob mentality on this forum. Currently the comment telling me that a Russian coin is AU, while in the same breath asking what kind of coin it is, has four “Agrees” and “Likes”, while my thorough and detailed explanation of the condition of that coin, as a professional grader with a specialty in world coins, has zero. I think that says a LOT about this forum as a whole. People believe what they want to believe. Do you think that all grading opinions are of equal merit? If so, we have no need for graders or grading services. Fine by me. If not, then then nothing I wrote was inaccurate or arrogant."
Please educate me as I must disagree with you again on some points. First, what is the "Dunning-Kruger effect?" I am totally ignorant about it. and truly hope you will take the time to provide either a link or a short reply. Next, you should be proud to announce that you have been a professional grader of world coins. It gives you and your opinions more more "clout" to most people. However, I'm not impressed at all based on some of the comments you have posted. I really do respect your opinions and actually admire the restraint and courtesy you have shown to a long time collector of all areas of Numismatics who pretended not to recognize the Russian alphabet. Shame on me!
The fact that as a professional grader you cannot see that each of the three Russian coins has virtually the identical amount of friction wear (darkened by old natural toning) on the high point is what is disturbing to me. I understand that each TPGS has standards that must be followed for consistancy. Additionally, the total coin market has made allowances to allow dealers to fill the demand for MS coins which for some types of coins such as Bust half dollars and Russian roubles hardly exist in true, original condition. What I seek from any professional who should know more than the rest of us is what anyone can see. All three Russian coins are AU! Aftr that. grade them and price them any way the market will bear. But don't call me or CACG incorrect for disagreeing with you and calling an obviously AU coin AU becaues it does not meet our strict standards. Some of us Large cent collectors grew up with Penny Whimsy standards.
Points taken elsewhere - my approach definitely did become much too aggressive and insulting at times, and I apologize for that. I didn’t initially enter the thread thinking things would devolve into drama or with the intention of doing so. I would much prefer to have polite discussions about these things, and it even seems that after all the drama we have begun to generally come to an agreement on some of the initial points made. I was attacked pretty quickly for appearing to have some sort of personal vendetta against CAC, for being a “market grader” and forgetting how to grade, for being confused about the physical characteristics of coins, etc, and I think that placed me on the defensive and colored my responses - but looking back I did overstep, and shouldn’t have done so.
It’s difficult because many of these online grading discussions are essentially one person saying “This coin is X condition” and the other person saying “No, this coin is Y condition”, and that’s a really difficult argument to overcome without throwing out a trump card like grading experience - although really, there’s no need to win arguments like that.
I was commenting that different color on eagle leg and Liberty thigh does not mean friction or circulation - here is an example that is highly graded with darker areas and nicks. Of course making any meaningful evaluation on picture alone is a fools errand. I have no problem with someone deciding they never want to buy such a weakly struck coin.
@Rexford said:
In any case, this has been a much lengthier conversation than I intended, and I truly regret entering it at all. I don’t have a dog in this fight - I don’t involve myself in US coins, and people can and should collect however they like. I can sit on the sidelines and rail against what I find to be illogical, but in the end it is of no benefit to me or anyone else, does very little to change minds, and only fosters negativity.
Sorry you feel this way. I could never understand why discussions about religion, politics, or coin grading could ever be negative. I have had my opinions on two of these subjects changed through discussions with those I had disagreement with because there were also many things we could first agree with before reaching points of disagreement. I think of a coin as a bit of metal made for trade. They can be graded relativ to each other as long as you knew what they originally looked like when they were made. An Ancient is obviously graded differently than a three cent silver but IMO, the root basics remaine the same. No one in their right mind would believe all graders come to the grading table with the same rank. That is why your opinions (judged right or wrong by others) deserve to be heard. It would be a loss for you to stop posting but I understand that I have "wasted "over four hours of my life adding my opinions to this thread which are just as "worthless" to some as other opinions. Nevertheless, I've enjoyed the back-and-forth with no expectation to change your mind - just the chance to offer another view to the forum. So before I sign off and resume my life. I shall see if there are any more posts for other members to disagree with.
It's essentially the idea that beginners are extremely confident in their ability to do something well, then as they get more experience, they realize how much they still have to learn. I have a poster of a chart displaying it in my office.
The fact that as a professional grader you cannot see that each of the three Russian coins has virtually the identical amount of friction wear (darkened by old natural toning) on the high point is what is disturbing to me.>
The post @Rexford made showing the difficulties of grading world numismatics is a great point. Many of these types, unless you are familiar with the specific issue, you can easily mistake strike weakness with cabinet friction, rub or light circulation.
