Home U.S. Coin Forum

What’s going on with all these overgraded older holder coins on EBay. Check this one out.

WalkerloverWalkerlover Posts: 691 ✭✭✭✭
edited March 18, 2024 5:44PM in U.S. Coin Forum

Lately I have been seeing many overgraded coins in older holders on EBay, but this one takes the cake. I always thought older holders more conservative but not necessarily.
Poor Ben Franklin looks like he was in the Revolutionary War. I am surprised the graders
assigned a 65 rating to this coin. Looks more like CACG 63 or 63+ perhaps.
Reverse photo looks like a glamour fooler.


«1

Comments

  • RelaxnRelaxn Posts: 859 ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 18, 2024 5:48PM

    Did not know you were a professional grader? Are you trying to buy this coin and thus talking it down?>

    The coin is tremendously frosty and it has die polish marks.. The face has clatter but the rest of the coin is very frosty.
    Luster and frost is all there.
    Completely disagree with you and fully question your motives.... AS well as your knowledge to make such assertions.
    Edited to add... You are also looking at images that are magnified... Tics will look like digs...

  • MsMorrisineMsMorrisine Posts: 32,188 ✭✭✭✭✭

    This listing sold on Sun, Mar 17 at 7:31 PM

    Current maintainer of Stone's Master List of Favorite Websites // My BST transactions
  • WalkerloverWalkerlover Posts: 691 ✭✭✭✭

    @Relaxn said:
    Did not know you were a professional grader? Are you trying to buy this coin and thus talking it down?>

    The coin is tremendously frosty and it has die polish marks.. The face has clatter but the rest of the coin is very frosty.
    Luster and frost is all there.
    Completely disagree with you and fully question your motives.... AS well as your knowledge to make such assertions.
    Edited to add... You are also looking at images that are magnified... Tics will look like digs...

    No I have absolutely no skin in the game. No I certainly don’t want this coin. Just have been seeing a lot of coins on EBay lately that are flashy but have numerous contact marks. Not a professional grader just commenting like so many others do from photos posted. Don’t understand your hostility 😈. Is it your coin?

  • WalkerloverWalkerlover Posts: 691 ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 18, 2024 6:10PM

    @Relaxn said:
    Did not know you were a professional grader? Are you trying to buy this coin and thus talking it down?>

    The coin is tremendously frosty and it has die polish marks.. The face has clatter but the rest of the coin is very frosty.
    Luster and frost is all there.
    Completely disagree with you and fully question your motives.... AS well as your knowledge to make such assertions.
    Edited to add... You are also looking at images that are magnified... Tics will look like digs...

    Compare that coin to this 65 that I am considering buying. Photos can deceive but can’t hide everything. You are ridiculous impugning my motives and acting like a child 🧒.


  • WalkerloverWalkerlover Posts: 691 ✭✭✭✭

    I know what photograde is, what point are you trying to make?

  • MsMorrisineMsMorrisine Posts: 32,188 ✭✭✭✭✭

    should coinfacts ever stop yielding an error page, other specific examples wi TV are on those pages

    Current maintainer of Stone's Master List of Favorite Websites // My BST transactions
  • MsMorrisineMsMorrisine Posts: 32,188 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Walkerlover said:

    I know what photograde is, what point are you trying to make?

    not to use poor ebay photos to photograde a coin. instead use another tool.

    also, you seem to question grades assigned quite a lot. if you know how to grade and about the grading process, then you mustknow nothing is 100%. why keep bringing up coins to either question its assigned grade or ask if it is under or over graded?

    Current maintainer of Stone's Master List of Favorite Websites // My BST transactions
  • WalkerloverWalkerlover Posts: 691 ✭✭✭✭

    @MsMorrisine said:

    @Walkerlover said:

    I know what photograde is, what point are you trying to make?

    not to use poor ebay photos to photograde a coin. instead use another tool.

    also, you seem to question grades assigned quite a lot. if you know how to grade and about the grading process, then you mustknow nothing is 100%. why keep bringing up coins to either question its assigned grade or ask if it is under or over graded?

    All we can do on this forum is comment on the grades based on photos. The biggest discussions are based on photos.

    The CACG thread of a 65 PCGS coin cracked out and resubmitted to CACG that was downgraded to AU 58+ was debated based on photos posted by the original poster. Point is many coins discussed here are based on photos. Otherwise we shouldn’t use photos at all as everyone should know you can only grade accurately seeing the coins in hand

  • IkesTIkesT Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Manifest_Destiny said:
    Thanks I just bought it!

    May I buy it from you? :)

    On an unrelated note, you do offer full return privileges, correct?

