The coin, no coin, simply cannot be “solid for the grade” and “damaged Details” at the same time.
I think you are incorrect. Otherwise I don't under stand this. A details coin can be solid for whatever it grades w/o the damage. The problem does not change the grade. It changes the price and the desirability.
The details gtade is absolutely "changed". An "XF details" coin is ABSOLUTELY NOT an "XF" coin at all and can NOT ever be a "solid XF" coin. Details grades are essentially a completely separate grading scale.
I didn't see this post so I guess what you are saying is an XF details coin is not really an XF. Better tell that to the TPGS. I guess they have been lying to us all these years. So what is it a Fine? LOL. IMO, grading a coin is not complicated so I don't understand why experts try to make it complicated.
It looks like you 5* experts will only consider original coins to be solid for the grade. That makes no sense to a non-expert. PCGS must have been right in 1986. BRING BACK BODY BAGS so any slab will be solid for the grade by the graders from now on.
I’m not saying that an XF details coin isn’t really an XF.
However, most collectors and dealers use terms such as “solid for the grade” “high end”, “low end”, “average quality “ etc. for straight grade coins - not for detail grade coins.
No one’s trying to make that complicated and it’s not.
Even though grading is a spectrum, it seems the argument here has been that a details coin can only be a C coin going by the rule that A and B coins are "solid for the grade." Which for an example where you have a spectrum:
64C - 64B - 64A - 65C - 65B - 65A
The suggestion is that a details 65C coin, if you add a few more bag marks doesn't go down one spot to 64A, it jumps all the way to 64C. Am I understanding this right?
The coin, no coin, simply cannot be “solid for the grade” and “damaged Details” at the same time.
I think you are incorrect. Otherwise I don't under stand this. A details coin can be solid for whatever it grades w/o the damage. The problem does not change the grade. It changes the price and the desirability.
The details gtade is absolutely "changed". An "XF details" coin is ABSOLUTELY NOT an "XF" coin at all and can NOT ever be a "solid XF" coin. Details grades are essentially a completely separate grading scale.
I didn't see this post so I guess what you are saying is an XF details coin is not really an XF. Better tell that to the TPGS. I guess they have been lying to us all these years. So what is it a Fine? LOL. IMO, grading a coin is not complicated so I don't understand why experts try to make it complicated.
It looks like you 5* experts will only consider original coins to be solid for the grade. That makes no sense to a non-expert. PCGS must have been right in 1986. BRING BACK BODY BAGS so any slab will be solid for the grade by the graders from now on.
I’m not saying that an XF details coin isn’t really an XF.
However,most collectors and dealers use terms such as “solid for the grade” “high end”, “low end”, “average quality “ etc. for straight grade coins - not for detail grade coins.
No one’s trying to make that complicated and it’s not.
Thank you. I'm a simple man and not a dealer so I didn't know that. You have educated me.
The coin, no coin, simply cannot be “solid for the grade” and “damaged Details” at the same time.
I think you are incorrect. Otherwise I don't under stand this. A details coin can be solid for whatever it grades w/o the damage. The problem does not change the grade. It changes the price and the desirability.
The details gtade is absolutely "changed". An "XF details" coin is ABSOLUTELY NOT an "XF" coin at all and can NOT ever be a "solid XF" coin. Details grades are essentially a completely separate grading scale.
I didn't see this post so I guess what you are saying is an XF details coin is not really an XF. Better tell that to the TPGS. I guess they have been lying to us all these years. So what is it a Fine? LOL. IMO, grading a coin is not complicated so I don't understand why experts try to make it complicated.
It looks like you 5* experts will only consider original coins to be solid for the grade. That makes no sense to a non-expert. PCGS must have been right in 1986. BRING BACK BODY BAGS so any slab will be solid for the grade by the graders from now on.
I’m not saying that an XF details coin isn’t really an XF.
However, most collectors and dealers use terms such as “solid for the grade” “high end”, “low end”, “average quality “ etc. for straight grade coins - not for detail grade coins.
No one’s trying to make that complicated and it’s not.
Even though grading is a spectrum, it seems the argument here has been that a details coin can only be a C coin going by the rule that A and B coins are "solid for the grade." Which for an example where you have a spectrum:
64C - 64B - 64A - 65C - 65B - 65A
The suggestion is that a details 65C coin, if you add a few more bag marks doesn't go down one spot to 64A, it jumps all the way to 64C. Am I understanding this right?
That should depend on where the extra marks are, right?
The coin, no coin, simply cannot be “solid for the grade” and “damaged Details” at the same time.
I think you are incorrect. Otherwise I don't under stand this. A details coin can be solid for whatever it grades w/o the damage. The problem does not change the grade. It changes the price and the desirability.
The details gtade is absolutely "changed". An "XF details" coin is ABSOLUTELY NOT an "XF" coin at all and can NOT ever be a "solid XF" coin. Details grades are essentially a completely separate grading scale.
I didn't see this post so I guess what you are saying is an XF details coin is not really an XF. Better tell that to the TPGS. I guess they have been lying to us all these years. So what is it a Fine? LOL. IMO, grading a coin is not complicated so I don't understand why experts try to make it complicated.
It looks like you 5* experts will only consider original coins to be solid for the grade. That makes no sense to a non-expert. PCGS must have been right in 1986. BRING BACK BODY BAGS so any slab will be solid for the grade by the graders from now on.
I’m not saying that an XF details coin isn’t really an XF.
However, most collectors and dealers use terms such as “solid for the grade” “high end”, “low end”, “average quality “ etc. for straight grade coins - not for detail grade coins.
No one’s trying to make that complicated and it’s not.
Even though grading is a spectrum, it seems the argument here has been that a details coin can only be a C coin going by the rule that A and B coins are "solid for the grade." Which for an example where you have a spectrum:
64C - 64B - 64A - 65C - 65B - 65A
The suggestion is that a details 65C coin, if you add a few more bag marks doesn't go down one spot to 64A, it jumps all the way to 64C. Am I understanding this right?
No, a details coin isn’t an A (high end), coin, a B (mid range) coin or a C (low end) coin. Those terms are used for straight grade coins. Detail coins fall into their own category.
I and others have stated this a number of times previously. You don’t have to accept what we say or agree with us. And you’te free to classify coins however you wish. But I’m going to do my best not to keep repeating this here.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
The coin, no coin, simply cannot be “solid for the grade” and “damaged Details” at the same time.
I think you are incorrect. Otherwise I don't under stand this. A details coin can be solid for whatever it grades w/o the damage. The problem does not change the grade. It changes the price and the desirability.
The details gtade is absolutely "changed". An "XF details" coin is ABSOLUTELY NOT an "XF" coin at all and can NOT ever be a "solid XF" coin. Details grades are essentially a completely separate grading scale.
I didn't see this post so I guess what you are saying is an XF details coin is not really an XF. Better tell that to the TPGS. I guess they have been lying to us all these years. So what is it a Fine? LOL. IMO, grading a coin is not complicated so I don't understand why experts try to make it complicated.
It looks like you 5* experts will only consider original coins to be solid for the grade. That makes no sense to a non-expert. PCGS must have been right in 1986. BRING BACK BODY BAGS so any slab will be solid for the grade by the graders from now on.
I’m not saying that an XF details coin isn’t really an XF.
However, most collectors and dealers use terms such as “solid for the grade” “high end”, “low end”, “average quality “ etc. for straight grade coins - not for detail grade coins.
No one’s trying to make that complicated and it’s not.
Even though grading is a spectrum, it seems the argument here has been that a details coin can only be a C coin going by the rule that A and B coins are "solid for the grade." Which for an example where you have a spectrum:
64C - 64B - 64A - 65C - 65B - 65A
The suggestion is that a details 65C coin, if you add a few more bag marks doesn't go down one spot to 64A, it jumps all the way to 64C. Am I understanding this right?
No, a details coin isn’t an A (high end), coin, a B (mid range) coin or a C (low end) coin. Those terms are used for straight grade coins. Detail coins fall into their own category.
I and others have stated this a number of times previously. You don’t have to accept what we say or agree with us. And you’te free to classify coins however you wish. But I’m going to do my best not to keep repeating this here.
I always tell my students that I can't repeat myself enough. As the Romans used to say, "repetitio mater studiorum".
The coin, no coin, simply cannot be “solid for the grade” and “damaged Details” at the same time.
I think you are incorrect. Otherwise I don't under stand this. A details coin can be solid for whatever it grades w/o the damage. The problem does not change the grade. It changes the price and the desirability.
The details gtade is absolutely "changed". An "XF details" coin is ABSOLUTELY NOT an "XF" coin at all and can NOT ever be a "solid XF" coin. Details grades are essentially a completely separate grading scale.
I didn't see this post so I guess what you are saying is an XF details coin is not really an XF. Better tell that to the TPGS. I guess they have been lying to us all these years. So what is it a Fine? LOL. IMO, grading a coin is not complicated so I don't understand why experts try to make it complicated.
It looks like you 5* experts will only consider original coins to be solid for the grade. That makes no sense to a non-expert. PCGS must have been right in 1986. BRING BACK BODY BAGS so any slab will be solid for the grade by the graders from now on.
I’m not saying that an XF details coin isn’t really an XF.
However, most collectors and dealers use terms such as “solid for the grade” “high end”, “low end”, “average quality “ etc. for straight grade coins - not for detail grade coins.
No one’s trying to make that complicated and it’s not.
Even though grading is a spectrum, it seems the argument here has been that a details coin can only be a C coin going by the rule that A and B coins are "solid for the grade." Which for an example where you have a spectrum:
64C - 64B - 64A - 65C - 65B - 65A
The suggestion is that a details 65C coin, if you add a few more bag marks doesn't go down one spot to 64A, it jumps all the way to 64C. Am I understanding this right?
No, a details coin isn’t an A (high end), coin, a B (mid range) coin or a C (low end) coin. Those terms are used for straight grade coins. Detail coins fall into their own category.
I and others have stated this a number of times previously. You don’t have to accept what we say or agree with us. And you’te free to classify coins however you wish. But I’m going to do my best not to keep repeating this here.
I get it. A,B, or C coins don't have non-market acceptable problems but might have market acceptable ones or just more rub or something that make them C coins.
The coin, no coin, simply cannot be “solid for the grade” and “damaged Details” at the same time.
I think you are incorrect. Otherwise I don't under stand this. A details coin can be solid for whatever it grades w/o the damage. The problem does not change the grade. It changes the price and the desirability.
The details gtade is absolutely "changed". An "XF details" coin is ABSOLUTELY NOT an "XF" coin at all and can NOT ever be a "solid XF" coin. Details grades are essentially a completely separate grading scale.
I didn't see this post so I guess what you are saying is an XF details coin is not really an XF. Better tell that to the TPGS. I guess they have been lying to us all these years. So what is it a Fine? LOL. IMO, grading a coin is not complicated so I don't understand why experts try to make it complicated.
It looks like you 5* experts will only consider original coins to be solid for the grade. That makes no sense to a non-expert. PCGS must have been right in 1986. BRING BACK BODY BAGS so any slab will be solid for the grade by the graders from now on.
I’m not saying that an XF details coin isn’t really an XF.
However, most collectors and dealers use terms such as “solid for the grade” “high end”, “low end”, “average quality “ etc. for straight grade coins - not for detail grade coins.
No one’s trying to make that complicated and it’s not.
Even though grading is a spectrum, it seems the argument here has been that a details coin can only be a C coin going by the rule that A and B coins are "solid for the grade." Which for an example where you have a spectrum:
64C - 64B - 64A - 65C - 65B - 65A
The suggestion is that a details 65C coin, if you add a few more bag marks doesn't go down one spot to 64A, it jumps all the way to 64C. Am I understanding this right?
No, a details coin isn’t an A (high end), coin, a B (mid range) coin or a C (low end) coin. Those terms are used for straight grade coins. Detail coins fall into their own category.
I and others have stated this a number of times previously. You don’t have to accept what we say or agree with us. And you’te free to classify coins however you wish. But I’m going to do my best not to keep repeating this here.
I always tell my students that I can't repeat myself enough. As the Romans used to say, "repetitio mater studiorum".
I consider myself a student of coin grading yet I never got the message.
The coin, no coin, simply cannot be “solid for the grade” and “damaged Details” at the same time.
I think you are incorrect. Otherwise I don't under stand this. A details coin can be solid for whatever it grades w/o the damage. The problem does not change the grade. It changes the price and the desirability.
The details gtade is absolutely "changed". An "XF details" coin is ABSOLUTELY NOT an "XF" coin at all and can NOT ever be a "solid XF" coin. Details grades are essentially a completely separate grading scale.
I didn't see this post so I guess what you are saying is an XF details coin is not really an XF. Better tell that to the TPGS. I guess they have been lying to us all these years. So what is it a Fine? LOL. IMO, grading a coin is not complicated so I don't understand why experts try to make it complicated.
It looks like you 5* experts will only consider original coins to be solid for the grade. That makes no sense to a non-expert. PCGS must have been right in 1986. BRING BACK BODY BAGS so any slab will be solid for the grade by the graders from now on.
I’m not saying that an XF details coin isn’t really an XF.
However, most collectors and dealers use terms such as “solid for the grade” “high end”, “low end”, “average quality “ etc. for straight grade coins - not for detail grade coins.
