@johnny010 said:
As I’ve built my Morgan set a few coins did not CAC. No matter how hard I’ve tried to justify the coins “should have stickered”, each time I’ve paid more attention and re-louped / learned and realized “I was wrong”.
Now I fully understand buying a coin two hundred plus years ago due to limited availability but most coins if you’re honest with yourself….. have been cleaned and retoned, aren’t suited for their grades etc
I’m sure there are good reasons and I dont expect all positive replies but how many of you have come to the same realization that a non-CAC coin is worth less and is an inferior coin for the grade award.
——
78 posts in, realized I should have clarified and am now adding:
My initial post should here should have defined non-CAC (to me) as a coin that was sent and failed vs a coin that has never been sent.
Oh boy. I hope this is a joke thread. If'n you know how to grade a coin, you don't need a dumb sticker grading the grading services.
@johnny010 said:
As I’ve built my Morgan set a few coins did not CAC. No matter how hard I’ve tried to justify the coins “should have stickered”, each time I’ve paid more attention and re-louped / learned and realized “I was wrong”.
Now I fully understand buying a coin two hundred plus years ago due to limited availability but most coins if you’re honest with yourself….. have been cleaned and retoned, aren’t suited for their grades etc
I’m sure there are good reasons and I dont expect all positive replies but how many of you have come to the same realization that a non-CAC coin is worth less and is an inferior coin for the grade award.
——
78 posts in, realized I should have clarified and am now adding:
My initial post should here should have defined non-CAC (to me) as a coin that was sent and failed vs a coin that has never been sent.
Oh boy. I hope this is a joke thread. If'n you know how to grade a coin, you don't need a dumb sticker grading the grading services.
If you know how to grade a coin, you don’t need grading services, either… that is, unless they’re better graders than you are. And unless they can sometimes help you avoid costly mistakes and provide you with liquidity and maximization of return when it comes time to sell.
But if you think CAC stickers (and by association, professional grading) are dumb, have at it.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
"But if you think CAC stickers (and by association, professional grading) are dumb, have at it." What do you think Mark? As a leader in this field, do you think folks should submit their coins to a grading service, and then resubmit them for a Bean that says the grading services are right about that grade? Would love to hear your take on this! Thanks.
@bennybravo said:
"But if you think CAC stickers (and by association, professional grading) are dumb, have at it." What do you think Mark? As a leader in this field, do you think folks should submit their coins to a grading service, and then resubmit them for a Bean that says the grading services are right about that grade? Would love to hear your take on this! Thanks.
Many coins don't merit professional grading. And of the ones that do, many of those don't merit submission to CAC.
If the coin's ungraded, it depends upon its approximate potential value (and liquidity) graded vs. ungraded. And if the coin's graded, it depends upon the approximate potential value (and liquidity) stickered by CAC vs, not stickered.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@bennybravo said:
"But if you think CAC stickers (and by association, professional grading) are dumb, have at it." What do you think Mark? As a leader in this field, do you think folks should submit their coins to a grading service, and then resubmit them for a Bean that says the grading services are right about that grade? Would love to hear your take on this! Thanks.
Many coins don't merit professional grading. And of the ones that do, many of those don't merit submission to CAC.
If the coin's ungraded, it depends upon its approximate potential value (and liquidity) graded vs. ungraded. And if the coin's graded, it depends upon the approximate potential value (and liquidity) stickered by CAC vs, not stickered.
Thanks for the reply Mark. I see coins all the time of lower value ($100-$500) with those beans, being significantly marked up, and think why or who sent that in, and what the heck that had to cost to get it stickered for pretty common stuff. As someone who collects in the sub $500 per coin range in general, it has just never made sense to me to double check a grading service at that price point. Folks definitely do it though!
@bennybravo said:
"But if you think CAC stickers (and by association, professional grading) are dumb, have at it." What do you think Mark? As a leader in this field, do you think folks should submit their coins to a grading service, and then resubmit them for a Bean that says the grading services are right about that grade? Would love to hear your take on this! Thanks.