  • Manifest_DestinyManifest_Destiny Posts: 3,573 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @IkesT said:

    @Manifest_Destiny said:
    Thanks I just bought it!

    May I buy it from you? :)

    On an unrelated note, you do offer full return privileges, correct?

    Absolutely! :p

  • MsMorrisineMsMorrisine Posts: 32,188 ✭✭✭✭✭

    and going from a 65 to a 58+ is a remarkable event. a 65fbl holder shown with out of focus pictures isn't.

    then there is the number of threads for such non-event coins. are each as surprising as a downgrade from 65 to 58+ to your experienced eyes?

    Current maintainer of Stone's Master List of Favorite Websites // My BST transactions
  • DelawareDoonsDelawareDoons Posts: 3,233 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The gold rush towards old holders has brought out a lot of dreck and means the quality ones get bought pretty quick. Wait more than 5 minutes on a nice coin in an old holder priced just above greysheet and I can pretty much guarantee you it won't be available.

    Professional Numismatist. "It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."

  • ShaunBC5ShaunBC5 Posts: 1,630 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Based on the pics at the beginning of the thread, I don’t have trouble believing the coin was accurately graded. The fields look right for a 65 and the chatter could easily be exacerbated by the lighting. I didn’t look at the sale price, but that coin wouldn’t scare me at all (and I could be wrong).

  • IkesTIkesT Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Manifest_Destiny said:

    @IkesT said:

    @Manifest_Destiny said:
    Thanks I just bought it!

    May I buy it from you? :)

    On an unrelated note, you do offer full return privileges, correct?

    Absolutely! :p

    OK, I'd like to return it now, please. o:)

  • WalkerloverWalkerlover Posts: 691 ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 19, 2024 6:00PM

    @ShaunBC5 said:
    Based on the pics at the beginning of the thread, I don’t have trouble believing the coin was accurately graded. The fields look right for a 65 and the chatter could easily be exacerbated by the lighting. I didn’t look at the sale price, but that coin wouldn’t scare me at all (and I could be wrong).

    After looking at thousands of EBay photos I have concluded that most coin photos are either intended to deceive or poorly photographed by the sellers. They are using overexposed, blurry, poorly lighted images to conceal contact marks, spots, PVC, scratches etc.

    I believe in this case the seller posted a poor quality photo of his coin but I don’t think it over exaggerates contact marks to the point as to make the viewer conclude it’s a legitimate 65. I don’t think you can confuse the marks for a real 65

  • ARCOARCO Posts: 4,311 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Imagine the grade assigned by the seller if we did not have grading services. :) I always laugh when I run across a seller that has a lot of raw coins and the very generous grades assigned to their coins.

  • ConnecticoinConnecticoin Posts: 12,501 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Because so many old holders got upgraded or stickered, for many of the ones left OGH = OverGraded Holder

  • coinbufcoinbuf Posts: 10,751 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Connecticoin said:
    Because so many old holders got upgraded or stickered, for many of the ones left OGH = OverGraded Holder

    In addition to the coins referenced just above I recently purchased a nice FB merc in a rattler that just came back from CAC with a gold bean. Certainly, amongst the vast bulk of the old holder coins that you see shuffle between dealers at every show some are indeed overgraded. However, some are graded correctly but just too low value to bother with having the coin regraded or reholdered into a new holder.

    But there are still many old collections that haven't seen the light of day in decades with many conservatively graded gems in old holders.

    My Lincoln Registry
    My Collection of Old Holders

    Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
  • MsMorrisineMsMorrisine Posts: 32,188 ✭✭✭✭✭

    based on the obverse photos, what grade would it be?

    Current maintainer of Stone's Master List of Favorite Websites // My BST transactions
  • ShaunBC5ShaunBC5 Posts: 1,630 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I regularly post awful (phone) pics on this site with absolutely no intent to deceive and think the same thing happens on eBay (certainly not by everyone). Certification got popular for sight unseen transactions so I’m not going to bash a coin for its poor pictures, especially when it looks very plausibly correctly graded.
    We’ve all seen older holders that we didn’t agree with, but there’s still nothing in this one that I find egregious.

  • WalkerloverWalkerlover Posts: 691 ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 20, 2024 12:38AM

    @ShaunBC5 said:
    I regularly post awful (phone) pics on this site with absolutely no intent to deceive and think the same thing happens on eBay (certainly not by everyone). Certification got popular for sight unseen transactions so I’m not going to bash a coin for its poor pictures, especially when it looks very plausibly correctly graded.
    We’ve all seen older holders that we didn’t agree with, but there’s still nothing in this one that I find egregious.