No one’s trying to make that complicated and it’s not.
Even though grading is a spectrum, it seems the argument here has been that a details coin can only be a C coin going by the rule that A and B coins are "solid for the grade." Which for an example where you have a spectrum:
64C - 64B - 64A - 65C - 65B - 65A
The suggestion is that a details 65C coin, if you add a few more bag marks doesn't go down one spot to 64A, it jumps all the way to 64C. Am I understanding this right?
No, a details coin isn’t an A (high end), coin, a B (mid range) coin or a C (low end) coin. Those terms are used for straight grade coins. Detail coins fall into their own category.
I and others have stated this a number of times previously. You don’t have to accept what we say or agree with us. And you’te free to classify coins however you wish. But I’m going to do my best not to keep repeating this here.
Then I interpret that you're saying that a details grade coin then is ungradeable but that isn't the case. The ANA grading standards can still be assessed against a coin and a grade determined.
The coin, no coin, simply cannot be “solid for the grade” and “damaged Details” at the same time.
I think you are incorrect. Otherwise I don't under stand this. A details coin can be solid for whatever it grades w/o the damage. The problem does not change the grade. It changes the price and the desirability.
The details gtade is absolutely "changed". An "XF details" coin is ABSOLUTELY NOT an "XF" coin at all and can NOT ever be a "solid XF" coin. Details grades are essentially a completely separate grading scale.
I didn't see this post so I guess what you are saying is an XF details coin is not really an XF. Better tell that to the TPGS. I guess they have been lying to us all these years. So what is it a Fine? LOL. IMO, grading a coin is not complicated so I don't understand why experts try to make it complicated.
It looks like you 5* experts will only consider original coins to be solid for the grade. That makes no sense to a non-expert. PCGS must have been right in 1986. BRING BACK BODY BAGS so any slab will be solid for the grade by the graders from now on.
I’m not saying that an XF details coin isn’t really an XF.
However, most collectors and dealers use terms such as “solid for the grade” “high end”, “low end”, “average quality “ etc. for straight grade coins - not for detail grade coins.
No one’s trying to make that complicated and it’s not.
Even though grading is a spectrum, it seems the argument here has been that a details coin can only be a C coin going by the rule that A and B coins are "solid for the grade." Which for an example where you have a spectrum:
64C - 64B - 64A - 65C - 65B - 65A
The suggestion is that a details 65C coin, if you add a few more bag marks doesn't go down one spot to 64A, it jumps all the way to 64C. Am I understanding this right?
No, a details coin isn’t an A (high end), coin, a B (mid range) coin or a C (low end) coin. Those terms are used for straight grade coins. Detail coins fall into their own category.
I and others have stated this a number of times previously. You don’t have to accept what we say or agree with us. And you’te free to classify coins however you wish. But I’m going to do my best not to keep repeating this here.
I get it. A,B, or C coins don't have non-market acceptable problems but might have market acceptable ones or just more rub or something that make them C coins.
I’m weak at grading knowledge too, but I think your example of a coin with more rub is also incorrect. I believe while rub is still market acceptable and not details, I believe in the opinion of CACG it typically knocks the grade down a lot more than just to a “C” of the same whole grade. I seem to recall reading as an example that Standing Lib Quarters graded MS by the two other TPG’s, get knocked down to AU58 by CACG due to the rub(s).
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
The coin, no coin, simply cannot be “solid for the grade” and “damaged Details” at the same time.
I think you are incorrect. Otherwise I don't under stand this. A details coin can be solid for whatever it grades w/o the damage. The problem does not change the grade. It changes the price and the desirability.
The details gtade is absolutely "changed". An "XF details" coin is ABSOLUTELY NOT an "XF" coin at all and can NOT ever be a "solid XF" coin. Details grades are essentially a completely separate grading scale.
I didn't see this post so I guess what you are saying is an XF details coin is not really an XF. Better tell that to the TPGS. I guess they have been lying to us all these years. So what is it a Fine? LOL. IMO, grading a coin is not complicated so I don't understand why experts try to make it complicated.
It looks like you 5* experts will only consider original coins to be solid for the grade. That makes no sense to a non-expert. PCGS must have been right in 1986. BRING BACK BODY BAGS so any slab will be solid for the grade by the graders from now on.
I’m not saying that an XF details coin isn’t really an XF.
However, most collectors and dealers use terms such as “solid for the grade” “high end”, “low end”, “average quality “ etc. for straight grade coins - not for detail grade coins.
No one’s trying to make that complicated and it’s not.
Even though grading is a spectrum, it seems the argument here has been that a details coin can only be a C coin going by the rule that A and B coins are "solid for the grade." Which for an example where you have a spectrum:
64C - 64B - 64A - 65C - 65B - 65A
The suggestion is that a details 65C coin, if you add a few more bag marks doesn't go down one spot to 64A, it jumps all the way to 64C. Am I understanding this right?
No, a details coin isn’t an A (high end), coin, a B (mid range) coin or a C (low end) coin. Those terms are used for straight grade coins. Detail coins fall into their own category.
I and others have stated this a number of times previously. You don’t have to accept what we say or agree with us. And you’te free to classify coins however you wish. But I’m going to do my best not to keep repeating this here.
Then I interpret that you're saying that a details grade coin then is ungradeable but that isn't the case. The ANA grading standards can still be assessed against a coin and a grade determined.
You are correct. However, the dealers that control everything including terminology don't see it that way. While problem coins have a definite grade + the problem they are considered outside the realm of collectible coins so "they are not solid for the grade" EVEN THOUGH THE GRADE IS CORRECT (solid) w/o the problem.
The coin, no coin, simply cannot be “solid for the grade” and “damaged Details” at the same time.
I think you are incorrect. Otherwise I don't under stand this. A details coin can be solid for whatever it grades w/o the damage. The problem does not change the grade. It changes the price and the desirability.
The details gtade is absolutely "changed". An "XF details" coin is ABSOLUTELY NOT an "XF" coin at all and can NOT ever be a "solid XF" coin. Details grades are essentially a completely separate grading scale.
I didn't see this post so I guess what you are saying is an XF details coin is not really an XF. Better tell that to the TPGS. I guess they have been lying to us all these years. So what is it a Fine? LOL. IMO, grading a coin is not complicated so I don't understand why experts try to make it complicated.
It looks like you 5* experts will only consider original coins to be solid for the grade. That makes no sense to a non-expert. PCGS must have been right in 1986. BRING BACK BODY BAGS so any slab will be solid for the grade by the graders from now on.
I’m not saying that an XF details coin isn’t really an XF.
However, most collectors and dealers use terms such as “solid for the grade” “high end”, “low end”, “average quality “ etc. for straight grade coins - not for detail grade coins.
No one’s trying to make that complicated and it’s not.
Even though grading is a spectrum, it seems the argument here has been that a details coin can only be a C coin going by the rule that A and B coins are "solid for the grade." Which for an example where you have a spectrum:
64C - 64B - 64A - 65C - 65B - 65A
The suggestion is that a details 65C coin, if you add a few more bag marks doesn't go down one spot to 64A, it jumps all the way to 64C. Am I understanding this right?
No, a details coin isn’t an A (high end), coin, a B (mid range) coin or a C (low end) coin. Those terms are used for straight grade coins. Detail coins fall into their own category.
I and others have stated this a number of times previously. You don’t have to accept what we say or agree with us. And you’te free to classify coins however you wish. But I’m going to do my best not to keep repeating this here.
I get it. A,B, or C coins don't have non-market acceptable problems but might have market acceptable ones or just more rub or something that make them C coins.
I’m weak at grading knowledge too, but I think your example of a coin with more rub is also incorrect. I believe while rub is still market acceptable and not details, I believe in the opinion of CACG it typically knocks the grade down a lot more than just to a “C” of the same whole grade. I seem to recall reading as an example that Standing Lib Quarters graded MS by the two other TPG’s, get knocked down to AU58 by CACG due to the rub(s).
Steve
I like the tough grading at CACG and hope it stays that way. AU's should have never ever become today's MS-62's!
The coin, no coin, simply cannot be “solid for the grade” and “damaged Details” at the same time.
I think you are incorrect. Otherwise I don't under stand this. A details coin can be solid for whatever it grades w/o the damage. The problem does not change the grade. It changes the price and the desirability.
The details gtade is absolutely "changed". An "XF details" coin is ABSOLUTELY NOT an "XF" coin at all and can NOT ever be a "solid XF" coin. Details grades are essentially a completely separate grading scale.
I didn't see this post so I guess what you are saying is an XF details coin is not really an XF. Better tell that to the TPGS. I guess they have been lying to us all these years. So what is it a Fine? LOL. IMO, grading a coin is not complicated so I don't understand why experts try to make it complicated.
It looks like you 5* experts will only consider original coins to be solid for the grade. That makes no sense to a non-expert. PCGS must have been right in 1986. BRING BACK BODY BAGS so any slab will be solid for the grade by the graders from now on.
I’m not saying that an XF details coin isn’t really an XF.
However, most collectors and dealers use terms such as “solid for the grade” “high end”, “low end”, “average quality “ etc. for straight grade coins - not for detail grade coins.
No one’s trying to make that complicated and it’s not.
Even though grading is a spectrum, it seems the argument here has been that a details coin can only be a C coin going by the rule that A and B coins are "solid for the grade." Which for an example where you have a spectrum:
64C - 64B - 64A - 65C - 65B - 65A
The suggestion is that a details 65C coin, if you add a few more bag marks doesn't go down one spot to 64A, it jumps all the way to 64C. Am I understanding this right?
No, a details coin isn’t an A (high end), coin, a B (mid range) coin or a C (low end) coin. Those terms are used for straight grade coins. Detail coins fall into their own category.
I and others have stated this a number of times previously. You don’t have to accept what we say or agree with us. And you’te free to classify coins however you wish. But I’m going to do my best not to keep repeating this here.
Then I interpret that you're saying that a details grade coin then is ungradeable but that isn't the case. The ANA grading standards can still be assessed against a coin and a grade determined.
And what do the ANA Grading standards say about corrosion? Holes?
The standards are applied as though the defect isn't there. And that's what "details" means. If this coin hadn't been serrated and holed to make a pie crimper and then buried in the ground till it was porous it would have the wear of a VF coin. But it DOESN'T. So it exists in a parallel universe of details grades.
I can't even believe this is under discussion. Once upon a time, the TPGS's body bagged problem coins. Then they decided to "details" grade many of the formerly ungradeable coins. But no one in the hobby refers to a "solid XF" for a details coin. Sure, some holed coins have more details left than others, but the grade itself is imaginary because it is made assuming there is no big giant hole in the coin.
Like it or not, that is the way the hobby treats such coins.
The coin, no coin, simply cannot be “solid for the grade” and “damaged Details” at the same time.
I think you are incorrect. Otherwise I don't under stand this. A details coin can be solid for whatever it grades w/o the damage. The problem does not change the grade. It changes the price and the desirability.
The details gtade is absolutely "changed". An "XF details" coin is ABSOLUTELY NOT an "XF" coin at all and can NOT ever be a "solid XF" coin. Details grades are essentially a completely separate grading scale.
I didn't see this post so I guess what you are saying is an XF details coin is not really an XF. Better tell that to the TPGS. I guess they have been lying to us all these years. So what is it a Fine? LOL. IMO, grading a coin is not complicated so I don't understand why experts try to make it complicated.
It looks like you 5* experts will only consider original coins to be solid for the grade. That makes no sense to a non-expert. PCGS must have been right in 1986. BRING BACK BODY BAGS so any slab will be solid for the grade by the graders from now on.
I’m not saying that an XF details coin isn’t really an XF.
However, most collectors and dealers use terms such as “solid for the grade” “high end”, “low end”, “average quality “ etc. for straight grade coins - not for detail grade coins.
No one’s trying to make that complicated and it’s not.
Even though grading is a spectrum, it seems the argument here has been that a details coin can only be a C coin going by the rule that A and B coins are "solid for the grade." Which for an example where you have a spectrum:
64C - 64B - 64A - 65C - 65B - 65A
The suggestion is that a details 65C coin, if you add a few more bag marks doesn't go down one spot to 64A, it jumps all the way to 64C. Am I understanding this right?
No, a details coin isn’t an A (high end), coin, a B (mid range) coin or a C (low end) coin. Those terms are used for straight grade coins. Detail coins fall into their own category.
I and others have stated this a number of times previously. You don’t have to accept what we say or agree with us. And you’te free to classify coins however you wish. But I’m going to do my best not to keep repeating this here.
Then I interpret that you're saying that a details grade coin then is ungradeable but that isn't the case. The ANA grading standards can still be assessed against a coin and a grade determined.
You are correct. However, the dealers that control everything including terminology don't see it that way. While problem coins have a definite grade + the problem they are considered outside the realm of collectible coins so "they are not solid for the grade" EVEN THOUGH THE GRADE IS CORRECT (solid) w/o the problem.
I tried to date a beautiful woman once. She was very accomplished with two graduates degrees. She had won prizes for her charitable work and she was drop dead gorgeous. She was dead, but if you ignore that, she was perfect.
It simply doesn't make any sense to spend a lot of time debating whether a details coin is a 50 or a 53 if you ignore the 3 holes in it when it had been made into a button. You'll find half dimes and 3 cent silvers used this way and 20% of the surface is missing.