From what I have heard the overseas dealers would laugh at that grading.>
Coins are graded differently throughout the world. Not necessarily better or worse, just differently. While you may not agree with the way he is making his points, @rexford is a highly respected numismatist and grader, and his credentials in world grading are unimpeachable
Most professional dealers would mistakenly certify large quantities of transfer die counterfeits and deceptively altered coins.>
I know we have had this debate before, but I do think you remain underappreciative of the knowledge that serious, professional numismatists need to have to be successful at their profession. Sure, a professional grader will absolutely be better and faster at detecting deceptive alterations and die transfers, but its not like all coin dealers who did not work as graders are ignorant to the ability to identify these. (Otherwise, they would not be in business too long)
Playing the my stabbed coin is better than yours game is expensive. While I think coin collecting will never totally die off if enough people blindly trust TPG SLABS and get burned the future looks bleak for those of us with shallower pockets. The deep pocket collectors will keep paying big money and losing money won't have uch effect on them.
‘’I could be wrong, but the irony is many of the very coins that were once graded 63/64/65 and are now 58 have been likely graded by the very same graders in both cases! 😂
It’s been explained to me by the strongest world class graders ever to work for the grading services…. they are simply told what is expected from them at the particular job they take. At grading service “A”, these coins are 64’s, at grading service “B” these coins are 65’s and at grading service “C”, these coins are 58’s. The graders are “hired guns” - told exactly what is expected of them. It’s that simple. These graders didn’t “magically forget” how to grade a 64 or 65 and now wake up with an epiphany that they are 58’s. Did a number of these world class graders simply lie to me? Perhaps I will hear that now.
In the meantime, enjoy all the inconsistency in the coin world, buy the undergraded coins you love and simply get them into higher graded holders elsewhere. What fun!
Just my 2 cents!
Wondercoin.
Quote · 3Agree, 8Like”
If it really mattered to someone, they could find a handful of gem graded Walkers or any other denomination of coin that was graded over a decade + time period by the PCGS grading team in Vegas. ‘First base or second base” was performed by the esteemed Mr. Butler in the vast majority of the cases I believe. Then- the coin gets regraded AU 58 or AU58+ in 2023 by a two or three man team from another coin grading service that has the same guy on their team who graded it 5 years ago as a gem.
So, what does this tell you? Absolutely nothing - yes? The pro graders are just “hired guns” and will perform to the expectations handed down to them. But, the exciting part to me is the “arbitrage” between an AU58 and an MS65 and the potential handsome profits that 7 point opening has to offer. Who cares who is “right” and who is “wrong” (if anyone even is). Grading is purely a business today. Make the most money that you can from the inconsistencies.
As always, just my 2 cents.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
@wondercoin said:
‘’I could be wrong, but the irony is many of the very coins that were once graded 63/64/65 and are now 58 have been likely graded by the very same graders in both cases! 😂
It’s been explained to me by the strongest world class graders ever to work for the grading services…. they are simply told what is expected from them at the particular job they take. At grading service “A”, these coins are 64’s, at grading service “B” these coins are 65’s and at grading service “C”, these coins are 58’s. The graders are “hired guns” - told exactly what is expected of them. It’s that simple. These graders didn’t “magically forget” how to grade a 64 or 65 and now wake up with an epiphany that they are 58’s. Did a number of these world class graders simply lie to me? Perhaps I will hear that now.
In the meantime, enjoy all the inconsistency in the coin world, buy the undergraded coins you love and simply get them into higher graded holders elsewhere. What fun!
Just my 2 cents!
Wondercoin.
Quote · 3Agree, 8Like”
If it really mattered to someone, they could find a handful of gem graded Walkers or any other denomination of coin that was graded over a decade + time period by the PCGS grading team in Vegas. ‘First base or second base” was performed by the esteemed Mr. Butler in the vast majority of the cases I believe. Then- the coin gets regraded AU 58 or AU58+ in 2023 by a two or three man team from another coin grading service that has the same guy on their team who graded it 5 years ago as a gem.
So, what does this tell you? Absolutely nothing - yes? The pro graders are just “hired guns” and will perform to the expectations handed down to them. But, the exciting part to me is the “arbitrage” between an AU58 and an MS65 and the potential handsome profits that 7 point opening has to offer. Who cares who is “right” and who is “wrong” (if anyone even is). Grading is purely a business today. Make the most money that you can from the inconsistencies.
As always, just my 2 cents.
Wondercoin
I agree but would extend. There is certainly a business argument to be made. I also think, however, there is an aesthetic one as well. Enjoy the coin regardless of the number on the slab. The coin is the coin, after all.
A little arrogance always helps make people want to agree with you...NOT.
I think it’s arrogant to attempt to teach a grader how to grade without having worked that profession.
I think it is arrogant that you think others that have not been professional graders can not grade.Every single coin dealer that can make it is a professional grader. I would submit that all the high end collectors are probably the best graders (for high end shit) I turned down a job at PCGS, 20+ years ago for location and pay reasons. So apparently I can't grade. I will say I have weakness in certain realms.