Many coins don't merit professional grading. And of the ones that do, many of those don't merit submission to CAC.
If the coin's ungraded, it depends upon its approximate potential value (and liquidity) graded vs. ungraded. And if the coin's graded, it depends upon the approximate potential value (and liquidity) stickered by CAC vs, not stickered.
Thanks for the reply Mark. I see coins all the time of lower value ($100-$500) with those beans, being significantly marked up, and think why or who sent that in, and what the heck that had to cost to get it stickered for pretty common stuff. As someone who collects in the sub $500 per coin range in general, it has just never made sense to me to double check a grading service at that price point. Folks definitely do it though!
It all depends on the price difference versus the cost. If your $100 coin becomes $150 with the CAC, it might be worth the $20.
@bennybravo said:
"But if you think CAC stickers (and by association, professional grading) are dumb, have at it." What do you think Mark? As a leader in this field, do you think folks should submit their coins to a grading service, and then resubmit them for a Bean that says the grading services are right about that grade? Would love to hear your take on this! Thanks.
Many coins don't merit professional grading. And of the ones that do, many of those don't merit submission to CAC.
If the coin's ungraded, it depends upon its approximate potential value (and liquidity) graded vs. ungraded. And if the coin's graded, it depends upon the approximate potential value (and liquidity) stickered by CAC vs, not stickered.
Thanks for the reply Mark. I see coins all the time of lower value ($100-$500) with those beans, being significantly marked up, and think why or who sent that in, and what the heck that had to cost to get it stickered for pretty common stuff. As someone who collects in the sub $500 per coin range in general, it has just never made sense to me to double check a grading service at that price point. Folks definitely do it though!
You’re most welcome.
There are coins in the price range you mentioned that do offer good upside vs. downside in spending the money for CAC submissions. But many others don’t. It depends on the coins, as some carry much larger premiums than others for CAC stickers.
Also, some submitters like to “test their grading skills” by submitting their coins to CAC, even if success won’t add as much value as the cost of submission.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@braddick said:
It is intriguing to me the post-mint damage a Trade dollar receives by being chop marked can still warrant a straight MS63 grade.
I can't think of any other examples anywhere a coin- after leaving the mint and is then altered/damaged can do so.
Good point, Pat!
I don’t think the exceptions made for chop marks are justified.
There are two other examples that quickly come to mind for me, though the “damage” - if that’s how it should be labeled - is far less conspicuous than chop marks.
One is the Dexter 1804 dollar with the “D” stamped on the reverse.
The other isn’t as widely known by numismatists but it’s equally intriguing to me. It’s an Ultra High Relief $20 with the initials “ASG” engraved on its edge. And guess whose estate the coin’s been positively traced to? 😉 For anyone with lots of time on their hands, the catalog description from when Heritage auctioned the coin in 2015 is linked below.
@braddick said:
It is intriguing to me the post-mint damage a Trade dollar receives by being chop marked can still warrant a straight MS63 grade.
I can't think of any other examples anywhere a coin- after leaving the mint and is then altered/damaged can do so.
Good point, Pat!
I don’t think the exceptions made for chop marks are justified.
There are two other examples that quickly come to mind for me, though the “damage” - if that’s how it should be labeled - is far less conspicuous than chop marks.
One is the Dexter 1804 dollar with the “D” stamped on the reverse.
The other isn’t as widely known by numismatists but it’s equally intriguing to me. It’s an Ultra High Relief $20 with the initials “ASG” engraved on its edge. And guess whose estate the coin’s been positively traced to? 😉 For anyone with lots of time on their hands, the catalog description from when Heritage auctioned the coin in 2015 is linked below.
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.
Maybe we have different definitions of the word "solid" which I interpret as being at the high end of the spectrum for a given grade.