Is there really any point in discussing what a "solid" 65 means for a coin with almost no marks but a big giant hole in it? Details grades are arrived at by ignoring the biggest defect the coin has. By there very nature they must exist in a parallel, hypothetical grading universe.
The coin, no coin, simply cannot be “solid for the grade” and “damaged Details” at the same time.
I think you are incorrect. Otherwise I don't under stand this. A details coin can be solid for whatever it grades w/o the damage. The problem does not change the grade. It changes the price and the desirability.
The details gtade is absolutely "changed". An "XF details" coin is ABSOLUTELY NOT an "XF" coin at all and can NOT ever be a "solid XF" coin. Details grades are essentially a completely separate grading scale.
I didn't see this post so I guess what you are saying is an XF details coin is not really an XF. Better tell that to the TPGS. I guess they have been lying to us all these years. So what is it a Fine? LOL. IMO, grading a coin is not complicated so I don't understand why experts try to make it complicated.
It looks like you 5* experts will only consider original coins to be solid for the grade. That makes no sense to a non-expert. PCGS must have been right in 1986. BRING BACK BODY BAGS so any slab will be solid for the grade by the graders from now on.
I’m not saying that an XF details coin isn’t really an XF.
However, most collectors and dealers use terms such as “solid for the grade” “high end”, “low end”, “average quality “ etc. for straight grade coins - not for detail grade coins.
No one’s trying to make that complicated and it’s not.
Even though grading is a spectrum, it seems the argument here has been that a details coin can only be a C coin going by the rule that A and B coins are "solid for the grade." Which for an example where you have a spectrum:
64C - 64B - 64A - 65C - 65B - 65A
The suggestion is that a details 65C coin, if you add a few more bag marks doesn't go down one spot to 64A, it jumps all the way to 64C. Am I understanding this right?
No, a details coin isn’t an A (high end), coin, a B (mid range) coin or a C (low end) coin. Those terms are used for straight grade coins. Detail coins fall into their own category.
I and others have stated this a number of times previously. You don’t have to accept what we say or agree with us. And you’te free to classify coins however you wish. But I’m going to do my best not to keep repeating this here.
Then I interpret that you're saying that a details grade coin then is ungradeable but that isn't the case. The ANA grading standards can still be assessed against a coin and a grade determined.
And what do the ANA Grading standards say about corrosion? Holes?
The standards are applied as though the defect isn't there. And that's what "details" means. If this coin hadn't been serrated and holed to make a pie crimper and then buried in the ground till it was porous it would have the wear of a VF coin. But it DOESN'T. So it exists in a parallel universe of details grades.
I can't even believe this is under discussion. Once upon a time, the TPGS's body bagged problem coins. Then they decided to "details" grade many of the formerly ungradeable coins. But no one in the hobby refers to a "solid XF" for a details coin. Sure, some holed coins have more details left than others, but the grade itself is imaginary because it is made assuming there is no big giant hole in the coin.
Like it or not, that is the way the hobby treats such coins.
Do you see the contradiction? What is going on in this thread is a pissing match over the interpretation of these relatively modern, dealer made-up (AND UNNECESSARY) four words: "solid for the grade." The problem coin has the details of a VF. I say it is a solid for the VF details grade and others say it is not a solid anything - not even a VF. The hobby can treat it, and does, any way they wish. As with most things devised by professional coin dealers to keep grading complicated - a VF coin with problems is not a VF. Perhaps it is a net graded VG. That's what the Large cent guys do, right?
PS The light bulb just went off. This difference is due to that defunct, simplified, technical grading system where a VF was a VF. Anyway, thanks to Mr. Feld, I now understand the true meaning of "solid."
The coin, no coin, simply cannot be “solid for the grade” and “damaged Details” at the same time.
I think you are incorrect. Otherwise I don't under stand this. A details coin can be solid for whatever it grades w/o the damage. The problem does not change the grade. It changes the price and the desirability.
The details gtade is absolutely "changed". An "XF details" coin is ABSOLUTELY NOT an "XF" coin at all and can NOT ever be a "solid XF" coin. Details grades are essentially a completely separate grading scale.
I didn't see this post so I guess what you are saying is an XF details coin is not really an XF. Better tell that to the TPGS. I guess they have been lying to us all these years. So what is it a Fine? LOL. IMO, grading a coin is not complicated so I don't understand why experts try to make it complicated.
It looks like you 5* experts will only consider original coins to be solid for the grade. That makes no sense to a non-expert. PCGS must have been right in 1986. BRING BACK BODY BAGS so any slab will be solid for the grade by the graders from now on.
I’m not saying that an XF details coin isn’t really an XF.
However, most collectors and dealers use terms such as “solid for the grade” “high end”, “low end”, “average quality “ etc. for straight grade coins - not for detail grade coins.
No one’s trying to make that complicated and it’s not.
Even though grading is a spectrum, it seems the argument here has been that a details coin can only be a C coin going by the rule that A and B coins are "solid for the grade." Which for an example where you have a spectrum:
64C - 64B - 64A - 65C - 65B - 65A
The suggestion is that a details 65C coin, if you add a few more bag marks doesn't go down one spot to 64A, it jumps all the way to 64C. Am I understanding this right?
No, a details coin isn’t an A (high end), coin, a B (mid range) coin or a C (low end) coin. Those terms are used for straight grade coins. Detail coins fall into their own category.
I and others have stated this a number of times previously. You don’t have to accept what we say or agree with us. And you’te free to classify coins however you wish. But I’m going to do my best not to keep repeating this here.
Then I interpret that you're saying that a details grade coin then is ungradeable but that isn't the case. The ANA grading standards can still be assessed against a coin and a grade determined.
You are correct. However, the dealers that control everything including terminology don't see it that way. While problem coins have a definite grade + the problem they are considered outside the realm of collectible coins so "they are not solid for the grade" EVEN THOUGH THE GRADE IS CORRECT (solid) w/o the problem.
I tried to date a beautiful woman once. She was very accomplished with two graduates degrees. She had won prizes for her charitable work and she was drop dead gorgeous. She was dead, but if you ignore that, she was perfect.
It simply doesn't make any sense to spend a lot of time debating whether a details coin is a 50 or a 53 if you ignore the 3 holes in it when it had been made into a button. You'll find half dimes and 3 cent silvers used this way and 20% of the surface is missing.
Is there really any point in discussing what a "solid" 65 means for a coin with almost no marks but a big giant hole in it? Details grades are arrived at by ignoring the biggest defect the coin has. By there very nature they must exist in a parallel, hypothetical grading universe.
Please come off your high perch. I know for a fact that some men are very attracted to and like to play around with dead women. In the same way, some of us can only afford solid for THEIR GRADE problem coins. As I wrote above. I think the pissing match revolves around grading interpretation. Long ago a teacher explained "technical grading" that was used to describe a coin fully with this example. If he took a flawless MS-70 SE and put a hole into it, the correct "Technical grade" for that cull coin would be...wait for it... MS-70, holed! LOL. That's probably why technical grading was a joke.
Me either. Ignorance is normal. Repeated failure to learn the same information is irritating.
Perhaps a failure to read something and understand it is a common problem. I thanked @MFeld for educating me on how the words "solid for the grade" are USED TODAY. @jmlanzaf has been a big help too. I'm just continuing to point out a contradiction. As with net gradeing, It appears all VF coins are not VF's! Unlike you, that is a very wacky and confusing concept for a simple man like me to understand. I'm sorry, but I'm the problem and did not wish to sidetrack this discussion. So...
Yes, I would buy any coin I liked that I could afford (the big catch) no matter if it was raw, slabbed by any service, detailed, or stickered.
The coin, no coin, simply cannot be “solid for the grade” and “damaged Details” at the same time.
I think you are incorrect. Otherwise I don't under stand this. A details coin can be solid for whatever it grades w/o the damage. The problem does not change the grade. It changes the price and the desirability.
The details gtade is absolutely "changed". An "XF details" coin is ABSOLUTELY NOT an "XF" coin at all and can NOT ever be a "solid XF" coin. Details grades are essentially a completely separate grading scale.
I didn't see this post so I guess what you are saying is an XF details coin is not really an XF. Better tell that to the TPGS. I guess they have been lying to us all these years. So what is it a Fine? LOL. IMO, grading a coin is not complicated so I don't understand why experts try to make it complicated.
It looks like you 5* experts will only consider original coins to be solid for the grade. That makes no sense to a non-expert. PCGS must have been right in 1986. BRING BACK BODY BAGS so any slab will be solid for the grade by the graders from now on.
I’m not saying that an XF details coin isn’t really an XF.
However, most collectors and dealers use terms such as “solid for the grade” “high end”, “low end”, “average quality “ etc. for straight grade coins - not for detail grade coins.
No one’s trying to make that complicated and it’s not.
Even though grading is a spectrum, it seems the argument here has been that a details coin can only be a C coin going by the rule that A and B coins are "solid for the grade." Which for an example where you have a spectrum:
64C - 64B - 64A - 65C - 65B - 65A
The suggestion is that a details 65C coin, if you add a few more bag marks doesn't go down one spot to 64A, it jumps all the way to 64C. Am I understanding this right?
No, a details coin isn’t an A (high end), coin, a B (mid range) coin or a C (low end) coin. Those terms are used for straight grade coins. Detail coins fall into their own category.
I and others have stated this a number of times previously. You don’t have to accept what we say or agree with us. And you’te free to classify coins however you wish. But I’m going to do my best not to keep repeating this here.
Then I interpret that you're saying that a details grade coin then is ungradeable but that isn't the case. The ANA grading standards can still be assessed against a coin and a grade determined.
And what do the ANA Grading standards say about corrosion? Holes?
The standards are applied as though the defect isn't there. And that's what "details" means. If this coin hadn't been serrated and holed to make a pie crimper and then buried in the ground till it was porous it would have the wear of a VF coin. But it DOESN'T. So it exists in a parallel universe of details grades.
I can't even believe this is under discussion. Once upon a time, the TPGS's body bagged problem coins. Then they decided to "details" grade many of the formerly ungradeable coins. But no one in the hobby refers to a "solid XF" for a details coin. Sure, some holed coins have more details left than others, but the grade itself is imaginary because it is made assuming there is no big giant hole in the coin.
Like it or not, that is the way the hobby treats such coins.
I guess I could have been clearer but I wasn't really referring to coins that are severely damaged.
An abrasion that consists of 6 or 7 marks grouped closely together is really no different than a coin with 6 or 7 scattered marks of the same size. You can grade one but not the other? One can be solid for the grade and the others can't?
I have a few NGC coins that are straight graded that I can tell were probably wiped. They are very solid for the grade they were given and borderline good for the next higher grade. I know CAC would not sticker them and would probably slab them as Details. They are very solid for the grade no matter what you guys say.
The coin, no coin, simply cannot be “solid for the grade” and “damaged Details” at the same time.
I think you are incorrect. Otherwise I don't under stand this. A details coin can be solid for whatever it grades w/o the damage. The problem does not change the grade. It changes the price and the desirability.
The details gtade is absolutely "changed". An "XF details" coin is ABSOLUTELY NOT an "XF" coin at all and can NOT ever be a "solid XF" coin. Details grades are essentially a completely separate grading scale.
I didn't see this post so I guess what you are saying is an XF details coin is not really an XF. Better tell that to the TPGS. I guess they have been lying to us all these years. So what is it a Fine? LOL. IMO, grading a coin is not complicated so I don't understand why experts try to make it complicated.
It looks like you 5* experts will only consider original coins to be solid for the grade. That makes no sense to a non-expert. PCGS must have been right in 1986. BRING BACK BODY BAGS so any slab will be solid for the grade by the graders from now on.
I’m not saying that an XF details coin isn’t really an XF.
However, most collectors and dealers use terms such as “solid for the grade” “high end”, “low end”, “average quality “ etc. for straight grade coins - not for detail grade coins.
No one’s trying to make that complicated and it’s not.
Even though grading is a spectrum, it seems the argument here has been that a details coin can only be a C coin going by the rule that A and B coins are "solid for the grade." Which for an example where you have a spectrum:
64C - 64B - 64A - 65C - 65B - 65A
The suggestion is that a details 65C coin, if you add a few more bag marks doesn't go down one spot to 64A, it jumps all the way to 64C. Am I understanding this right?
No, a details coin isn’t an A (high end), coin, a B (mid range) coin or a C (low end) coin. Those terms are used for straight grade coins. Detail coins fall into their own category.
I and others have stated this a number of times previously. You don’t have to accept what we say or agree with us. And you’te free to classify coins however you wish. But I’m going to do my best not to keep repeating this here.
Then I interpret that you're saying that a details grade coin then is ungradeable but that isn't the case. The ANA grading standards can still be assessed against a coin and a grade determined.
And what do the ANA Grading standards say about corrosion? Holes?
The standards are applied as though the defect isn't there. And that's what "details" means. If this coin hadn't been serrated and holed to make a pie crimper and then buried in the ground till it was porous it would have the wear of a VF coin. But it DOESN'T. So it exists in a parallel universe of details grades.
I can't even believe this is under discussion. Once upon a time, the TPGS's body bagged problem coins. Then they decided to "details" grade many of the formerly ungradeable coins. But no one in the hobby refers to a "solid XF" for a details coin. Sure, some holed coins have more details left than others, but the grade itself is imaginary because it is made assuming there is no big giant hole in the coin.