I’m sorry, but this is simply untrue. I’ve personally seen the difficulty that the TPGs have had with hiring new people, in part
If you are a pro grader for a firm, you have no idea how many coins some of us need to go through before you even get to see them.
Comments
Never mind...........
My 2 Zincs...
Based on the images I like the 58 better than the 67, call it friction, rub, ex-wife, or whatever you want to call it, again based solely on the images. I'll take the so-called high point rub over those horrendous looking scratches on the 67 any day of the week. But I also understand that all numbers count.
Has anyone not had a CAC PCGS or NGC not strait cross?
CAC has this on their website and it applies to what they consider Legacy coins (received a CAC sticker anytime from November 2007 through June 5, 2023). It appears that all November 2007-June 5, 2023 coins that received a CAC sticker will automatically be considered the base grade in the current holder. As for coins that receive a CAC sticker after June 5, 2023...I don't know.
"Legacy Crossover
This process is essentially the same as a regular crossover except that the coin(s) submitted have already met CAC approval and bear a CAC sticker. All coins stickered during the "Legacy" period from November 2007 to June 5, 2023, will earn a "Legacy" designation whether or not they earn a "plus" when graded (CAC does not acknowledge the "plus" grade when stickering coins). Gold-stickered coins will also be eligible for "Legacy" designations with no ceiling on the grade.
MS64 and MS64+ coins bearing a green sticker are guaranteed to cross at MS64. MS64 and MS64+ coins with a gold sticker are guaranteed to cross at a minimum of 65. If you have a CAC stickered coin and want to know if it is eligible for a "Legacy" designation, please visit our coin lookup page and enter the certification number on the holder."
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
Dear Rexford,
I'm mostly a thread reader and not a poster here but I do collect U.S. coins. I'm in the middle of my second plunge into the hobby. I have learned to be a very strict grader because years ago I had to sell my PCGS graded cshort set of Walkers to raise money. The dealer took pity on me and educated me as to why practically all of them were AU's. Since then, with a little study, I believe I can tell an AU from a Mint State coin in seconds. Unfortunately, your examples are just like mine were. In truth, anyone who knows what an original BU coin looks like can see that the Walking Liberty half you posted is not Mint State. It is a very attractive coin - just as mine were; yet it is not MS! The wear down the leg of the Standing Liberty 25c is even easier to see!
I am shocked that others here are agreeing that the CAC grades of AU-58 are incorrect. Grading is much different today than when I put together my short set. It is worse! The fact that the new grading service is calling an AU an AU is going to spare a lot of collectors the same experience I had when I trusted slab labels rather than learning to grade for myself. I plan to be a little more brave and possibly post more in the future as I'm sure most reading this will not agree with my comments. Until then, I'll leave you with these thoughts. True BU coins don't change their color on the high spots. All MS coins are not equal so buy the coin and not the label. If you are single, the only person you should need to please is yourself so if you wish to buy very attractive coins that are not MS, no harm done (until you go to sell). Since I learned to be a strict grader, life be beri, beri good.
I understand things change, and it seems like JA/CACG are making a lean into technical grading more than market grading (let's see if that holds when the next big price rise or bubble hits).....and I understand things change over time like opinions and standards....but when CAC was formed, JA was very insistent that "A" and "B" coins were CAC-worthy and that while "C" coins were NOT....they were still good for the same grade, just not without the sticker.
Now it appears that the "C" coins are NOT good enough for the number grade at CACG but are at PCGS and NGC.
Confusing and potential trouble, IMO.
I'm sorry. I didn't read past the first page when I gave you some suggestions and told my bad coin experience. You certaintly know more about grading than I do but your revelation in this post cracked me up! So please allow me to add some levity to this discussion as a way to apologize. The first thought that struck me after reading your post here was "What exactly did you grade?"
This is a case of do as I write not as I do. TPGS's put coins with wear into MS-62 slabs and based on this thread probably higher.
I suspect that the majority of members commenting in this thread don't need TPGS grading either but are forced to use them due to Registry Sets, preservation, establishing value after death for relatives, and to sell coins to those who cannot grade. It just appears that some of us have stricter standards than others. For example, your standards are not as strict as mine. Nevertheless, that does not make you a bad grader. In fact, it allows you to be satisisfied with millons more of the coins I would turn my nose up on. And yes, most early cents are environmentaly damaged which is usually overlooked except in extreme cases.
This is the usual comment I read on forums and who can argue. Grading is an opinion and we only need to be pleased with our own opinion. Since virtually all of the characteristics (both good and bad) found on any coin can be catagorized, and measured free from any personal preference (eye appeal is the one exception), some opinions are better than others.