You can't tell me that if you have a coin shop and you have two coins with AT that would be MS65 per ANA standards but one is at the "A" end of the spectrum and the other is at the "C" end of the spectrum and this is a coin where there's a significant price difference between 64, 65, and 66, that you wouldn't price the "solid" 65 with AT higher than the "C" 65. In fact the first step in pricing the coin is probably to assess a grade, reference the price guide for that grade and then apply a details discount. In this case you would no doubt price the 65 "A" higher than the 65 "C." Why? Because one is solidly a a 65 and the other is barely a 65.
I think the posts above about coins with chop marks prove that a coin with a details condition can and are very gradeable and if they are gradeable they fall somewhere on the spectrum (like me!) and part of the spectrum per my definition is in the realm of solid even if it has a details condition.
I guess you guys are saying a coin can't be _solid _if it's not CAC eligible which excludes any details coins, which is another definition and we are all entitled to our own definitions, but I think the coin market and what coins sell for argue that nicer details coins sell for more money than less-nice details coins.
Your example is not ludicrous. If the coin is a solid 67 with a hole in it, then that's what it is. any proficient grader can pick it up and say, "Wow, that's a very nice 67. Too bad there's a hole in it." No doubt though that the value and desirability of the coin is significantly impaired due to the hole.
@bennybravo said:
"But if you think CAC stickers (and by association, professional grading) are dumb, have at it." What do you think Mark? As a leader in this field, do you think folks should submit their coins to a grading service, and then resubmit them for a Bean that says the grading services are right about that grade? Would love to hear your take on this! Thanks.
Many coins don't merit professional grading. And of the ones that do, many of those don't merit submission to CAC.
If the coin's ungraded, it depends upon its approximate potential value (and liquidity) graded vs. ungraded. And if the coin's graded, it depends upon the approximate potential value (and liquidity) stickered by CAC vs, not stickered.
Thanks for the reply Mark. I see coins all the time of lower value ($100-$500) with those beans, being significantly marked up, and think why or who sent that in, and what the heck that had to cost to get it stickered for pretty common stuff. As someone who collects in the sub $500 per coin range in general, it has just never made sense to me to double check a grading service at that price point. Folks definitely do it though!
Many forget there was a time that CAC reviewed coins for free, and I believe legacy members still get 20 free per year.
Still many other low value coins may have been submitted in bulk and graded at very low costs.
Regarding 20 “free” CAC stickering services for Legacy members, I could be wrong, but I believe there’s no charge for up to that number of failures. If a coin “Passes”, we pay the fee!
Steve
Edit: As @DisneyFan explains below, my above comment is indeed incorrect!
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@winesteven said:
Regarding 20 “free” CAC stickering services for Legacy members, I could be wrong, but I believe there’s no charge for up to that number of failures. If a coin “Passes”, we pay the fee!
Steve
Unfortunately, I learned the hard way that the Legacy members' 20-coin "free" special is limited to only the first 20 coins submitted annually on the economy tier whether they fail or not. After submitting 20 coins, the the charge is not waived if a future coin fails.
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.
Easy for you to say. I suspect the graders at PCGS and NGC must use different logic as they must provide a service for the fee.
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.
Easy for you to say. I suspect the graders at PCGS and NGC must use different logic as they must provide a service for the fee.
Ok. The grading companies are being paid for their service irrespective of final grade outcome and can’t assess the coin without looking at it closely. Do you not see this as wildly different than me looking at a damaged coin and moving on?
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.
Maybe we have different definitions of the word "solid" which I interpret as being at the high end of the spectrum for a given grade.
You can't tell me that if you have a coin shop and you have two coins with AT that would be MS65 per ANA standards but one is at the "A" end of the spectrum and the other is at the "C" end of the spectrum and this is a coin where there's a significant price difference between 64, 65, and 66, that you wouldn't price the "solid" 65 with AT higher than the "C" 65. In fact the first step in pricing the coin is probably to assess a grade, reference the price guide for that grade and then apply a details discount. In this case you would no doubt price the 65 "A" higher than the 65 "C." Why? Because one is solidly a a 65 and the other is barely a 65.