Like it or not, that is the way the hobby treats such coins.
I guess I could have been clearer but I wasn't really referring to coins that are severely damaged.
An abrasion that consists of 6 or 7 marks grouped closely together is really no different than a coin with 6 or 7 scattered marks of the same size. You can grade one but not the other? One can be solid for the grade and the others can't?
I have a few NGC coins that are straight graded that I can tell were probably wiped. They are very solid for the grade they were given and borderline good for the next higher grade. I know CAC would not sticker them and would probably slab them as Details. They are very solid for the grade no matter what you guys say.
Ok. 😁
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
The coin, no coin, simply cannot be “solid for the grade” and “damaged Details” at the same time.
I think you are incorrect. Otherwise I don't under stand this. A details coin can be solid for whatever it grades w/o the damage. The problem does not change the grade. It changes the price and the desirability.
The details gtade is absolutely "changed". An "XF details" coin is ABSOLUTELY NOT an "XF" coin at all and can NOT ever be a "solid XF" coin. Details grades are essentially a completely separate grading scale.
I didn't see this post so I guess what you are saying is an XF details coin is not really an XF. Better tell that to the TPGS. I guess they have been lying to us all these years. So what is it a Fine? LOL. IMO, grading a coin is not complicated so I don't understand why experts try to make it complicated.
It looks like you 5* experts will only consider original coins to be solid for the grade. That makes no sense to a non-expert. PCGS must have been right in 1986. BRING BACK BODY BAGS so any slab will be solid for the grade by the graders from now on.
I’m not saying that an XF details coin isn’t really an XF.
However, most collectors and dealers use terms such as “solid for the grade” “high end”, “low end”, “average quality “ etc. for straight grade coins - not for detail grade coins.
No one’s trying to make that complicated and it’s not.
Even though grading is a spectrum, it seems the argument here has been that a details coin can only be a C coin going by the rule that A and B coins are "solid for the grade." Which for an example where you have a spectrum:
64C - 64B - 64A - 65C - 65B - 65A
The suggestion is that a details 65C coin, if you add a few more bag marks doesn't go down one spot to 64A, it jumps all the way to 64C. Am I understanding this right?
No, a details coin isn’t an A (high end), coin, a B (mid range) coin or a C (low end) coin. Those terms are used for straight grade coins. Detail coins fall into their own category.
I and others have stated this a number of times previously. You don’t have to accept what we say or agree with us. And you’te free to classify coins however you wish. But I’m going to do my best not to keep repeating this here.
Then I interpret that you're saying that a details grade coin then is ungradeable but that isn't the case. The ANA grading standards can still be assessed against a coin and a grade determined.
And what do the ANA Grading standards say about corrosion? Holes?
The standards are applied as though the defect isn't there. And that's what "details" means. If this coin hadn't been serrated and holed to make a pie crimper and then buried in the ground till it was porous it would have the wear of a VF coin. But it DOESN'T. So it exists in a parallel universe of details grades.
I can't even believe this is under discussion. Once upon a time, the TPGS's body bagged problem coins. Then they decided to "details" grade many of the formerly ungradeable coins. But no one in the hobby refers to a "solid XF" for a details coin. Sure, some holed coins have more details left than others, but the grade itself is imaginary because it is made assuming there is no big giant hole in the coin.
Like it or not, that is the way the hobby treats such coins.
I guess I could have been clearer but I wasn't really referring to coins that are severely damaged.
An abrasion that consists of 6 or 7 marks grouped closely together is really no different than a coin with 6 or 7 scattered marks of the same size. You can grade one but not the other? One can be solid for the grade and the others can't?
I have a few NGC coins that are straight graded that I can tell were probably wiped. They are very solid for the grade they were given and borderline good for the next higher grade. I know CAC would not sticker them and would probably slab them as Details. They are very solid for the grade no matter what you guys say.
That is something of a different matter. But, still, you are asking for problems to be ignored to achieve a "solid for the grade". Do you really want to pay 65 money for a 65 that's been wiped?
@MrEureka said:
if you’re not an expert grader, it’s far safer and probably smarter to stick with the beans.
So, if I buy a coin in a coin in a PCGS slab without a bean sticker, I'm being less safe and not as smart? Really?
It is definitely less safe. It is also "less smart" if you're "not an expert grader" because it is less safe. When is the less safe road the smarter road?
I buy a lot of raw coins. That is even less safe for a novice and, therefore, less smart. My dangerous and silly behavior is somewhat mitigated by the fact that I'm not a novice. But even for me, it is safer to buy slabbed and even safer to buy CAC.
I do agree with this!
I bought a PCGS slabbed rare gold from a dealer, who was up front and told me that someone probably tried to CAC it once and it failed, since it had a high dollar value. He felt it had no obvious cleaning, however it was a touch light in toning, to me, but attractive and nice surfaces. I bought it and sent it to CAC.
CAC said that it was cleaned a long time ago and had the original toning stripped down and had toned back some.
I still like the coin and only 10 have CACed for the issue, John Albanese said this piece was still extremely collectable. However for those of us who are not true experts and /or don't trust their gut, it can be helpful. Supposedly CAC will comment on some fraction of the coins that don't pass, if you ask up front. Just don't ask for all of the them that don't pass.
Its possible that some stripped down coins have CAC'ed as well, but I feel probably a lower percentage of these have the sticker.
@keyman64 said:
I don't need CAC to tell me this is a cool coin.
No but he might tell you it’s artificial toning. 🍻
There is a toned and matching set of 1939 Mercury Dimes that were obviously stored together. I also owned the 1939-D in MS68+FB CAC, sold it a few months ago.
I was offered the 1939-S in MS68 when I found it almost a year ago but the price was not right for me and I also think it is a couple points over graded. I have viewed it in hand. There are way too many heavy hits.
These coins were not artificially toned.
"If it's not fun, it's not worth it." - KeyMan64 Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
@keyman64 said:
I don't need CAC to tell me this is a cool coin.
No but he might tell you it’s artificial toning. 🍻
I was offered the 1939-S in MS68 when I found it almost a year ago but the price was not right for me and I also think it is a couple points over graded. I have viewed it in hand. There are way too many heavy hits.
These coins were not artificially toned.
Ok good. So we agree cool coin, but for the purpose of this thread, it’s over graded and the reason it did not CAC. I do like that you also mentioned it was more than you were willing to pay initially.
The 1939-P was the initial coin that I posted and I do not think it is overgraded. It just didn’t meet CAC’s standards for a sticker.
The 1939-D, which I used to own, did meet their standards for a sticker.
The 1939-S, which I have never owned, I doubt would sticker or ever regrade that high again if cracked out and sent to any service. Because of the matched set, I wanted to own it (I didn’t care that it didn’t have a sticker or would ever get one) but could not bury myself in the coin so I passed. Gotta buy coins right. Buy the coin, not the holder or the sticker!!! I have seen plenty of coins that have stickers and should NOT have stickers on them.
"If it's not fun, it's not worth it." - KeyMan64 Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
The coin, no coin, simply cannot be “solid for the grade” and “damaged Details” at the same time.
I think you are incorrect. Otherwise I don't under stand this. A details coin can be solid for whatever it grades w/o the damage. The problem does not change the grade. It changes the price and the desirability.
The details gtade is absolutely "changed". An "XF details" coin is ABSOLUTELY NOT an "XF" coin at all and can NOT ever be a "solid XF" coin. Details grades are essentially a completely separate grading scale.
I didn't see this post so I guess what you are saying is an XF details coin is not really an XF. Better tell that to the TPGS. I guess they have been lying to us all these years. So what is it a Fine? LOL. IMO, grading a coin is not complicated so I don't understand why experts try to make it complicated.
It looks like you 5* experts will only consider original coins to be solid for the grade. That makes no sense to a non-expert. PCGS must have been right in 1986. BRING BACK BODY BAGS so any slab will be solid for the grade by the graders from now on.
I’m not saying that an XF details coin isn’t really an XF.
However, most collectors and dealers use terms such as “solid for the grade” “high end”, “low end”, “average quality “ etc. for straight grade coins - not for detail grade coins.
No one’s trying to make that complicated and it’s not.
Even though grading is a spectrum, it seems the argument here has been that a details coin can only be a C coin going by the rule that A and B coins are "solid for the grade." Which for an example where you have a spectrum:
64C - 64B - 64A - 65C - 65B - 65A
The suggestion is that a details 65C coin, if you add a few more bag marks doesn't go down one spot to 64A, it jumps all the way to 64C. Am I understanding this right?
No, a details coin isn’t an A (high end), coin, a B (mid range) coin or a C (low end) coin. Those terms are used for straight grade coins. Detail coins fall into their own category.
I and others have stated this a number of times previously. You don’t have to accept what we say or agree with us. And you’te free to classify coins however you wish. But I’m going to do my best not to keep repeating this here.
Then I interpret that you're saying that a details grade coin then is ungradeable but that isn't the case. The ANA grading standards can still be assessed against a coin and a grade determined.
And what do the ANA Grading standards say about corrosion? Holes?
The standards are applied as though the defect isn't there. And that's what "details" means. If this coin hadn't been serrated and holed to make a pie crimper and then buried in the ground till it was porous it would have the wear of a VF coin. But it DOESN'T. So it exists in a parallel universe of details grades.
I can't even believe this is under discussion. Once upon a time, the TPGS's body bagged problem coins. Then they decided to "details" grade many of the formerly ungradeable coins. But no one in the hobby refers to a "solid XF" for a details coin. Sure, some holed coins have more details left than others, but the grade itself is imaginary because it is made assuming there is no big giant hole in the coin.
Like it or not, that is the way the hobby treats such coins.
I guess I could have been clearer but I wasn't really referring to coins that are severely damaged.
An abrasion that consists of 6 or 7 marks grouped closely together is really no different than a coin with 6 or 7 scattered marks of the same size. You can grade one but not the other? One can be solid for the grade and the others can't?
I have a few NGC coins that are straight graded that I can tell were probably wiped. They are very solid for the grade they were given and borderline good for the next higher grade. I know CAC would not sticker them and would probably slab them as Details. They are very solid for the grade no matter what you guys say.
That is something of a different matter. But, still, you are asking for problems to be ignored to achieve a "solid for the grade". Do you really want to pay 65 money for a 65 that's been wiped?
No, I'm not asking for problems to be ignored. NGC straight graded the coin. We can debate if they ignored it, but I didn't. I also have coins like that from PCGS as well.
Seems like no one has an answer for my abrasion question. I'll expand it to questionable color. Just because the toning is qustionable, why can't you have a solid-for-the-grade MS65 Morgan with questionable color?
Did I say somewhere that I paid 65 money for a 65 that's been wiped? Why is this assumed? I'm sure you like myself and most collectors on here pay better for great material and discount for material when it's called for. I'm the type if I'm looking at a used car you're selling me I'm going to point out every flaw I can to get the price lower.
CAC has no, none…. Zero bearing on my opinion of a coin, quality or place in my collection. it does however make an impact on my calculations for pricing. That said I respect their bona fides and consistency and correlate them to quality.
The coin, no coin, simply cannot be “solid for the grade” and “damaged Details” at the same time.
I think you are incorrect. Otherwise I don't under stand this. A details coin can be solid for whatever it grades w/o the damage. The problem does not change the grade. It changes the price and the desirability.
The details gtade is absolutely "changed". An "XF details" coin is ABSOLUTELY NOT an "XF" coin at all and can NOT ever be a "solid XF" coin. Details grades are essentially a completely separate grading scale.
I didn't see this post so I guess what you are saying is an XF details coin is not really an XF. Better tell that to the TPGS. I guess they have been lying to us all these years. So what is it a Fine? LOL. IMO, grading a coin is not complicated so I don't understand why experts try to make it complicated.
It looks like you 5* experts will only consider original coins to be solid for the grade. That makes no sense to a non-expert. PCGS must have been right in 1986. BRING BACK BODY BAGS so any slab will be solid for the grade by the graders from now on.
I’m not saying that an XF details coin isn’t really an XF.
However, most collectors and dealers use terms such as “solid for the grade” “high end”, “low end”, “average quality “ etc. for straight grade coins - not for detail grade coins.
No one’s trying to make that complicated and it’s not.
Even though grading is a spectrum, it seems the argument here has been that a details coin can only be a C coin going by the rule that A and B coins are "solid for the grade." Which for an example where you have a spectrum:
64C - 64B - 64A - 65C - 65B - 65A
The suggestion is that a details 65C coin, if you add a few more bag marks doesn't go down one spot to 64A, it jumps all the way to 64C. Am I understanding this right?
No, a details coin isn’t an A (high end), coin, a B (mid range) coin or a C (low end) coin. Those terms are used for straight grade coins. Detail coins fall into their own category.
I and others have stated this a number of times previously. You don’t have to accept what we say or agree with us. And you’te free to classify coins however you wish. But I’m going to do my best not to keep repeating this here.
Then I interpret that you're saying that a details grade coin then is ungradeable but that isn't the case. The ANA grading standards can still be assessed against a coin and a grade determined.
And what do the ANA Grading standards say about corrosion? Holes?
The standards are applied as though the defect isn't there. And that's what "details" means. If this coin hadn't been serrated and holed to make a pie crimper and then buried in the ground till it was porous it would have the wear of a VF coin. But it DOESN'T. So it exists in a parallel universe of details grades.