    If that coin regrades 65 today I will literally eat my 🎩. I don’t think any photography can cover up all those hits on Franklins face. I believe 63+ or 64 C coin by CAC standards. Shouldn’t Franklins face be pretty clean to earn a 💎 gem designation?

  • MFeldMFeld Posts: 12,005 ✭✭✭✭✭

    “What’s going on with all these overgraded older holder coins on EBay. Check this one out.”

    Based on the thread title, I expected to see several pictures of obviously over-graded older holder coins. So I was deeply disappointed.😉
    In answer to the question, though, I doubt that there’s been any significant change in the number of over-graded older holder coins on eBay.

    Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.

  • jayPemjayPem Posts: 4,039 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Coffee and donut coin, would be happy to get one in change though.
    🍩

  • TomBTomB Posts: 20,723 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @FlyingAl said:

    @Connecticoin said:
    Because so many old holders got upgraded or stickered, for many of the ones left OGH = OverGraded Holder

    And yet, there's a post on the front page of the boards today of five Morgan Dollars in rattlers that went 4/5 at CAC, and 2/5 were gold stickers.

    Well, the anecdote you shared might mean something different if more details were included. The member who submitted those coins essentially lucked into them by wearing a shirt with a Morgan dollar on it and then someone else noticed the shirt, said they had some of those and the two of them met up later and completed a deal. In that case we don't know if the seller was a meticulous collector who wanted to randomly offload coins to a stranger (doubtful), someone who bought the coins decades ago and has little current coin knowledge (possible), someone who inherited the coins and had no real coin knowledge (also possible) or another scenario. What is not likely, in my opinion, is that the seller is an active buyer of coins who plucked those pieces from ebay in the recent past and then sold them as described in the thread.

    What I am getting at is that lots of OGH coins are still in their OGHs because they were always viewed as marginal coins without real potential for upgrade or profit, others are still in their OGH because the spread between grades was never really enough to entice someone to crack them out and resubmit while still others are in their OGH because folks recognized they were superb coins and tucked them away. Prior to the advent of CAC there appeared to be a race to regrade the bulk of nice OGH coins, which resulted in the frequency of dogs in OGHs to increase with time. Since CAC that tendency has flattened out quite a bit with time and now more folks would preserve most anything in an OGH.

    Thomas Bush Numismatics & Numismatic Photography

    In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson

    image
  • FlyingAlFlyingAl Posts: 2,844 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited March 20, 2024 9:03AM

    @TomB said:

    @FlyingAl said:

    @Connecticoin said:
    Because so many old holders got upgraded or stickered, for many of the ones left OGH = OverGraded Holder

    And yet, there's a post on the front page of the boards today of five Morgan Dollars in rattlers that went 4/5 at CAC, and 2/5 were gold stickers.

    Well, the anecdote you shared might mean something different if more details were included. The member who submitted those coins essentially lucked into them by wearing a shirt with a Morgan dollar on it and then someone else noticed the shirt, said they had some of those and the two of them met up later and completed a deal. In that case we don't know if the seller was a meticulous collector who wanted to randomly offload coins to a stranger (doubtful), someone who bought the coins decades ago and has little current coin knowledge (possible), someone who inherited the coins and had no real coin knowledge (also possible) or another scenario. What is not likely, in my opinion, is that the seller is an active buyer of coins who plucked those pieces from ebay in the recent past and then sold them as described in the thread.

    What I am getting at is that lots of OGH coins are still in their OGHs because they were always viewed as marginal coins without real potential for upgrade or profit, others are still in their OGH because the spread between grades was never really enough to entice someone to crack them out and resubmit while still others are in their OGH because folks recognized they were superb coins and tucked them away. Prior to the advent of CAC there appeared to be a race to regrade the bulk of nice OGH coins, which resulted in the frequency of dogs in OGHs to increase with time. Since CAC that tendency has flattened out quite a bit with time and now more folks would preserve most anything in an OGH.

    As always, you make an excellent point.

    My point was simply that because a coin is in an OGH does not mean that it has absolutely been picked over. There’s a high chance that it has been, but fresh OGH coins come to market at times.

    Edit - I was also not aware those Morgans were from the batch he got from the friend, I haven’t checked that thread super recently.

    Young Numismatist, Coin Photographer.

  • RelaxnRelaxn Posts: 859 ✭✭✭✭

    @Walkerlover said:

    @ShaunBC5 said:
    I regularly post awful (phone) pics on this site with absolutely no intent to deceive and think the same thing happens on eBay (certainly not by everyone). Certification got popular for sight unseen transactions so I’m not going to bash a coin for its poor pictures, especially when it looks very plausibly correctly graded.
    We’ve all seen older holders that we didn’t agree with, but there’s still nothing in this one that I find egregious.