I think the posts above about coins with chop marks prove that a coin with a details condition can and are very gradeable and if they are gradeable they fall somewhere on the spectrum (like me!) and part of the spectrum per my definition is in the realm of solid even if it has a details condition.
I guess you guys are saying a coin can't be _solid _if it's not CAC eligible which excludes any details coins, which is another definition and we are all entitled to our own definitions, but I think the coin market and what coins sell for argue that nicer details coins sell for more money than less-nice details coins.
Your example is not ludicrous. If the coin is a solid 67 with a hole in it, then that's what it is. any proficient grader can pick it up and say, "Wow, that's a very nice 67. Too bad there's a hole in it." No doubt though that the value and desirability of the coin is significantly impaired due to the hole.
@bennybravo said:
"But if you think CAC stickers (and by association, professional grading) are dumb, have at it." What do you think Mark? As a leader in this field, do you think folks should submit their coins to a grading service, and then resubmit them for a Bean that says the grading services are right about that grade? Would love to hear your take on this! Thanks.
Many coins don't merit professional grading. And of the ones that do, many of those don't merit submission to CAC.
If the coin's ungraded, it depends upon its approximate potential value (and liquidity) graded vs. ungraded. And if the coin's graded, it depends upon the approximate potential value (and liquidity) stickered by CAC vs, not stickered.
Thanks for the reply Mark. I see coins all the time of lower value ($100-$500) with those beans, being significantly marked up, and think why or who sent that in, and what the heck that had to cost to get it stickered for pretty common stuff. As someone who collects in the sub $500 per coin range in general, it has just never made sense to me to double check a grading service at that price point. Folks definitely do it though!
Many forget there was a time that CAC reviewed coins for free, and I believe legacy members still get 20 free per year.
Still many other low value coins may have been submitted in bulk and graded at very low costs.
I can tell you that if I had a coin shop I wouldn’t buy known artificially toned coins and try and pass the problem to someone else at their expense. Ethics do matter.
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.
Maybe we have different definitions of the word "solid" which I interpret as being at the high end of the spectrum for a given grade.
You can't tell me that if you have a coin shop and you have two coins with AT that would be MS65 per ANA standards but one is at the "A" end of the spectrum and the other is at the "C" end of the spectrum and this is a coin where there's a significant price difference between 64, 65, and 66, that you wouldn't price the "solid" 65 with AT higher than the "C" 65. In fact the first step in pricing the coin is probably to assess a grade, reference the price guide for that grade and then apply a details discount. In this case you would no doubt price the 65 "A" higher than the 65 "C." Why? Because one is solidly a a 65 and the other is barely a 65.
I think the posts above about coins with chop marks prove that a coin with a details condition can and are very gradeable and if they are gradeable they fall somewhere on the spectrum (like me!) and part of the spectrum per my definition is in the realm of solid even if it has a details condition.
I guess you guys are saying a coin can't be _solid _if it's not CAC eligible which excludes any details coins, which is another definition and we are all entitled to our own definitions, but I think the coin market and what coins sell for argue that nicer details coins sell for more money than less-nice details coins.
Your example is not ludicrous. If the coin is a solid 67 with a hole in it, then that's what it is. any proficient grader can pick it up and say, "Wow, that's a very nice 67. Too bad there's a hole in it." No doubt though that the value and desirability of the coin is significantly impaired due to the hole.
@bennybravo said:
"But if you think CAC stickers (and by association, professional grading) are dumb, have at it." What do you think Mark? As a leader in this field, do you think folks should submit their coins to a grading service, and then resubmit them for a Bean that says the grading services are right about that grade? Would love to hear your take on this! Thanks.