I can't even believe this is under discussion. Once upon a time, the TPGS's body bagged problem coins. Then they decided to "details" grade many of the formerly ungradeable coins. But no one in the hobby refers to a "solid XF" for a details coin. Sure, some holed coins have more details left than others, but the grade itself is imaginary because it is made assuming there is no big giant hole in the coin.
Like it or not, that is the way the hobby treats such coins.
I guess I could have been clearer but I wasn't really referring to coins that are severely damaged.
An abrasion that consists of 6 or 7 marks grouped closely together is really no different than a coin with 6 or 7 scattered marks of the same size. You can grade one but not the other? One can be solid for the grade and the others can't?
I have a few NGC coins that are straight graded that I can tell were probably wiped. They are very solid for the grade they were given and borderline good for the next higher grade. I know CAC would not sticker them and would probably slab them as Details. They are very solid for the grade no matter what you guys say.
That is something of a different matter. But, still, you are asking for problems to be ignored to achieve a "solid for the grade". Do you really want to pay 65 money for a 65 that's been wiped?
No, I'm not asking for problems to be ignored. NGC straight graded the coin. We can debate if they ignored it, but I didn't. I also have coins like that from PCGS as well.
Seems like no one has an answer for my abrasion question. I'll expand it to questionable color. Just because the toning is qustionable, why can't you have a solid-for-the-grade MS65 Morgan with questionable color?
Did I say somewhere that I paid 65 money for a 65 that's been wiped? Why is this assumed? I'm sure you like myself and most collectors on here pay better for great material and discount for material when it's called for. I'm the type if I'm looking at a used car you're selling me I'm going to point out every flaw I can to get the price lower.
The logic I use is like this:
1) coin has damage?
A) if yes, no point in evaluating further as to what grade it might have been.
The coin, no coin, simply cannot be “solid for the grade” and “damaged Details” at the same time.
I think you are incorrect. Otherwise I don't under stand this. A details coin can be solid for whatever it grades w/o the damage. The problem does not change the grade. It changes the price and the desirability.
The details gtade is absolutely "changed". An "XF details" coin is ABSOLUTELY NOT an "XF" coin at all and can NOT ever be a "solid XF" coin. Details grades are essentially a completely separate grading scale.
I didn't see this post so I guess what you are saying is an XF details coin is not really an XF. Better tell that to the TPGS. I guess they have been lying to us all these years. So what is it a Fine? LOL. IMO, grading a coin is not complicated so I don't understand why experts try to make it complicated.
It looks like you 5* experts will only consider original coins to be solid for the grade. That makes no sense to a non-expert. PCGS must have been right in 1986. BRING BACK BODY BAGS so any slab will be solid for the grade by the graders from now on.
I’m not saying that an XF details coin isn’t really an XF.
However, most collectors and dealers use terms such as “solid for the grade” “high end”, “low end”, “average quality “ etc. for straight grade coins - not for detail grade coins.
No one’s trying to make that complicated and it’s not.
Even though grading is a spectrum, it seems the argument here has been that a details coin can only be a C coin going by the rule that A and B coins are "solid for the grade." Which for an example where you have a spectrum:
64C - 64B - 64A - 65C - 65B - 65A
The suggestion is that a details 65C coin, if you add a few more bag marks doesn't go down one spot to 64A, it jumps all the way to 64C. Am I understanding this right?
No, a details coin isn’t an A (high end), coin, a B (mid range) coin or a C (low end) coin. Those terms are used for straight grade coins. Detail coins fall into their own category.
I and others have stated this a number of times previously. You don’t have to accept what we say or agree with us. And you’te free to classify coins however you wish. But I’m going to do my best not to keep repeating this here.
Then I interpret that you're saying that a details grade coin then is ungradeable but that isn't the case. The ANA grading standards can still be assessed against a coin and a grade determined.
And what do the ANA Grading standards say about corrosion? Holes?
The standards are applied as though the defect isn't there. And that's what "details" means. If this coin hadn't been serrated and holed to make a pie crimper and then buried in the ground till it was porous it would have the wear of a VF coin. But it DOESN'T. So it exists in a parallel universe of details grades.
I can't even believe this is under discussion. Once upon a time, the TPGS's body bagged problem coins. Then they decided to "details" grade many of the formerly ungradeable coins. But no one in the hobby refers to a "solid XF" for a details coin. Sure, some holed coins have more details left than others, but the grade itself is imaginary because it is made assuming there is no big giant hole in the coin.
Like it or not, that is the way the hobby treats such coins.
I guess I could have been clearer but I wasn't really referring to coins that are severely damaged.
An abrasion that consists of 6 or 7 marks grouped closely together is really no different than a coin with 6 or 7 scattered marks of the same size. You can grade one but not the other? One can be solid for the grade and the others can't?
I have a few NGC coins that are straight graded that I can tell were probably wiped. They are very solid for the grade they were given and borderline good for the next higher grade. I know CAC would not sticker them and would probably slab them as Details. They are very solid for the grade no matter what you guys say.
That is something of a different matter. But, still, you are asking for problems to be ignored to achieve a "solid for the grade". Do you really want to pay 65 money for a 65 that's been wiped?
No, I'm not asking for problems to be ignored. NGC straight graded the coin. We can debate if they ignored it, but I didn't. I also have coins like that from PCGS as well.
Seems like no one has an answer for my abrasion question. I'll expand it to questionable color. Just because the toning is qustionable, why can't you have a solid-for-the-grade MS65 Morgan with questionable color?
Did I say somewhere that I paid 65 money for a 65 that's been wiped? Why is this assumed? I'm sure you like myself and most collectors on here pay better for great material and discount for material when it's called for. I'm the type if I'm looking at a used car you're selling me I'm going to point out every flaw I can to get the price lower.
It can't be "solid" if there's a problem. It's that simple. Thar is what 65 details means: it had the details of a 65 but it had a problem that disqualifies it from that grade. To call it a solid but disqualified 65 is not what anyone in the hobby does because it would be, at best, confusing. "This coin is a solid 65, but we can't grade it because it's been cleaned/AT/wiped/scratched/ holed. "
We could also just use a 125 point grading system, but that's going to confuse people using the Sheldon scale. You are effectively arguing to change the way EVERYONE handles details coins. Knock yourself out.
The coin, no coin, simply cannot be “solid for the grade” and “damaged Details” at the same time.
I think you are incorrect. Otherwise I don't under stand this. A details coin can be solid for whatever it grades w/o the damage. The problem does not change the grade. It changes the price and the desirability.
The details gtade is absolutely "changed". An "XF details" coin is ABSOLUTELY NOT an "XF" coin at all and can NOT ever be a "solid XF" coin. Details grades are essentially a completely separate grading scale.
I didn't see this post so I guess what you are saying is an XF details coin is not really an XF. Better tell that to the TPGS. I guess they have been lying to us all these years. So what is it a Fine? LOL. IMO, grading a coin is not complicated so I don't understand why experts try to make it complicated.
It looks like you 5* experts will only consider original coins to be solid for the grade. That makes no sense to a non-expert. PCGS must have been right in 1986. BRING BACK BODY BAGS so any slab will be solid for the grade by the graders from now on.
I’m not saying that an XF details coin isn’t really an XF.
However, most collectors and dealers use terms such as “solid for the grade” “high end”, “low end”, “average quality “ etc. for straight grade coins - not for detail grade coins.
No one’s trying to make that complicated and it’s not.
Even though grading is a spectrum, it seems the argument here has been that a details coin can only be a C coin going by the rule that A and B coins are "solid for the grade." Which for an example where you have a spectrum:
64C - 64B - 64A - 65C - 65B - 65A
The suggestion is that a details 65C coin, if you add a few more bag marks doesn't go down one spot to 64A, it jumps all the way to 64C. Am I understanding this right?
No, a details coin isn’t an A (high end), coin, a B (mid range) coin or a C (low end) coin. Those terms are used for straight grade coins. Detail coins fall into their own category.
I and others have stated this a number of times previously. You don’t have to accept what we say or agree with us. And you’te free to classify coins however you wish. But I’m going to do my best not to keep repeating this here.
Then I interpret that you're saying that a details grade coin then is ungradeable but that isn't the case. The ANA grading standards can still be assessed against a coin and a grade determined.
And what do the ANA Grading standards say about corrosion? Holes?
The standards are applied as though the defect isn't there. And that's what "details" means. If this coin hadn't been serrated and holed to make a pie crimper and then buried in the ground till it was porous it would have the wear of a VF coin. But it DOESN'T. So it exists in a parallel universe of details grades.
I can't even believe this is under discussion. Once upon a time, the TPGS's body bagged problem coins. Then they decided to "details" grade many of the formerly ungradeable coins. But no one in the hobby refers to a "solid XF" for a details coin. Sure, some holed coins have more details left than others, but the grade itself is imaginary because it is made assuming there is no big giant hole in the coin.
Like it or not, that is the way the hobby treats such coins.
I guess I could have been clearer but I wasn't really referring to coins that are severely damaged.
An abrasion that consists of 6 or 7 marks grouped closely together is really no different than a coin with 6 or 7 scattered marks of the same size. You can grade one but not the other? One can be solid for the grade and the others can't?
I have a few NGC coins that are straight graded that I can tell were probably wiped. They are very solid for the grade they were given and borderline good for the next higher grade. I know CAC would not sticker them and would probably slab them as Details. They are very solid for the grade no matter what you guys say.
That is something of a different matter. But, still, you are asking for problems to be ignored to achieve a "solid for the grade". Do you really want to pay 65 money for a 65 that's been wiped?
No, I'm not asking for problems to be ignored. NGC straight graded the coin. We can debate if they ignored it, but I didn't. I also have coins like that from PCGS as well.
Seems like no one has an answer for my abrasion question. I'll expand it to questionable color. Just because the toning is qustionable, why can't you have a solid-for-the-grade MS65 Morgan with questionable color?
Did I say somewhere that I paid 65 money for a 65 that's been wiped? Why is this assumed? I'm sure you like myself and most collectors on here pay better for great material and discount for material when it's called for. I'm the type if I'm looking at a used car you're selling me I'm going to point out every flaw I can to get the price lower.
It can't be "solid" if there's a problem. It's that simple. Thar is what 65 details means: it had the details of a 65 but it had a problem that disqualifies it from that grade. To call it a solid but disqualified 65 is not what anyone in the hobby does because it would be, at best, confusing. "This coin is a solid 65, but we can't grade it because it's been cleaned/AT/wiped/scratched/ holed. "
We could also just use a 125 point grading system, but that's going to confuse people using the Sheldon scale. You are effectively arguing to change the way EVERYONE handles details coins. Knock yourself out.
So you're unable to take 2 coins with AT that qualify for MS65 under the ANA standards and you're unable to discern that one is a very nice MS65, almost an MS66 and one is barely an MS65, almost an MS64?
Both coins are just Details and no further evaluation of the coin's quality is possible?
The coin, no coin, simply cannot be “solid for the grade” and “damaged Details” at the same time.
I think you are incorrect. Otherwise I don't under stand this. A details coin can be solid for whatever it grades w/o the damage. The problem does not change the grade. It changes the price and the desirability.
The details gtade is absolutely "changed". An "XF details" coin is ABSOLUTELY NOT an "XF" coin at all and can NOT ever be a "solid XF" coin. Details grades are essentially a completely separate grading scale.
I didn't see this post so I guess what you are saying is an XF details coin is not really an XF. Better tell that to the TPGS. I guess they have been lying to us all these years. So what is it a Fine? LOL. IMO, grading a coin is not complicated so I don't understand why experts try to make it complicated.
It looks like you 5* experts will only consider original coins to be solid for the grade. That makes no sense to a non-expert. PCGS must have been right in 1986. BRING BACK BODY BAGS so any slab will be solid for the grade by the graders from now on.
I’m not saying that an XF details coin isn’t really an XF.
However, most collectors and dealers use terms such as “solid for the grade” “high end”, “low end”, “average quality “ etc. for straight grade coins - not for detail grade coins.
No one’s trying to make that complicated and it’s not.
Even though grading is a spectrum, it seems the argument here has been that a details coin can only be a C coin going by the rule that A and B coins are "solid for the grade." Which for an example where you have a spectrum:
64C - 64B - 64A - 65C - 65B - 65A
The suggestion is that a details 65C coin, if you add a few more bag marks doesn't go down one spot to 64A, it jumps all the way to 64C. Am I understanding this right?
No, a details coin isn’t an A (high end), coin, a B (mid range) coin or a C (low end) coin. Those terms are used for straight grade coins. Detail coins fall into their own category.
I and others have stated this a number of times previously. You don’t have to accept what we say or agree with us. And you’te free to classify coins however you wish. But I’m going to do my best not to keep repeating this here.
Then I interpret that you're saying that a details grade coin then is ungradeable but that isn't the case. The ANA grading standards can still be assessed against a coin and a grade determined.
And what do the ANA Grading standards say about corrosion? Holes?
The standards are applied as though the defect isn't there. And that's what "details" means. If this coin hadn't been serrated and holed to make a pie crimper and then buried in the ground till it was porous it would have the wear of a VF coin. But it DOESN'T. So it exists in a parallel universe of details grades.