Vintage world coins (600 AD to 1960), which incidentally requires an extremely in-depth understanding of the distinction between strike and wear. This is not to say that grading US coins doesn’t, but US coins are struck using a limited number of methods, over a limited amount of time, within a limited number of series. With world coins, you have screw presses, steam presses, roller presses, cast coins, hammered coins, coins struck on cast planchets, coins struck over other coins, and within all those categories you have coins struck to vastly different levels of quality by different mints throughout the globe over 1400 years and hundreds of thousands of eligible types. You can have hammered coins that look like this in AU55:
or that look like this in XF45:
or that look like this in MS62:
and you can have circulating coinage with much higher relief designs than WLHs, and which thus have much more glaring high point weakness and superficial friction:
PCGS MS64+:
whereas this is an AU58:
and this is an AU55:
Tricky, huh? You need to be able to understand the technical aspects of grading to make those distinctions, and to not rely on struck detail. You have to make judgements regarding the amount of wear on poorly-struck coins many, many times a day, and to line up with the other graders when doing so. So I guess I consider myself qualified to understand whether a basic modern WLH has legitimate wear on par with an AU58, or simply strike deficiencies and superficial friction/high-point contact. And I’m pretty sure the graders at PCGS do too - that’s an extreme difference, and they see these coins all day, every day.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
Remember, we can only comment on what we know from our age of reason. Those of us born in the 30's, 40's, 50's, 60's etc. have very different views of grading. Nevertheless, this member has posted the reason some here might consider CACG to be strict: " Just because certain series display friction on the most prominent areas doesn’t change the fact that the majority of 60-64 have friction on them, and a substantial proportion of 65s as well from any series. Bust halves are the most ‘market graded’ followed by SLQs."
Apparently, CACG will no longer be grading coins with loss of original surface on their high points due to friction rub as Mint State. Talk about throwing a grenade into the room. I don't see how they can afford to be so strict. I would be like cutting a spoiled teenagers allowance to zero, kicking them out of the house, and telling them to find a job and pay their own way!
PS I suggest some of you look up the definitions of "wear" and "friction." The word "Rub" is common to both.
Not tricky at all. All three of the Russian (?) coins are AU. It appears NGC is trying to make a distinction as to which coin is worth more money. Otherwise, the overgraded one of the AU coins. "Friction" is a mechanical action that removes original surface by rubbing two surfaces together. Call that wear anything you wish. Some greedy dealer in the past coined the words "Cabinet Friction" so he could ignore one type of wearnot associated with circulation.
PS Thanks for the reply to my initial reaction. Grading world, tokens, medals, and ancients takes a great deal of skill that most don't have. It is my pleasure to post with you.
Correction: "It appears PCGS is trying to make a distinction...
You seem very confident in those statements regarding wear and motives for grading! There is no distinction being made about which coin is worth more money, there is only a distinction of condition. The first coin is graded by PCGS, incidentally, and the next two by NGC. I understand this coin looks AU, in part because of the elevational toning, but it does not really have legitimate wear.
I want to make another point about “color change”. That refers to a certain distinction between wear and superficial friction. But if you have a weak strike, there can also be a loss of luster. Think about it this way - what is a weak strike? Well, it’s when the planchet’s metal does not flow into highest pockets of the die, often because the design is high-relief. In other words, that metal does not get struck. Luster is primarily an effect of the texture of the dies imparted onto the coin. But with a weak strike, the planchet metal does not come into contact with the highest points of the dies, so the texture on those areas is that of unstruck planchet. Unstruck planchets are generally rough - so naturally there will be a difference in the luster and texture in those areas than in the surrounding areas that were impacted by the dies. That’s why there is that slight dullness and rough texture on the WLH along the length of Liberty - most of those marks are actually the texture of the planchet, not surface hits. On the Rouble, those weak areas were never lustrous to begin with. And as you can see, the reverse and the rims of the coin have no wear to speak of.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
welcome to the boards Married2Coins
I agree with Rexford in weakly struck coins will also look like they have areas of rub in middle widest area of struck coin
This is a frequent issue with Walking Liberty halves and Buffalo nickels
Yep, it’s especially common on Buffalo nickels, Jefferson nickels, and Ikes, due to copper-nickel being an extremely hard metal - that means it is more difficult for it to flow into the highest points of the dies.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
> Tricky, huh? You **need to be able to understand the technical aspects of grading to make those distinctions,** and
Not at all. The toned coin is the only MS coin. I think that is actually a good grading set for all three.
This is not accurate. CAC indicated that coins that failed to sticker were not NECESSARILY overgraded. They never said that ALL of them were correctly graded.
Amazing 1893 Ruble- looks to be worthy of the assigned grade
Interesting read. The one statement/observation that stands out paraphrased is simply Tight grading is not always right.
Just a few other observations in connection with an objective view of subjective grading:
-Opinions of a coin's grade can and often do change over time.
-Submitting the same coin multiple times - here... there... and everywhere...especially the WLH's posted herein as examples here is just not productive. Period.
-This reads is if there is an obsession with TPG more so than with the coins within the slab.
-Grading will remain subjective- just be selective and develop the necessary skills to enjoy the hobby on your terms with the understanding that grading is an opinion captured at the moment of submission.