Many coins don't merit professional grading. And of the ones that do, many of those don't merit submission to CAC.
If the coin's ungraded, it depends upon its approximate potential value (and liquidity) graded vs. ungraded. And if the coin's graded, it depends upon the approximate potential value (and liquidity) stickered by CAC vs, not stickered.
Thanks for the reply Mark. I see coins all the time of lower value ($100-$500) with those beans, being significantly marked up, and think why or who sent that in, and what the heck that had to cost to get it stickered for pretty common stuff. As someone who collects in the sub $500 per coin range in general, it has just never made sense to me to double check a grading service at that price point. Folks definitely do it though!
Many forget there was a time that CAC reviewed coins for free, and I believe legacy members still get 20 free per year.
Still many other low value coins may have been submitted in bulk and graded at very low costs.
I can tell you that if I had a coin shop I wouldn’t buy known artificially toned coins and try and pass the problem to someone else at their expense. Ethics do matter.
I would label them "UNC details AT" and not put any other grades on it. And that's what everyone except our one insistent forum friend XF does because you can't grade problem coins. XF details isn't a grade of XF, it's a statement that the coin had the details of an XF coin despite the joke, polishing and 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.
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.
Maybe we have different definitions of the word "solid" which I interpret as being at the high end of the spectrum for a given grade.
You can't tell me that if you have a coin shop and you have two coins with AT that would be MS65 per ANA standards but one is at the "A" end of the spectrum and the other is at the "C" end of the spectrum and this is a coin where there's a significant price difference between 64, 65, and 66, that you wouldn't price the "solid" 65 with AT higher than the "C" 65. In fact the first step in pricing the coin is probably to assess a grade, reference the price guide for that grade and then apply a details discount. In this case you would no doubt price the 65 "A" higher than the 65 "C." Why? Because one is solidly a a 65 and the other is barely a 65.
I think the posts above about coins with chop marks prove that a coin with a details condition can and are very gradeable and if they are gradeable they fall somewhere on the spectrum (like me!) and part of the spectrum per my definition is in the realm of solid even if it has a details condition.
I guess you guys are saying a coin can't be _solid _if it's not CAC eligible which excludes any details coins, which is another definition and we are all entitled to our own definitions, but I think the coin market and what coins sell for argue that nicer details coins sell for more money than less-nice details coins.
Your example is not ludicrous. If the coin is a solid 67 with a hole in it, then that's what it is. any proficient grader can pick it up and say, "Wow, that's a very nice 67. Too bad there's a hole in it." No doubt though that the value and desirability of the coin is significantly impaired due to the hole.
@bennybravo said:
"But if you think CAC stickers (and by association, professional grading) are dumb, have at it." What do you think Mark? As a leader in this field, do you think folks should submit their coins to a grading service, and then resubmit them for a Bean that says the grading services are right about that grade? Would love to hear your take on this! Thanks.
Many coins don't merit professional grading. And of the ones that do, many of those don't merit submission to CAC.
If the coin's ungraded, it depends upon its approximate potential value (and liquidity) graded vs. ungraded. And if the coin's graded, it depends upon the approximate potential value (and liquidity) stickered by CAC vs, not stickered.
Thanks for the reply Mark. I see coins all the time of lower value ($100-$500) with those beans, being significantly marked up, and think why or who sent that in, and what the heck that had to cost to get it stickered for pretty common stuff. As someone who collects in the sub $500 per coin range in general, it has just never made sense to me to double check a grading service at that price point. Folks definitely do it though!
Many forget there was a time that CAC reviewed coins for free, and I believe legacy members still get 20 free per year.
Still many other low value coins may have been submitted in bulk and graded at very low costs.
Still no. A problem coin being "solid for the grade" is the same as a dead person being otherwise healthy. And that is how 99.99999% of collectors view it and understand it. You can try and redefine the term, but then you are only capable of talking to yourself.