I can't even believe this is under discussion. Once upon a time, the TPGS's body bagged problem coins. Then they decided to "details" grade many of the formerly ungradeable coins. But no one in the hobby refers to a "solid XF" for a details coin. Sure, some holed coins have more details left than others, but the grade itself is imaginary because it is made assuming there is no big giant hole in the coin.
Like it or not, that is the way the hobby treats such coins.
I guess I could have been clearer but I wasn't really referring to coins that are severely damaged.
An abrasion that consists of 6 or 7 marks grouped closely together is really no different than a coin with 6 or 7 scattered marks of the same size. You can grade one but not the other? One can be solid for the grade and the others can't?
I have a few NGC coins that are straight graded that I can tell were probably wiped. They are very solid for the grade they were given and borderline good for the next higher grade. I know CAC would not sticker them and would probably slab them as Details. They are very solid for the grade no matter what you guys say.
That is something of a different matter. But, still, you are asking for problems to be ignored to achieve a "solid for the grade". Do you really want to pay 65 money for a 65 that's been wiped?
No, I'm not asking for problems to be ignored. NGC straight graded the coin. We can debate if they ignored it, but I didn't. I also have coins like that from PCGS as well.
Seems like no one has an answer for my abrasion question. I'll expand it to questionable color. Just because the toning is qustionable, why can't you have a solid-for-the-grade MS65 Morgan with questionable color?
Did I say somewhere that I paid 65 money for a 65 that's been wiped? Why is this assumed? I'm sure you like myself and most collectors on here pay better for great material and discount for material when it's called for. I'm the type if I'm looking at a used car you're selling me I'm going to point out every flaw I can to get the price lower.
It can't be "solid" if there's a problem. It's that simple. Thar is what 65 details means: it had the details of a 65 but it had a problem that disqualifies it from that grade. To call it a solid but disqualified 65 is not what anyone in the hobby does because it would be, at best, confusing. "This coin is a solid 65, but we can't grade it because it's been cleaned/AT/wiped/scratched/ holed. "
We could also just use a 125 point grading system, but that's going to confuse people using the Sheldon scale. You are effectively arguing to change the way EVERYONE handles details coins. Knock yourself out.
So you're unable to take 2 coins with AT that qualify for MS65 under the ANA standards and you're unable to discern that one is a very nice MS65, almost an MS66 and one is barely an MS65, almost an MS64?
Both coins are just Details and no further evaluation of the coin's quality is possible?
Often, coins are artificially toned in order to hide cleaning and/or flaws. So no matter how nice you think the coin might look, you’re probably getting a false impression.
Why can’t you just accept that many of us have a different view from yours on this topic?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
The coin, no coin, simply cannot be “solid for the grade” and “damaged Details” at the same time.
I think you are incorrect. Otherwise I don't under stand this. A details coin can be solid for whatever it grades w/o the damage. The problem does not change the grade. It changes the price and the desirability.
The details gtade is absolutely "changed". An "XF details" coin is ABSOLUTELY NOT an "XF" coin at all and can NOT ever be a "solid XF" coin. Details grades are essentially a completely separate grading scale.
I didn't see this post so I guess what you are saying is an XF details coin is not really an XF. Better tell that to the TPGS. I guess they have been lying to us all these years. So what is it a Fine? LOL. IMO, grading a coin is not complicated so I don't understand why experts try to make it complicated.
It looks like you 5* experts will only consider original coins to be solid for the grade. That makes no sense to a non-expert. PCGS must have been right in 1986. BRING BACK BODY BAGS so any slab will be solid for the grade by the graders from now on.
I’m not saying that an XF details coin isn’t really an XF.
However, most collectors and dealers use terms such as “solid for the grade” “high end”, “low end”, “average quality “ etc. for straight grade coins - not for detail grade coins.
No one’s trying to make that complicated and it’s not.
Even though grading is a spectrum, it seems the argument here has been that a details coin can only be a C coin going by the rule that A and B coins are "solid for the grade." Which for an example where you have a spectrum:
64C - 64B - 64A - 65C - 65B - 65A
The suggestion is that a details 65C coin, if you add a few more bag marks doesn't go down one spot to 64A, it jumps all the way to 64C. Am I understanding this right?
No, a details coin isn’t an A (high end), coin, a B (mid range) coin or a C (low end) coin. Those terms are used for straight grade coins. Detail coins fall into their own category.
I and others have stated this a number of times previously. You don’t have to accept what we say or agree with us. And you’te free to classify coins however you wish. But I’m going to do my best not to keep repeating this here.
Then I interpret that you're saying that a details grade coin then is ungradeable but that isn't the case. The ANA grading standards can still be assessed against a coin and a grade determined.
And what do the ANA Grading standards say about corrosion? Holes?
The standards are applied as though the defect isn't there. And that's what "details" means. If this coin hadn't been serrated and holed to make a pie crimper and then buried in the ground till it was porous it would have the wear of a VF coin. But it DOESN'T. So it exists in a parallel universe of details grades.
I can't even believe this is under discussion. Once upon a time, the TPGS's body bagged problem coins. Then they decided to "details" grade many of the formerly ungradeable coins. But no one in the hobby refers to a "solid XF" for a details coin. Sure, some holed coins have more details left than others, but the grade itself is imaginary because it is made assuming there is no big giant hole in the coin.
Like it or not, that is the way the hobby treats such coins.
I guess I could have been clearer but I wasn't really referring to coins that are severely damaged.
An abrasion that consists of 6 or 7 marks grouped closely together is really no different than a coin with 6 or 7 scattered marks of the same size. You can grade one but not the other? One can be solid for the grade and the others can't?
I have a few NGC coins that are straight graded that I can tell were probably wiped. They are very solid for the grade they were given and borderline good for the next higher grade. I know CAC would not sticker them and would probably slab them as Details. They are very solid for the grade no matter what you guys say.
That is something of a different matter. But, still, you are asking for problems to be ignored to achieve a "solid for the grade". Do you really want to pay 65 money for a 65 that's been wiped?
No, I'm not asking for problems to be ignored. NGC straight graded the coin. We can debate if they ignored it, but I didn't. I also have coins like that from PCGS as well.
Seems like no one has an answer for my abrasion question. I'll expand it to questionable color. Just because the toning is qustionable, why can't you have a solid-for-the-grade MS65 Morgan with questionable color?
Did I say somewhere that I paid 65 money for a 65 that's been wiped? Why is this assumed? I'm sure you like myself and most collectors on here pay better for great material and discount for material when it's called for. I'm the type if I'm looking at a used car you're selling me I'm going to point out every flaw I can to get the price lower.
It can't be "solid" if there's a problem. It's that simple. Thar is what 65 details means: it had the details of a 65 but it had a problem that disqualifies it from that grade. To call it a solid but disqualified 65 is not what anyone in the hobby does because it would be, at best, confusing. "This coin is a solid 65, but we can't grade it because it's been cleaned/AT/wiped/scratched/ holed. "
We could also just use a 125 point grading system, but that's going to confuse people using the Sheldon scale. You are effectively arguing to change the way EVERYONE handles details coins. Knock yourself out.
So you're unable to take 2 coins with AT that qualify for MS65 under the ANA standards and you're unable to discern that one is a very nice MS65, almost an MS66 and one is barely an MS65, almost an MS64?
Both coins are just Details and no further evaluation of the coin's quality is possible?
Often, coins are artificially toned in order to hide cleaning and/or flaws. So no matter how nice you think the coin might look, you’re probably getting a false impression.
Why can’t you just accept that many of us have a different view from yours on this topic?
I'm truly trying to understand how you can have two MS65 AT coins, one at the A part of the MS65 spectrum and one at the C part of the spectrum and because the color is questionable no one can assess that one is solid for the grade and the other is not. I get what you're saying about toning hiding things but that doesn't stop naturally toned coins from being deemed "solid for the grade" and getting stickered. You're saying that as soon as the toning cause become questionable (and for some coins many numismatic experts would dispute and argue whether some coins are AT or NT) we can no longer determine that a coin is solid for the grade.
Sorry, I just don't see it, but I would still like it explained to reach the level you guys are at.
The coin, no coin, simply cannot be “solid for the grade” and “damaged Details” at the same time.
I think you are incorrect. Otherwise I don't under stand this. A details coin can be solid for whatever it grades w/o the damage. The problem does not change the grade. It changes the price and the desirability.
The details gtade is absolutely "changed". An "XF details" coin is ABSOLUTELY NOT an "XF" coin at all and can NOT ever be a "solid XF" coin. Details grades are essentially a completely separate grading scale.
I didn't see this post so I guess what you are saying is an XF details coin is not really an XF. Better tell that to the TPGS. I guess they have been lying to us all these years. So what is it a Fine? LOL. IMO, grading a coin is not complicated so I don't understand why experts try to make it complicated.
It looks like you 5* experts will only consider original coins to be solid for the grade. That makes no sense to a non-expert. PCGS must have been right in 1986. BRING BACK BODY BAGS so any slab will be solid for the grade by the graders from now on.
I’m not saying that an XF details coin isn’t really an XF.
However, most collectors and dealers use terms such as “solid for the grade” “high end”, “low end”, “average quality “ etc. for straight grade coins - not for detail grade coins.
No one’s trying to make that complicated and it’s not.
Even though grading is a spectrum, it seems the argument here has been that a details coin can only be a C coin going by the rule that A and B coins are "solid for the grade." Which for an example where you have a spectrum:
64C - 64B - 64A - 65C - 65B - 65A
The suggestion is that a details 65C coin, if you add a few more bag marks doesn't go down one spot to 64A, it jumps all the way to 64C. Am I understanding this right?
No, a details coin isn’t an A (high end), coin, a B (mid range) coin or a C (low end) coin. Those terms are used for straight grade coins. Detail coins fall into their own category.
I and others have stated this a number of times previously. You don’t have to accept what we say or agree with us. And you’te free to classify coins however you wish. But I’m going to do my best not to keep repeating this here.
Then I interpret that you're saying that a details grade coin then is ungradeable but that isn't the case. The ANA grading standards can still be assessed against a coin and a grade determined.
And what do the ANA Grading standards say about corrosion? Holes?
The standards are applied as though the defect isn't there. And that's what "details" means. If this coin hadn't been serrated and holed to make a pie crimper and then buried in the ground till it was porous it would have the wear of a VF coin. But it DOESN'T. So it exists in a parallel universe of details grades.
I can't even believe this is under discussion. Once upon a time, the TPGS's body bagged problem coins. Then they decided to "details" grade many of the formerly ungradeable coins. But no one in the hobby refers to a "solid XF" for a details coin. Sure, some holed coins have more details left than others, but the grade itself is imaginary because it is made assuming there is no big giant hole in the coin.
Like it or not, that is the way the hobby treats such coins.
I guess I could have been clearer but I wasn't really referring to coins that are severely damaged.
An abrasion that consists of 6 or 7 marks grouped closely together is really no different than a coin with 6 or 7 scattered marks of the same size. You can grade one but not the other? One can be solid for the grade and the others can't?
I have a few NGC coins that are straight graded that I can tell were probably wiped. They are very solid for the grade they were given and borderline good for the next higher grade. I know CAC would not sticker them and would probably slab them as Details. They are very solid for the grade no matter what you guys say.
That is something of a different matter. But, still, you are asking for problems to be ignored to achieve a "solid for the grade". Do you really want to pay 65 money for a 65 that's been wiped?
No, I'm not asking for problems to be ignored. NGC straight graded the coin. We can debate if they ignored it, but I didn't. I also have coins like that from PCGS as well.
Seems like no one has an answer for my abrasion question. I'll expand it to questionable color. Just because the toning is qustionable, why can't you have a solid-for-the-grade MS65 Morgan with questionable color?
Did I say somewhere that I paid 65 money for a 65 that's been wiped? Why is this assumed? I'm sure you like myself and most collectors on here pay better for great material and discount for material when it's called for. I'm the type if I'm looking at a used car you're selling me I'm going to point out every flaw I can to get the price lower.
It can't be "solid" if there's a problem. It's that simple. Thar is what 65 details means: it had the details of a 65 but it had a problem that disqualifies it from that grade. To call it a solid but disqualified 65 is not what anyone in the hobby does because it would be, at best, confusing. "This coin is a solid 65, but we can't grade it because it's been cleaned/AT/wiped/scratched/ holed. "
We could also just use a 125 point grading system, but that's going to confuse people using the Sheldon scale. You are effectively arguing to change the way EVERYONE handles details coins. Knock yourself out.
So you're unable to take 2 coins with AT that qualify for MS65 under the ANA standards and you're unable to discern that one is a very nice MS65, almost an MS66 and one is barely an MS65, almost an MS64?
Both coins are just Details and no further evaluation of the coin's quality is possible?
Often, coins are artificially toned in order to hide cleaning and/or flaws. So no matter how nice you think the coin might look, you’re probably getting a false impression.
Why can’t you just accept that many of us have a different view from yours on this topic?
I'm truly trying to understand how you can have two MS65 AT coins, one at the A part of the MS65 spectrum and one at the C part of the spectrum and because the color is questionable no one can assess that one is solid for the grade and the other is not. I get what you're saying about toning hiding things but that doesn't stop naturally toned coins from being deemed "solid for the grade" and getting stickered. You're saying that as soon as the toning cause become questionable (and for some coins many numismatic experts would dispute and argue whether some coins are AT or NT) we can no longer determine that a coin is solid for the grade.