-Recognize and use available resources that you have wisely to develop and meet your collecting objectives.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Rexford said "but as far as I understand it he’s not even a grader at CACG."
Incorrect, J/A is a finalizer at CACG one week a month. He is the finalizer for the coins which the graders were not in agreement or if they want his assistance. It's likely he views additional coins as well.
Rexford said, "And JA’s scale is not objective or technical - it’s personal to his tastes, just like at CAC."
So what's your point? All graders in fact all numismatists have" tastes" including you, J/A is no different.
bignubnumismaticts said, "I think many of you should observe how coins have been graded in the past, and what the market has deemed acceptable. I’ve only observed a change in grade limiting factors and that TPGs are much less willing to net grade now than in the beginning.
TPG grading has fluctuated over the years due to many factors. Exactly how do you determine what the market has deemed acceptable? If you're suggesting that we should rely solely on TPG's then I strongly disagree. No one has mentioned the fact that the graders are spending only an average of 5 to 10 seconds viewing each coin. This is ok on many coins but it certainly is the cause of errors on others.
Goldfinger1968 said "Now it appears that the "C" coins are NOT good enough for the number grade at CACG but are at PCGS and NGC."
Nothing new, this has always been the case for many C coins. They did not meet CAC standards and were not approved by CAC. Therefore they will not receive the same grade at CACG as they did at PCGS or NGC.
Several posters have said, J/A (CACG) are now using technical grading rather than market grading.
Incorrect, they continue to use market grading, their technical and market standards are simply stricter than the other TPG's. IMHO CACG has been a little too tough on circulated early coins. Insider mentioned that tight grading has been the case at all new grading companies. I sincerely hope that's the case.
Ok, good to know. He’s still not seeing the majority of the coins, but this was a minor point of discussion.
My point was that he is not grading technically, pretty simple. Others in the thread were claiming that he was grading technically.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
A little arrogance always helps make people want to agree with you...NOT.
Good! Some may find those coins difficult to approach and some may not. They are a sample of the various unusual circumstances of the strike/wear and UNC/AU questions that can be found in the field of world coins and that are not really seen with US coins.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
I think it’s arrogant to attempt to teach a grader how to grade without having worked that profession. That has happened several times in this thread, and is a big reason why I don’t like to make that fact known. I believe this is the first thread in which I have mentioned that I’m a former grader. The Dunning-Kruger effect in this hobby is unbelievable, as is the mob mentality on this forum. Currently the comment telling me that a Russian coin is AU, while in the same breath asking what kind of coin it is, has four “Agrees” and “Likes”, while my thorough and detailed explanation of the condition of that coin, as a professional grader with a specialty in world coins, has zero. I think that says a LOT about this forum as a whole. People believe what they want to believe.
Do you think that all grading opinions are of equal merit? If so, we have no need for graders or grading services. Fine by me. If not, then then nothing I wrote was inaccurate or arrogant.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
In any case, this has been a much lengthier conversation than I intended, and I truly regret entering it at all. I don’t have a dog in this fight - I don’t involve myself in US coins, and people can and should collect however they like. I can sit on the sidelines and rail against what I find to be illogical, but in the end it is of no benefit to me or anyone else, does very little to change minds, and only fosters negativity.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
"Ok, good to know. He’s still not seeing the majority of the coins, but this was a minor point of discussion."
Glad I was able to provide accurate information. You're correct he is not seeing the majority of the coins. However, he carefully selected and has great confidence in the CACG graders. I'm believe Ron and John are world class graders.
We agree J/A is not grading technically.
I think your statement regarding a loss of luster due to a weak strike has merit.
Honestly, a lot of the grading information and opinions you've put forth in this thread are accurate and informative. I agree about the loss of luster and planchet imperfections due to a weak strike, agree about stacking friction vs wear, and I'll concede that CACG isn't strict technical grading, but earlier what was getting at was that they lean more towards technical than the other services.
I think it's just the way that you entered this thread guns a'blazing rallying against CACG and the forum which has caused many to push back. Here we all are, trying to dissect the assigned grade based on near imperceptible differences from 2-D images, and from the beginning, I said that I couldn't confidently make a determination without seeing these coins in hand. PCGS makes mistakes, NGC makes mistakes, and CACG will make mistakes too. You know very well that it's an art, not a science, and all we can do is collect the coins that we like and get them into the holder that we desire.
With that, I'll excuse myself from the thread. Despite your negative views toward the forum, this has been an interesting discussion and perhaps we'll find each other on the same side of an argument on the next topic if you decide to stick around. Hope you and your loved ones have a happy and healthy New Years, and may 2024 treat you well.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
I think it is arrogant that you think others that have not been professional graders can not grade.Every single coin dealer that can make it is a professional grader. I would submit that all the high end collectors are probably the best graders (for high end shit) I turned down a job at PCGS, 20+ years ago for location and pay reasons. So apparently I can't grade. I will say I have weakness in certain realms.