    If that coin regrades 65 today I will literally eat my 🎩. I don’t think any photography can cover up all those hits on Franklins face. I believe 63+ or 64 C coin by CAC standards. Shouldn’t Franklins face be pretty clean to earn a 💎 gem designation?

    And I believe this just re-iterates your lack of grading knowledge and credibility.

  • Morgan13Morgan13 Posts: 863 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @coinbuf said:

    @Connecticoin said:
    Because so many old holders got upgraded or stickered, for many of the ones left OGH = OverGraded Holder

    In addition to the coins referenced just above I recently purchased a nice FB merc in a rattler that just came back from CAC with a gold bean. Certainly, amongst the vast bulk of the old holder coins that you see shuffle between dealers at every show some are indeed overgraded. However, some are graded correctly but just too low value to bother with having the coin regraded or reholdered into a new holder.

    But there are still many old collections that haven't seen the light of day in decades with many conservatively graded gems in old holders.

    This is absolutely correct. The rattlers I bought came from an old collection that really has not seen the light of day since they were graded. The same is true of the ANACS photo grade coins. All from the same owner. Simply graded and saved. I think there are thousands more like this out there.

    Student of numismatics and collector of Morgan dollars
    Successful BST transactions with: Namvet Justindan Mattniss RWW olah_in_MA

  • tcollectstcollects Posts: 825 ✭✭✭✭

    frost is boss

  • Cougar1978Cougar1978 Posts: 7,603 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Will take a look at them on the Bay.

    So Cali Area - Coins & Currency
  • yspsalesyspsales Posts: 2,185 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited March 20, 2024 2:47PM

    Lighting on the second coin seems to hide the same issues lighting highlighted on the first coin.

    BST: KindaNewish (3/21/21), WQuarterFreddie (3/30/21), Meltdown (4/6/21), DBSTrader2 (5/5/21) AKA- unclemonkey on Blow Out

  • WalkerloverWalkerlover Posts: 691 ✭✭✭✭
    edited March 20, 2024 3:30PM

    @Relaxn said:

    @Walkerlover said:

    @ShaunBC5 said:
    I regularly post awful (phone) pics on this site with absolutely no intent to deceive and think the same thing happens on eBay (certainly not by everyone). Certification got popular for sight unseen transactions so I’m not going to bash a coin for its poor pictures, especially when it looks very plausibly correctly graded.
    We’ve all seen older holders that we didn’t agree with, but there’s still nothing in this one that I find egregious.

    If that coin regrades 65 today I will literally eat my 🎩. I don’t think any photography can cover up all those hits on Franklins face. I believe 63+ or 64 C coin by CAC standards. Shouldn’t Franklins face be pretty clean to earn a 💎 gem designation?

    And I believe this just re-iterates your lack of grading knowledge and credibility.

    You’re entitled to your opinion. You can insult me all you want but almost NO buyers would ever buy a MS 65 coin with the photo posted by that seller period except YOU. Your hostility is not necessary in civil discussion..😈 and you are disrespectful and ignorant

  • jmlanzafjmlanzaf Posts: 31,819 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Walkerlover said:

    @Relaxn said:

    @Walkerlover said:

    @ShaunBC5 said:
    I regularly post awful (phone) pics on this site with absolutely no intent to deceive and think the same thing happens on eBay (certainly not by everyone). Certification got popular for sight unseen transactions so I’m not going to bash a coin for its poor pictures, especially when it looks very plausibly correctly graded.
    We’ve all seen older holders that we didn’t agree with, but there’s still nothing in this one that I find egregious.

    If that coin regrades 65 today I will literally eat my 🎩. I don’t think any photography can cover up all those hits on Franklins face. I believe 63+ or 64 C coin by CAC standards. Shouldn’t Franklins face be pretty clean to earn a 💎 gem designation?

    And I believe this just re-iterates your lack of grading knowledge and credibility.

    You’re entitled to your opinion. You can insult me all you want but almost NO buyers would ever buy a MS 65 coin with the photo posted by that seller period except YOU. Your hostility is not necessary in civil discussion..😈 and you are disrespectful and ignorant

    Actually, almost ALL buyers would buy that coin...depending on price. There is a "sight unseen" price for a reason.

    I don't know why you get such negative reactions. This thread is largely harmless. Maybe it's your tendency to go hyperbolic? Idk. But it is unfortunate.