Sorry, I just don't see it, but I would still like it explained to reach the level you guys are at.
As has been explained multiple times, once a coin is deemed to have a problem resulting in a detail grade, it falls into a separate category where low-end, mid-range and high-end classifications don’t apply. It’s simply a detail grade coin.
Yes, some detail grade coins have lesser issues/problems than others and some have a better appearance than others. But most market participants don’t categorize them the way you want to. You’re still free to label them whatever you want based on your knowledge and standards. But that doesn’t mean others have to agree.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
The coin, no coin, simply cannot be “solid for the grade” and “damaged Details” at the same time.
I think you are incorrect. Otherwise I don't under stand this. A details coin can be solid for whatever it grades w/o the damage. The problem does not change the grade. It changes the price and the desirability.
The details gtade is absolutely "changed". An "XF details" coin is ABSOLUTELY NOT an "XF" coin at all and can NOT ever be a "solid XF" coin. Details grades are essentially a completely separate grading scale.
I didn't see this post so I guess what you are saying is an XF details coin is not really an XF. Better tell that to the TPGS. I guess they have been lying to us all these years. So what is it a Fine? LOL. IMO, grading a coin is not complicated so I don't understand why experts try to make it complicated.
It looks like you 5* experts will only consider original coins to be solid for the grade. That makes no sense to a non-expert. PCGS must have been right in 1986. BRING BACK BODY BAGS so any slab will be solid for the grade by the graders from now on.
I’m not saying that an XF details coin isn’t really an XF.
However, most collectors and dealers use terms such as “solid for the grade” “high end”, “low end”, “average quality “ etc. for straight grade coins - not for detail grade coins.
No one’s trying to make that complicated and it’s not.
Even though grading is a spectrum, it seems the argument here has been that a details coin can only be a C coin going by the rule that A and B coins are "solid for the grade." Which for an example where you have a spectrum:
64C - 64B - 64A - 65C - 65B - 65A
The suggestion is that a details 65C coin, if you add a few more bag marks doesn't go down one spot to 64A, it jumps all the way to 64C. Am I understanding this right?
No, a details coin isn’t an A (high end), coin, a B (mid range) coin or a C (low end) coin. Those terms are used for straight grade coins. Detail coins fall into their own category.
I and others have stated this a number of times previously. You don’t have to accept what we say or agree with us. And you’te free to classify coins however you wish. But I’m going to do my best not to keep repeating this here.
Then I interpret that you're saying that a details grade coin then is ungradeable but that isn't the case. The ANA grading standards can still be assessed against a coin and a grade determined.
And what do the ANA Grading standards say about corrosion? Holes?
The standards are applied as though the defect isn't there. And that's what "details" means. If this coin hadn't been serrated and holed to make a pie crimper and then buried in the ground till it was porous it would have the wear of a VF coin. But it DOESN'T. So it exists in a parallel universe of details grades.
I can't even believe this is under discussion. Once upon a time, the TPGS's body bagged problem coins. Then they decided to "details" grade many of the formerly ungradeable coins. But no one in the hobby refers to a "solid XF" for a details coin. Sure, some holed coins have more details left than others, but the grade itself is imaginary because it is made assuming there is no big giant hole in the coin.
Like it or not, that is the way the hobby treats such coins.
I guess I could have been clearer but I wasn't really referring to coins that are severely damaged.
An abrasion that consists of 6 or 7 marks grouped closely together is really no different than a coin with 6 or 7 scattered marks of the same size. You can grade one but not the other? One can be solid for the grade and the others can't?
I have a few NGC coins that are straight graded that I can tell were probably wiped. They are very solid for the grade they were given and borderline good for the next higher grade. I know CAC would not sticker them and would probably slab them as Details. They are very solid for the grade no matter what you guys say.
That is something of a different matter. But, still, you are asking for problems to be ignored to achieve a "solid for the grade". Do you really want to pay 65 money for a 65 that's been wiped?
No, I'm not asking for problems to be ignored. NGC straight graded the coin. We can debate if they ignored it, but I didn't. I also have coins like that from PCGS as well.
Seems like no one has an answer for my abrasion question. I'll expand it to questionable color. Just because the toning is qustionable, why can't you have a solid-for-the-grade MS65 Morgan with questionable color?
Did I say somewhere that I paid 65 money for a 65 that's been wiped? Why is this assumed? I'm sure you like myself and most collectors on here pay better for great material and discount for material when it's called for. I'm the type if I'm looking at a used car you're selling me I'm going to point out every flaw I can to get the price lower.
It can't be "solid" if there's a problem. It's that simple. Thar is what 65 details means: it had the details of a 65 but it had a problem that disqualifies it from that grade. To call it a solid but disqualified 65 is not what anyone in the hobby does because it would be, at best, confusing. "This coin is a solid 65, but we can't grade it because it's been cleaned/AT/wiped/scratched/ holed. "
We could also just use a 125 point grading system, but that's going to confuse people using the Sheldon scale. You are effectively arguing to change the way EVERYONE handles details coins. Knock yourself out.
So you're unable to take 2 coins with AT that qualify for MS65 under the ANA standards and you're unable to discern that one is a very nice MS65, almost an MS66 and one is barely an MS65, almost an MS64?
Both coins are just Details and no further evaluation of the coin's quality is possible?
Often, coins are artificially toned in order to hide cleaning and/or flaws. So no matter how nice you think the coin might look, you’re probably getting a false impression.
Why can’t you just accept that many of us have a different view from yours on this topic?
I'm truly trying to understand how you can have two MS65 AT coins, one at the A part of the MS65 spectrum and one at the C part of the spectrum and because the color is questionable no one can assess that one is solid for the grade and the other is not. I get what you're saying about toning hiding things but that doesn't stop naturally toned coins from being deemed "solid for the grade" and getting stickered. You're saying that as soon as the toning cause become questionable (and for some coins many numismatic experts would dispute and argue whether some coins are AT or NT) we can no longer determine that a coin is solid for the grade.
Sorry, I just don't see it, but I would still like it explained to reach the level you guys are at.
Because it's NOT SOLID and doesn't even have a grade. Let's take the holed coin again. I've got a raw Morgam coin that is a 66 because it has no marks except for a distracting reed mark on the cheek. If I drill a hole through the red mark, using your terminology i have a SOLID 67 that is holed. Doesn't that seem ludicrous?
The hole is extreme but use AT, wipes, tooling, or environmental damage and you have the same issue. To call it ac solid anything when there's damage that could be obscuring defects is ridiculous. And, in many cases, it's not even obscuring the defect but is the defect that would remove it from the grade itself. An XF details copper that had corrosion could never be "solid XF" because the corrosion is defect itself that would remove any possibility of being XF.
The coin, no coin, simply cannot be “solid for the grade” and “damaged Details” at the same time.
I think you are incorrect. Otherwise I don't under stand this. A details coin can be solid for whatever it grades w/o the damage. The problem does not change the grade. It changes the price and the desirability.
The details gtade is absolutely "changed". An "XF details" coin is ABSOLUTELY NOT an "XF" coin at all and can NOT ever be a "solid XF" coin. Details grades are essentially a completely separate grading scale.
I didn't see this post so I guess what you are saying is an XF details coin is not really an XF. Better tell that to the TPGS. I guess they have been lying to us all these years. So what is it a Fine? LOL. IMO, grading a coin is not complicated so I don't understand why experts try to make it complicated.
It looks like you 5* experts will only consider original coins to be solid for the grade. That makes no sense to a non-expert. PCGS must have been right in 1986. BRING BACK BODY BAGS so any slab will be solid for the grade by the graders from now on.
I’m not saying that an XF details coin isn’t really an XF.
However, most collectors and dealers use terms such as “solid for the grade” “high end”, “low end”, “average quality “ etc. for straight grade coins - not for detail grade coins.
No one’s trying to make that complicated and it’s not.
Even though grading is a spectrum, it seems the argument here has been that a details coin can only be a C coin going by the rule that A and B coins are "solid for the grade." Which for an example where you have a spectrum:
64C - 64B - 64A - 65C - 65B - 65A
The suggestion is that a details 65C coin, if you add a few more bag marks doesn't go down one spot to 64A, it jumps all the way to 64C. Am I understanding this right?
No, a details coin isn’t an A (high end), coin, a B (mid range) coin or a C (low end) coin. Those terms are used for straight grade coins. Detail coins fall into their own category.
I and others have stated this a number of times previously. You don’t have to accept what we say or agree with us. And you’te free to classify coins however you wish. But I’m going to do my best not to keep repeating this here.
Then I interpret that you're saying that a details grade coin then is ungradeable but that isn't the case. The ANA grading standards can still be assessed against a coin and a grade determined.
And what do the ANA Grading standards say about corrosion? Holes?
The standards are applied as though the defect isn't there. And that's what "details" means. If this coin hadn't been serrated and holed to make a pie crimper and then buried in the ground till it was porous it would have the wear of a VF coin. But it DOESN'T. So it exists in a parallel universe of details grades.
I can't even believe this is under discussion. Once upon a time, the TPGS's body bagged problem coins. Then they decided to "details" grade many of the formerly ungradeable coins. But no one in the hobby refers to a "solid XF" for a details coin. Sure, some holed coins have more details left than others, but the grade itself is imaginary because it is made assuming there is no big giant hole in the coin.
Like it or not, that is the way the hobby treats such coins.
I guess I could have been clearer but I wasn't really referring to coins that are severely damaged.
An abrasion that consists of 6 or 7 marks grouped closely together is really no different than a coin with 6 or 7 scattered marks of the same size. You can grade one but not the other? One can be solid for the grade and the others can't?
I have a few NGC coins that are straight graded that I can tell were probably wiped. They are very solid for the grade they were given and borderline good for the next higher grade. I know CAC would not sticker them and would probably slab them as Details. They are very solid for the grade no matter what you guys say.
That is something of a different matter. But, still, you are asking for problems to be ignored to achieve a "solid for the grade". Do you really want to pay 65 money for a 65 that's been wiped?
No, I'm not asking for problems to be ignored. NGC straight graded the coin. We can debate if they ignored it, but I didn't. I also have coins like that from PCGS as well.
Seems like no one has an answer for my abrasion question. I'll expand it to questionable color. Just because the toning is qustionable, why can't you have a solid-for-the-grade MS65 Morgan with questionable color?
Did I say somewhere that I paid 65 money for a 65 that's been wiped? Why is this assumed? I'm sure you like myself and most collectors on here pay better for great material and discount for material when it's called for. I'm the type if I'm looking at a used car you're selling me I'm going to point out every flaw I can to get the price lower.
It can't be "solid" if there's a problem. It's that simple. Thar is what 65 details means: it had the details of a 65 but it had a problem that disqualifies it from that grade. To call it a solid but disqualified 65 is not what anyone in the hobby does because it would be, at best, confusing. "This coin is a solid 65, but we can't grade it because it's been cleaned/AT/wiped/scratched/ holed. "
We could also just use a 125 point grading system, but that's going to confuse people using the Sheldon scale. You are effectively arguing to change the way EVERYONE handles details coins. Knock yourself out.
So you're unable to take 2 coins with AT that qualify for MS65 under the ANA standards and you're unable to discern that one is a very nice MS65, almost an MS66 and one is barely an MS65, almost an MS64?
Both coins are just Details and no further evaluation of the coin's quality is possible?
Often, coins are artificially toned in order to hide cleaning and/or flaws. So no matter how nice you think the coin might look, you’re probably getting a false impression.
Why can’t you just accept that many of us have a different view from yours on this topic?
I'm truly trying to understand how you can have two MS65 AT coins, one at the A part of the MS65 spectrum and one at the C part of the spectrum and because the color is questionable no one can assess that one is solid for the grade and the other is not. I get what you're saying about toning hiding things but that doesn't stop naturally toned coins from being deemed "solid for the grade" and getting stickered. You're saying that as soon as the toning cause become questionable (and for some coins many numismatic experts would dispute and argue whether some coins are AT or NT) we can no longer determine that a coin is solid for the grade.
Sorry, I just don't see it, but I would still like it explained to reach the level you guys are at.
As has been explained multiple times, once a coin is deemed to have a problem resulting in a detail grade, it falls into a separate category where low-end, mid-range and high-end classifications don’t apply. It’s simply a detail grade coin.
Yes, some detail grade coins have lesser issues/problems than others and some have a better appearance than others. But most market participants don’t categorize them the way you want to. You’re still free to label them whatever you want based on your knowledge and standards. But that doesn’t mean others have to agree.
We may need to go back to simply body bagging the coins.
I'll add that any attempt to differentiate details coins requires a more complex grading scheme than used for straight graded coins.
Let's say i have 3 coins that are identically AU on wear. One is AT, one is holed, and one is polished. You now need to differentiate the degree to which the problem is detracting from the coin. Would you rather have a "solid AU holed" or a "not solid AU questionable color"? How do you differentiate them? Does the degree of cleaning turn a solid AU into a not solid AU?
Comments
Even though grading is a spectrum, it seems the argument here has been that a details coin can only be a C coin going by the rule that A and B coins are "solid for the grade." Which for an example where you have a spectrum:
64C - 64B - 64A - 65C - 65B - 65A
The suggestion is that a details 65C coin, if you add a few more bag marks doesn't go down one spot to 64A, it jumps all the way to 64C. Am I understanding this right?