Let me know when ya'll are done
Seriously though, the 67 looks worse to me th
Actually, this was a very informative read that will end up helping others in their quest including my own.
Another good take away here is that there’s a new sheriff in town. And he could very well turn the town upside down for a good old fashion shake down. I believe it’s happening already.
You have said insulting things in this thread such as questioning people's reading comprehension which is unnecessary.
Not all opinions are necessarily equal, however your opinion based on a photo is of lower merit than the opinion on the slab since you haven't seen the coin in hand. So a little humility might be in order. I would hate that coin as a 65 with the rub (as I see it).
While you may be a former grader and, therefore, more experienced than the average coin collector, that does not mean you are the best grader on this thread.
There are plenty of savvy, experienced individuals in the mix along with newbies and less experienced collectors. So, again, a little humility might be in order.
The poll pretty clearly shows a lack of interest in a 59 grade. So why would that change his mind?
We need more participation for ratio and he can read the individual opinions posted by the proponents.
To my eyes 😊, the video is a small-bore attempt at intimidation or, more likely, an expression of fear that PCGS (and NGC) will modify their grading standards to mirror those perceived to exist at CACG. I remember a (failed) attempt years ago, when several large submitters threatened to abandon PCGS for NGC if the former didn’t “liberalize” (at least for their coins). Classless behavior then, classless now…
The AU/MS split has been one of the more "problematic" areas of grading for collectors as long as I've been doing it. I think PCGS and NGCs tendency to recognize high point rub as not a disqualifier from an MS as one of the better moves you can make on this subject.
They should be considering multiple criteria when assigning a grade. If discoloration in the high point is the only indication, then I don't think that should necessarily make it au58. A coin like that would be decidedly better than the vast majority of coins I'm AU58 holders and even coins in lower MS holders. I personally will tolerate a little rub over a large bagmark in my collecting choices.
I can pull an MS coin from circulation and also find an AU coin that never saw circulation.
When you have coins on a 70 point system in the 50s that are better than coins in the 60s, that should be a clear indication that the system is broken (not as good as it could be). This is also validated by the fact that many of us preferentially buy coins graded 58. Because they can be disproportionately nice compared to their score/grade. Often all that is is taking advantage of an inefficiency in our grading .
I feel like I'm seeing some old school people doubling down on what I think is one of the greatest weaknesses of our grading system here.
IG: DeCourcyCoinsEbay: neilrobertson
"Numismatic categorizations, if left unconstrained, will increase spontaneously over time." -me
It looks like we ended the year on a high note with our CAC/CACG thread.
Dear Rexford, I hope you continue to post with me because I disagree with so much of your post that I don't know "wear" to start.
I am extremely confident in my opinions until they are proven to be incorrect. I appreciate that you are yaking as much time as you have to keep posting unlike one of the other well-regarded aposters who has removed himself from this thread.
IMO, putting a numerical grade on a coin is making a distinction about the worth of a coin. You state that you disagree. The distinction about condition does put a value on a coin. That's what TPGS say they do don't they. I think that is what net graders do also. The fact that you (a professional grader of foreign coins) cannot see that the amount of wear on each of these coins is virtually identical disturbs me very much.
Yours is one of the clearest explanations of a weak strike that I have ever read: "I want to make another point about “color change”. That refers to a certain distinction between wear and superficial friction. But if you have a weak strike, there can also be a loss of luster. Think about it this way - what is a weak strike? Well, it’s when the planchet’s metal does not flow into highest pockets of the die, often because the design is high-relief. In other words, that metal does not get struck. Luster is primarily an effect of the texture of the dies imparted onto the coin. But with a weak strike, the planchet metal does not come into contact with the highest points of the dies, so the texture on those areas is that of unstruck planchet. Unstruck planchets are generally rough - so naturally there will be a difference in the luster and texture in those areas than in the surrounding areas that were impacted by the dies."
Unfortunately, IMO it appeared to start out badly because I have observed that the color of a weakly struck original surface is different from the color of the rest of the coin because (as you wrote) that part of the coin did not touch the die. Any friction to this weak, original surface whill change its color again from the original part that remains. Additionally, your conclusions about the coins you originally posted such as the WLH have been smacked down by every poster. Ok, so you don't collect US coins but as a former professional grader of world coins I am shocked by what you have posted about those dirty Russian AU's. Every die struck coin (hammer, roller, screw, knuckle, ram) has some form of original luster! When it is broken by sliding friction (rub) from contact, it becoms my AU. That is my opinion from what I learned. When dirt is added to the equation, it makes the distinction between AU and MS even eaiser.
I truly understan what you are trying to say by this with regard to coins: "no wear to speak of." I hear that a lot from professionals and well known forum members. However, from my bad experiences in the past, I have become more of an unrealistic, strictly "Black or White" kind of guy. That's why I would laugh in the face of someone who told my my two month pregnant girlfreind she has "no pregnancy to speak of either."