  • Manifest_DestinyManifest_Destiny Posts: 3,573 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @Walkerlover said:

    @Relaxn said:

    @Walkerlover said:

    @ShaunBC5 said:
    I regularly post awful (phone) pics on this site with absolutely no intent to deceive and think the same thing happens on eBay (certainly not by everyone). Certification got popular for sight unseen transactions so I’m not going to bash a coin for its poor pictures, especially when it looks very plausibly correctly graded.
    We’ve all seen older holders that we didn’t agree with, but there’s still nothing in this one that I find egregious.

    If that coin regrades 65 today I will literally eat my 🎩. I don’t think any photography can cover up all those hits on Franklins face. I believe 63+ or 64 C coin by CAC standards. Shouldn’t Franklins face be pretty clean to earn a 💎 gem designation?

    And I believe this just re-iterates your lack of grading knowledge and credibility.

    You’re entitled to your opinion. You can insult me all you want but almost NO buyers would ever buy a MS 65 coin with the photo posted by that seller period except YOU. Your hostility is not necessary in civil discussion..😈 and you are disrespectful and ignorant

    Actually, almost ALL buyers would buy that coin...depending on price. There is a "sight unseen" price for a reason.

    I don't know why you get such negative reactions. This thread is largely harmless. Maybe it's your tendency to go hyperbolic? Idk. But it is unfortunate.

  • WalkerloverWalkerlover Posts: 691 ✭✭✭✭

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @Walkerlover said:

    @Relaxn said:

    @Walkerlover said:

    @ShaunBC5 said:
    I regularly post awful (phone) pics on this site with absolutely no intent to deceive and think the same thing happens on eBay (certainly not by everyone). Certification got popular for sight unseen transactions so I’m not going to bash a coin for its poor pictures, especially when it looks very plausibly correctly graded.
    We’ve all seen older holders that we didn’t agree with, but there’s still nothing in this one that I find egregious.

    If that coin regrades 65 today I will literally eat my 🎩. I don’t think any photography can cover up all those hits on Franklins face. I believe 63+ or 64 C coin by CAC standards. Shouldn’t Franklins face be pretty clean to earn a 💎 gem designation?

    And I believe this just re-iterates your lack of grading knowledge and credibility.

    You’re entitled to your opinion. You can insult me all you want but almost NO buyers would ever buy a MS 65 coin with the photo posted by that seller period except YOU. Your hostility is not necessary in civil discussion..😈 and you are disrespectful and ignorant

    Actually, almost ALL buyers would buy that coin...depending on price. There is a "sight unseen" price for a reason.

    I don't know why you get such negative reactions. This thread is largely harmless. Maybe it's your tendency to go hyperbolic? Idk. But it is unfortunate.

    It is what it is 😂

  • CryptoCrypto Posts: 3,381 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited March 20, 2024 5:09PM

    @MFeld said:
    “What’s going on with all these overgraded older holder coins on EBay. Check this one out.”

    Based on the thread title, I expected to see several pictures of obviously over-graded older holder coins. So I was deeply disappointed.😉
    In answer to the question, though, I doubt that there’s been any significant change in the number of over-graded older holder coins on eBay.

    It is safe to say there is a small percentage of net graded older holders that let an issue slide due to the overall fabric of the coin due to there being no details grade to revert to back then. I have picked up dozens of older holders that looked vastly under graded at first glance until the issue presented. It seems those coins are now entombed and destined to walk the bourse in collector purgatory. That said I haven’t seen may over graded early holder coins consistently, grade modifiers such as DMPL aside

  • jayPemjayPem Posts: 4,039 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Why does it matter if it's a 65, 64, or 63?
    Your hoping to make a 66.... but is it even worth the trouble?

  • MsMorrisineMsMorrisine Posts: 32,188 ✭✭✭✭✭

    it's a fbl holder too.

    Current maintainer of Stone's Master List of Favorite Websites // My BST transactions
  • dlmtortsdlmtorts Posts: 725 ✭✭✭

    Wow. A lot of hostility in this thread. I bet if he asked if the coin was properly graded the tone would be different. I suspect the answers might be a bit different too.

    Most of you have much more knowledge than I do and I respect that. But I have been collecting for 50+ years and trust what I see. In my opinion, that coin does appear to be over graded and I would not pay 65 money for it. Flame away if that is your style, preference or personality.

  • jmlanzafjmlanzaf Posts: 31,819 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @dlmtorts said:
    Wow. A lot of hostility in this thread. I bet if he asked if the coin was properly graded the tone would be different. I suspect the answers might be a bit different too.

    Most of you have much more knowledge than I do and I respect that. But I have been collecting for 50+ years and trust what I see. In my opinion, that coin does appear to be over graded and I would not pay 65 money for it. Flame away if that is your style, preference or personality.

    Nope. Last time he asked if a coin was properly graded he got even more hostility than this.

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file