Thank you. I'm a simple man and not a dealer so I didn't know that. You have educated me.
That should depend on where the extra marks are, right?
No, a details coin isn’t an A (high end), coin, a B (mid range) coin or a C (low end) coin. Those terms are used for straight grade coins. Detail coins fall into their own category.
I and others have stated this a number of times previously. You don’t have to accept what we say or agree with us. And you’te free to classify coins however you wish. But I’m going to do my best not to keep repeating this here.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I always tell my students that I can't repeat myself enough. As the Romans used to say, "repetitio mater studiorum".
I get it. A,B, or C coins don't have non-market acceptable problems but might have market acceptable ones or just more rub or something that make them C coins.
And I thought this was just an example of Mark's superb knowledge and detective work.
I consider myself a student of coin grading yet I never got the message.
Then I interpret that you're saying that a details grade coin then is ungradeable but that isn't the case. The ANA grading standards can still be assessed against a coin and a grade determined.
I’m weak at grading knowledge too, but I think your example of a coin with more rub is also incorrect. I believe while rub is still market acceptable and not details, I believe in the opinion of CACG it typically knocks the grade down a lot more than just to a “C” of the same whole grade. I seem to recall reading as an example that Standing Lib Quarters graded MS by the two other TPG’s, get knocked down to AU58 by CACG due to the rub(s).
Steve
My collecting “Pride & Joy” is my PCGS Registry Dansco 7070 Set:
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/type-sets/design-type-sets/complete-dansco-7070-modified-type-set-1796-date/publishedset/213996
You are correct. However, the dealers that control everything including terminology don't see it that way. While problem coins have a definite grade + the problem they are considered outside the realm of collectible coins so "they are not solid for the grade" EVEN THOUGH THE GRADE IS CORRECT (solid) w/o the problem.
I like the tough grading at CACG and hope it stays that way. AU's should have never ever become today's MS-62's!
And what do the ANA Grading standards say about corrosion? Holes?
The standards are applied as though the defect isn't there. And that's what "details" means. If this coin hadn't been serrated and holed to make a pie crimper and then buried in the ground till it was porous it would have the wear of a VF coin. But it DOESN'T. So it exists in a parallel universe of details grades.
I can't even believe this is under discussion. Once upon a time, the TPGS's body bagged problem coins. Then they decided to "details" grade many of the formerly ungradeable coins. But no one in the hobby refers to a "solid XF" for a details coin. Sure, some holed coins have more details left than others, but the grade itself is imaginary because it is made assuming there is no big giant hole in the coin.
Like it or not, that is the way the hobby treats such coins.
I tried to date a beautiful woman once. She was very accomplished with two graduates degrees. She had won prizes for her charitable work and she was drop dead gorgeous. She was dead, but if you ignore that, she was perfect.
It simply doesn't make any sense to spend a lot of time debating whether a details coin is a 50 or a 53 if you ignore the 3 holes in it when it had been made into a button. You'll find half dimes and 3 cent silvers used this way and 20% of the surface is missing.
Is there really any point in discussing what a "solid" 65 means for a coin with almost no marks but a big giant hole in it? Details grades are arrived at by ignoring the biggest defect the coin has. By there very nature they must exist in a parallel, hypothetical grading universe.
Me either. Ignorance is normal. Repeated failure to learn the same information is irritating.
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
Do you see the contradiction? What is going on in this thread is a pissing match over the interpretation of these relatively modern, dealer made-up (AND UNNECESSARY) four words: "solid for the grade." The problem coin has the details of a VF. I say it is a solid for the VF details grade and others say it is not a solid anything - not even a VF. The hobby can treat it, and does, any way they wish. As with most things devised by professional coin dealers to keep grading complicated - a VF coin with problems is not a VF. Perhaps it is a net graded VG. That's what the Large cent guys do, right?
PS The light bulb just went off. This difference is due to that defunct, simplified, technical grading system where a VF was a VF. Anyway, thanks to Mr. Feld, I now understand the true meaning of "solid."
Please come off your high perch. I know for a fact that some men are very attracted to and like to play around with dead women. In the same way, some of us can only afford solid for THEIR GRADE problem coins. As I wrote above. I think the pissing match revolves around grading interpretation. Long ago a teacher explained "technical grading" that was used to describe a coin fully with this example. If he took a flawless MS-70 SE and put a hole into it, the correct "Technical grade" for that cull coin would be...wait for it... MS-70, holed! LOL. That's probably why technical grading was a joke.
Perhaps a failure to read something and understand it is a common problem. I thanked @MFeld for educating me on how the words "solid for the grade" are USED TODAY. @jmlanzaf has been a big help too. I'm just continuing to point out a contradiction. As with net gradeing, It appears all VF coins are not VF's! Unlike you, that is a very wacky and confusing concept for a simple man like me to understand. I'm sorry, but I'm the problem and did not wish to sidetrack this discussion. So...
Yes, I would buy any coin I liked that I could afford (the big catch) no matter if it was raw, slabbed by any service, detailed, or stickered.
I don't need CAC to tell me this is a cool coin.
Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
I guess I could have been clearer but I wasn't really referring to coins that are severely damaged.
An abrasion that consists of 6 or 7 marks grouped closely together is really no different than a coin with 6 or 7 scattered marks of the same size. You can grade one but not the other? One can be solid for the grade and the others can't?
I have a few NGC coins that are straight graded that I can tell were probably wiped. They are very solid for the grade they were given and borderline good for the next higher grade. I know CAC would not sticker them and would probably slab them as Details. They are very solid for the grade no matter what you guys say.
Ok. 😁
Steve
My collecting “Pride & Joy” is my PCGS Registry Dansco 7070 Set:
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/type-sets/design-type-sets/complete-dansco-7070-modified-type-set-1796-date/publishedset/213996
No but he might tell you it’s artificial toning. 🍻
That is something of a different matter. But, still, you are asking for problems to be ignored to achieve a "solid for the grade". Do you really want to pay 65 money for a 65 that's been wiped?
Three hundred post threads are why I come here.
You don’t need anyone or any grading company to tell you that.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I do agree with this!
I bought a PCGS slabbed rare gold from a dealer, who was up front and told me that someone probably tried to CAC it once and it failed, since it had a high dollar value. He felt it had no obvious cleaning, however it was a touch light in toning, to me, but attractive and nice surfaces. I bought it and sent it to CAC.
CAC said that it was cleaned a long time ago and had the original toning stripped down and had toned back some.
I still like the coin and only 10 have CACed for the issue, John Albanese said this piece was still extremely collectable. However for those of us who are not true experts and /or don't trust their gut, it can be helpful. Supposedly CAC will comment on some fraction of the coins that don't pass, if you ask up front. Just don't ask for all of the them that don't pass.
Its possible that some stripped down coins have CAC'ed as well, but I feel probably a lower percentage of these have the sticker.
There is a toned and matching set of 1939 Mercury Dimes that were obviously stored together. I also owned the 1939-D in MS68+FB CAC, sold it a few months ago.
I was offered the 1939-S in MS68 when I found it almost a year ago but the price was not right for me and I also think it is a couple points over graded. I have viewed it in hand. There are way too many heavy hits.
These coins were not artificially toned.
Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
Ok good. So we agree cool coin, but for the purpose of this thread, it’s over graded and the reason it did not CAC. I do like that you also mentioned it was more than you were willing to pay initially.
For clarity:
The 1939-P was the initial coin that I posted and I do not think it is overgraded. It just didn’t meet CAC’s standards for a sticker.
The 1939-D, which I used to own, did meet their standards for a sticker.
The 1939-S, which I have never owned, I doubt would sticker or ever regrade that high again if cracked out and sent to any service. Because of the matched set, I wanted to own it (I didn’t care that it didn’t have a sticker or would ever get one) but could not bury myself in the coin so I passed. Gotta buy coins right. Buy the coin, not the holder or the sticker!!! I have seen plenty of coins that have stickers and should NOT have stickers on them.
Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
No, I'm not asking for problems to be ignored. NGC straight graded the coin. We can debate if they ignored it, but I didn't. I also have coins like that from PCGS as well.
Seems like no one has an answer for my abrasion question. I'll expand it to questionable color. Just because the toning is qustionable, why can't you have a solid-for-the-grade MS65 Morgan with questionable color?
Did I say somewhere that I paid 65 money for a 65 that's been wiped? Why is this assumed? I'm sure you like myself and most collectors on here pay better for great material and discount for material when it's called for. I'm the type if I'm looking at a used car you're selling me I'm going to point out every flaw I can to get the price lower.
CAC has no, none…. Zero bearing on my opinion of a coin, quality or place in my collection. it does however make an impact on my calculations for pricing. That said I respect their bona fides and consistency and correlate them to quality.
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
As the thread approaches 300 posts….
“The thrill of the hunt never gets old”
PCGS Registry: Screaming Eagles
Copperindian
Retired sets: Soaring Eagles
Copperindian
That changes the dynamic. It took me practically twenty years to even trust sending a coin to David Hall’s company.
>
Thank you for the clarity. Coins that match are nice but just like holder continuity matters to some, so can accurate for the grade.
The logic I use is like this:
1) coin has damage?
A) if yes, no point in evaluating further as to what grade it might have been.
the logic I use is this:
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
Why would you buy a coin that did not CAC?
Same reason I buy any coin... based on its actual merit and not based on who looked at it before me, be it slabbed, stickered, or raw in a 2x2.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
It can't be "solid" if there's a problem. It's that simple. Thar is what 65 details means: it had the details of a 65 but it had a problem that disqualifies it from that grade. To call it a solid but disqualified 65 is not what anyone in the hobby does because it would be, at best, confusing. "This coin is a solid 65, but we can't grade it because it's been cleaned/AT/wiped/scratched/ holed. "
We could also just use a 125 point grading system, but that's going to confuse people using the Sheldon scale. You are effectively arguing to change the way EVERYONE handles details coins. Knock yourself out.
So you're unable to take 2 coins with AT that qualify for MS65 under the ANA standards and you're unable to discern that one is a very nice MS65, almost an MS66 and one is barely an MS65, almost an MS64?
Both coins are just Details and no further evaluation of the coin's quality is possible?
Often, coins are artificially toned in order to hide cleaning and/or flaws. So no matter how nice you think the coin might look, you’re probably getting a false impression.
Why can’t you just accept that many of us have a different view from yours on this topic?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I'm truly trying to understand how you can have two MS65 AT coins, one at the A part of the MS65 spectrum and one at the C part of the spectrum and because the color is questionable no one can assess that one is solid for the grade and the other is not. I get what you're saying about toning hiding things but that doesn't stop naturally toned coins from being deemed "solid for the grade" and getting stickered. You're saying that as soon as the toning cause become questionable (and for some coins many numismatic experts would dispute and argue whether some coins are AT or NT) we can no longer determine that a coin is solid for the grade.
Sorry, I just don't see it, but I would still like it explained to reach the level you guys are at.
As has been explained multiple times, once a coin is deemed to have a problem resulting in a detail grade, it falls into a separate category where low-end, mid-range and high-end classifications don’t apply. It’s simply a detail grade coin.
Yes, some detail grade coins have lesser issues/problems than others and some have a better appearance than others. But most market participants don’t categorize them the way you want to. You’re still free to label them whatever you want based on your knowledge and standards. But that doesn’t mean others have to agree.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Because it's NOT SOLID and doesn't even have a grade. Let's take the holed coin again. I've got a raw Morgam coin that is a 66 because it has no marks except for a distracting reed mark on the cheek. If I drill a hole through the red mark, using your terminology i have a SOLID 67 that is holed. Doesn't that seem ludicrous?
The hole is extreme but use AT, wipes, tooling, or environmental damage and you have the same issue. To call it ac solid anything when there's damage that could be obscuring defects is ridiculous. And, in many cases, it's not even obscuring the defect but is the defect that would remove it from the grade itself. An XF details copper that had corrosion could never be "solid XF" because the corrosion is defect itself that would remove any possibility of being XF.
We may need to go back to simply body bagging the coins.
I'll add that any attempt to differentiate details coins requires a more complex grading scheme than used for straight graded coins.
Let's say i have 3 coins that are identically AU on wear. One is AT, one is holed, and one is polished. You now need to differentiate the degree to which the problem is detracting from the coin. Would you rather have a "solid AU holed" or a "not solid AU questionable color"? How do you differentiate them? Does the degree of cleaning turn a solid AU into a not solid AU?
@jmlanzaf
You’re making a lot of sense with your explanations. Thanks for sharing.
Good Lord. Just checking the tail end of this thread. Must we dig this dead horse up repeatedly and beat it?
Apparently so, as someone just keeps on pushing, like the Energizer Bunny! But that's OK.
Steve
My collecting “Pride & Joy” is my PCGS Registry Dansco 7070 Set:
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/type-sets/design-type-sets/complete-dansco-7070-modified-type-set-1796-date/publishedset/213996
Clearly, yes.
Smitten with DBLCs.
3x so far; approaching 300 posts.
“The thrill of the hunt never gets old”
PCGS Registry: Screaming Eagles
Copperindian
Retired sets: Soaring Eagles
Copperindian
Oh, OK. Now it's 300!
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"