Terms in the hobby have hobby specific meaning. For example, "uncirculated" doesn't mean it never circulated. To redefine the term just means no one understands you.
@jmlanzaf said:
Terms in the hobby have hobby specific meaning. For example, "uncirculated" doesn't mean it never circulated. To redefine the term just means no one understands you.
Actually, I think "uncirculated" does (or at least should) mean "never circulated". On the other hand, when we in this industry assign mint state/MS grades of 60 and higher, those grades don't necessarily mean the coins never circulated. But rather, even if they did circulate, they don't exhibit any wear.
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.
Maybe we have different definitions of the word "solid" which I interpret as being at the high end of the spectrum for a given grade.
You can't tell me that if you have a coin shop and you have two coins with AT that would be MS65 per ANA standards but one is at the "A" end of the spectrum and the other is at the "C" end of the spectrum and this is a coin where there's a significant price difference between 64, 65, and 66, that you wouldn't price the "solid" 65 with AT higher than the "C" 65. In fact the first step in pricing the coin is probably to assess a grade, reference the price guide for that grade and then apply a details discount. In this case you would no doubt price the 65 "A" higher than the 65 "C." Why? Because one is solidly a a 65 and the other is barely a 65.
I think the posts above about coins with chop marks prove that a coin with a details condition can and are very gradeable and if they are gradeable they fall somewhere on the spectrum (like me!) and part of the spectrum per my definition is in the realm of solid even if it has a details condition.
I guess you guys are saying a coin can't be _solid _if it's not CAC eligible which excludes any details coins, which is another definition and we are all entitled to our own definitions, but I think the coin market and what coins sell for argue that nicer details coins sell for more money than less-nice details coins.
Your example is not ludicrous. If the coin is a solid 67 with a hole in it, then that's what it is. any proficient grader can pick it up and say, "Wow, that's a very nice 67. Too bad there's a hole in it." No doubt though that the value and desirability of the coin is significantly impaired due to the hole.
@bennybravo said:
"But if you think CAC stickers (and by association, professional grading) are dumb, have at it." What do you think Mark? As a leader in this field, do you think folks should submit their coins to a grading service, and then resubmit them for a Bean that says the grading services are right about that grade? Would love to hear your take on this! Thanks.
Many coins don't merit professional grading. And of the ones that do, many of those don't merit submission to CAC.
If the coin's ungraded, it depends upon its approximate potential value (and liquidity) graded vs. ungraded. And if the coin's graded, it depends upon the approximate potential value (and liquidity) stickered by CAC vs, not stickered.
Thanks for the reply Mark. I see coins all the time of lower value ($100-$500) with those beans, being significantly marked up, and think why or who sent that in, and what the heck that had to cost to get it stickered for pretty common stuff. As someone who collects in the sub $500 per coin range in general, it has just never made sense to me to double check a grading service at that price point. Folks definitely do it though!
Many forget there was a time that CAC reviewed coins for free, and I believe legacy members still get 20 free per year.
Still many other low value coins may have been submitted in bulk and graded at very low costs.
I can tell you that if I had a coin shop I wouldn’t buy known artificially toned coins and try and pass the problem to someone else at their expense. Ethics do matter.
Nothing unethical was being suggested. Sorry if I was unclear but I never suggested that known or suspected issues not be disclosed.
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.
Maybe we have different definitions of the word "solid" which I interpret as being at the high end of the spectrum for a given grade.
You can't tell me that if you have a coin shop and you have two coins with AT that would be MS65 per ANA standards but one is at the "A" end of the spectrum and the other is at the "C" end of the spectrum and this is a coin where there's a significant price difference between 64, 65, and 66, that you wouldn't price the "solid" 65 with AT higher than the "C" 65. In fact the first step in pricing the coin is probably to assess a grade, reference the price guide for that grade and then apply a details discount. In this case you would no doubt price the 65 "A" higher than the 65 "C." Why? Because one is solidly a a 65 and the other is barely a 65.