I've been reading comments on this forum for a very long time. I'm disapointed to some of your post. I may be an unrealistic collector and very strict grader. Nevertheless, I have two functioning eyes and I am not color blind. Thus, I am able to confirm the opinion of others posting on another forum and write here that the surface quality and color of a totally original (no friction of any kind) weakly struck coin has a distinct appearance that is totally different from a well struck coin or one with any loss of luster from friction. My opinion (we all have one) remains the same. Not one of thse Russian coins is even close to Mint State! From what I have heard the overseas dealers would laugh at that grading.
This is the best post in the thread. Didn't see much rebuttal but did see many "Likes" & "Agrees".
The line toward the end of the second paragraph sums up my thoughts. Friends, this isn't magic.
I’m sorry, but this is simply untrue. I’ve personally seen the difficulty that the TPGs have had with hiring new people, in part due to a lack of ability. Most professional dealers would mistakenly certify large quantities of transfer die counterfeits and deceptively altered coins. Every single person who is hired at my old place of employment must go through years of training as a grader to become a grading finalizer - they will need to fine-tune their grading line, to learn new things, and to unlearn things that have initially been learned mistakenly. The first thing I had to do when I was initially hired was pretend that I knew nothing, so that I could learn properly - everyone gets humbled pretty quickly coming in. No one comes in and finalizes off the bat; becoming a top-notch grader is a commitment of time.
This isn’t to denigrate anyone, it’s just that grading involves a different sort of action than dealing or collecting. Plenty of dealers have a solid enough grading ability to do their job quite successfully. But the finalizers have all spent years (often decades) looking at every different type of coin there is, in every possible condition there is, at random - looking at all sorts of counterfeits and deceptive surface alterations - at a rate of hundreds of coins a day, every single day of the week - and they are surrounded by other experts on the physical qualities of coins and the minting process from whom they can also learn. That’s their entire job, and it’s not really an experience that can be done elsewhere. Once you leave the job, you inevitably start to get a little rusty, because that visual memory is no longer being kept fresh on a constant basis. I have massive respect for the current finalizers - they’re all far better graders than I am.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
LOL, this is an example of the king with no chlothes to the max:
"I think it’s arrogant to attempt to teach a grader how to grade without having worked that profession. That has happened several times in this thread, and is a big reason why I don’t like to make that fact known. I believe this is the first thread in which I have mentioned that I’m a former grader. The Dunning-Kruger effect in this hobby is unbelievable, as is the mob mentality on this forum. Currently the comment telling me that a Russian coin is AU, while in the same breath asking what kind of coin it is, has four “Agrees” and “Likes”, while my thorough and detailed explanation of the condition of that coin, as a professional grader with a specialty in world coins, has zero. I think that says a LOT about this forum as a whole. People believe what they want to believe. Do you think that all grading opinions are of equal merit? If so, we have no need for graders or grading services. Fine by me. If not, then then nothing I wrote was inaccurate or arrogant."
Please educate me as I must disagree with you again on some points. First, what is the "Dunning-Kruger effect?" I am totally ignorant about it. and truly hope you will take the time to provide either a link or a short reply. Next, you should be proud to announce that you have been a professional grader of world coins. It gives you and your opinions more more "clout" to most people. However, I'm not impressed at all based on some of the comments you have posted. I really do respect your opinions and actually admire the restraint and courtesy you have shown to a long time collector of all areas of Numismatics who pretended not to recognize the Russian alphabet. Shame on me!
The fact that as a professional grader you cannot see that each of the three Russian coins has virtually the identical amount of friction wear (darkened by old natural toning) on the high point is what is disturbing to me. I understand that each TPGS has standards that must be followed for consistancy. Additionally, the total coin market has made allowances to allow dealers to fill the demand for MS coins which for some types of coins such as Bust half dollars and Russian roubles hardly exist in true, original condition. What I seek from any professional who should know more than the rest of us is what anyone can see. All three Russian coins are AU! Aftr that. grade them and price them any way the market will bear. But don't call me or CACG incorrect for disagreeing with you and calling an obviously AU coin AU becaues it does not meet our strict standards. Some of us Large cent collectors grew up with Penny Whimsy standards.
Points taken elsewhere - my approach definitely did become much too aggressive and insulting at times, and I apologize for that. I didn’t initially enter the thread thinking things would devolve into drama or with the intention of doing so. I would much prefer to have polite discussions about these things, and it even seems that after all the drama we have begun to generally come to an agreement on some of the initial points made. I was attacked pretty quickly for appearing to have some sort of personal vendetta against CAC, for being a “market grader” and forgetting how to grade, for being confused about the physical characteristics of coins, etc, and I think that placed me on the defensive and colored my responses - but looking back I did overstep, and shouldn’t have done so.
It’s difficult because many of these online grading discussions are essentially one person saying “This coin is X condition” and the other person saying “No, this coin is Y condition”, and that’s a really difficult argument to overcome without throwing out a trump card like grading experience - although really, there’s no need to win arguments like that.
Anyway, Happy New Years everyone. 🎉
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
I was commenting that different color on eagle leg and Liberty thigh does not mean friction or circulation - here is an example that is highly graded with darker areas and nicks. Of course making any meaningful evaluation on picture alone is a fools errand. I have no problem with someone deciding they never want to buy such a weakly struck coin.
Sorry you feel this way. I could never understand why discussions about religion, politics, or coin grading could ever be negative. I have had my opinions on two of these subjects changed through discussions with those I had disagreement with because there were also many things we could first agree with before reaching points of disagreement. I think of a coin as a bit of metal made for trade. They can be graded relativ to each other as long as you knew what they originally looked like when they were made. An Ancient is obviously graded differently than a three cent silver but IMO, the root basics remaine the same. No one in their right mind would believe all graders come to the grading table with the same rank. That is why your opinions (judged right or wrong by others) deserve to be heard. It would be a loss for you to stop posting but I understand that I have "wasted "over four hours of my life adding my opinions to this thread which are just as "worthless" to some as other opinions. Nevertheless, I've enjoyed the back-and-forth with no expectation to change your mind - just the chance to offer another view to the forum. So before I sign off and resume my life. I shall see if there are any more posts for other members to disagree with.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
It's essentially the idea that beginners are extremely confident in their ability to do something well, then as they get more experience, they realize how much they still have to learn. I have a poster of a chart displaying it in my office.
The post @Rexford made showing the difficulties of grading world numismatics is a great point. Many of these types, unless you are familiar with the specific issue, you can easily mistake strike weakness with cabinet friction, rub or light circulation.
Coins are graded differently throughout the world. Not necessarily better or worse, just differently. While you may not agree with the way he is making his points, @rexford is a highly respected numismatist and grader, and his credentials in world grading are unimpeachable
I know we have had this debate before, but I do think you remain underappreciative of the knowledge that serious, professional numismatists need to have to be successful at their profession. Sure, a professional grader will absolutely be better and faster at detecting deceptive alterations and die transfers, but its not like all coin dealers who did not work as graders are ignorant to the ability to identify these. (Otherwise, they would not be in business too long)
Happy New Years all!
Justin Meunier
Boardwalk Numismatics
Happy New Year to everyone in this thread.
peacockcoins
Playing the my stabbed coin is better than yours game is expensive. While I think coin collecting will never totally die off if enough people blindly trust TPG SLABS and get burned the future looks bleak for those of us with shallower pockets. The deep pocket collectors will keep paying big money and losing money won't have uch effect on them.
‘’I could be wrong, but the irony is many of the very coins that were once graded 63/64/65 and are now 58 have been likely graded by the very same graders in both cases! 😂
It’s been explained to me by the strongest world class graders ever to work for the grading services…. they are simply told what is expected from them at the particular job they take. At grading service “A”, these coins are 64’s, at grading service “B” these coins are 65’s and at grading service “C”, these coins are 58’s. The graders are “hired guns” - told exactly what is expected of them. It’s that simple. These graders didn’t “magically forget” how to grade a 64 or 65 and now wake up with an epiphany that they are 58’s. Did a number of these world class graders simply lie to me? Perhaps I will hear that now.
In the meantime, enjoy all the inconsistency in the coin world, buy the undergraded coins you love and simply get them into higher graded holders elsewhere. What fun!
Just my 2 cents!
Wondercoin.
Quote · 3Agree, 8Like”
If it really mattered to someone, they could find a handful of gem graded Walkers or any other denomination of coin that was graded over a decade + time period by the PCGS grading team in Vegas. ‘First base or second base” was performed by the esteemed Mr. Butler in the vast majority of the cases I believe. Then- the coin gets regraded AU 58 or AU58+ in 2023 by a two or three man team from another coin grading service that has the same guy on their team who graded it 5 years ago as a gem.
So, what does this tell you? Absolutely nothing - yes? The pro graders are just “hired guns” and will perform to the expectations handed down to them. But, the exciting part to me is the “arbitrage” between an AU58 and an MS65 and the potential handsome profits that 7 point opening has to offer. Who cares who is “right” and who is “wrong” (if anyone even is). Grading is purely a business today. Make the most money that you can from the inconsistencies.
As always, just my 2 cents.
Wondercoin
A great read and a great thread to end '23.
Welcome @Married2Coins , you came in with a bang, good stuff.
I agree but would extend. There is certainly a business argument to be made. I also think, however, there is an aesthetic one as well. Enjoy the coin regardless of the number on the slab. The coin is the coin, after all.
If you are a pro grader for a firm, you have no idea how many coins some of us need to go through before you even get to see them.