I think the posts above about coins with chop marks prove that a coin with a details condition can and are very gradeable and if they are gradeable they fall somewhere on the spectrum (like me!) and part of the spectrum per my definition is in the realm of solid even if it has a details condition.
I guess you guys are saying a coin can't be _solid _if it's not CAC eligible which excludes any details coins, which is another definition and we are all entitled to our own definitions, but I think the coin market and what coins sell for argue that nicer details coins sell for more money than less-nice details coins.
Your example is not ludicrous. If the coin is a solid 67 with a hole in it, then that's what it is. any proficient grader can pick it up and say, "Wow, that's a very nice 67. Too bad there's a hole in it." No doubt though that the value and desirability of the coin is significantly impaired due to the hole.
@bennybravo said:
"But if you think CAC stickers (and by association, professional grading) are dumb, have at it." What do you think Mark? As a leader in this field, do you think folks should submit their coins to a grading service, and then resubmit them for a Bean that says the grading services are right about that grade? Would love to hear your take on this! Thanks.
Many coins don't merit professional grading. And of the ones that do, many of those don't merit submission to CAC.
If the coin's ungraded, it depends upon its approximate potential value (and liquidity) graded vs. ungraded. And if the coin's graded, it depends upon the approximate potential value (and liquidity) stickered by CAC vs, not stickered.
Thanks for the reply Mark. I see coins all the time of lower value ($100-$500) with those beans, being significantly marked up, and think why or who sent that in, and what the heck that had to cost to get it stickered for pretty common stuff. As someone who collects in the sub $500 per coin range in general, it has just never made sense to me to double check a grading service at that price point. Folks definitely do it though!
Many forget there was a time that CAC reviewed coins for free, and I believe legacy members still get 20 free per year.
Still many other low value coins may have been submitted in bulk and graded at very low costs.
I can tell you that if I had a coin shop I wouldn’t buy known artificially toned coins and try and pass the problem to someone else at their expense. Ethics do matter.
I would label them "UNC details AT" and not put any other grades on it. And that's what everyone except our one insistent forum friend XF does because you can't grade problem coins. XF details isn't a grade of XF, it's a statement that the coin had the details of an XF coin despite the joke, polishing and AT.
OK, and how does a coin shop price it? They grade it, reference the price guides, and then apply a condition discount.
Probably not if I knew it didn’t pass. Depends on other available info, price and scarcity. However, I can say that I’ve kept a number of coins that I’ve submitted myself that didn’t pass because I liked the coin. I’ve sold some too.
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.
Maybe we have different definitions of the word "solid" which I interpret as being at the high end of the spectrum for a given grade.
You can't tell me that if you have a coin shop and you have two coins with AT that would be MS65 per ANA standards but one is at the "A" end of the spectrum and the other is at the "C" end of the spectrum and this is a coin where there's a significant price difference between 64, 65, and 66, that you wouldn't price the "solid" 65 with AT higher than the "C" 65. In fact the first step in pricing the coin is probably to assess a grade, reference the price guide for that grade and then apply a details discount. In this case you would no doubt price the 65 "A" higher than the 65 "C." Why? Because one is solidly a a 65 and the other is barely a 65.
I think the posts above about coins with chop marks prove that a coin with a details condition can and are very gradeable and if they are gradeable they fall somewhere on the spectrum (like me!) and part of the spectrum per my definition is in the realm of solid even if it has a details condition.
I guess you guys are saying a coin can't be _solid _if it's not CAC eligible which excludes any details coins, which is another definition and we are all entitled to our own definitions, but I think the coin market and what coins sell for argue that nicer details coins sell for more money than less-nice details coins.
Your example is not ludicrous. If the coin is a solid 67 with a hole in it, then that's what it is. any proficient grader can pick it up and say, "Wow, that's a very nice 67. Too bad there's a hole in it." No doubt though that the value and desirability of the coin is significantly impaired due to the hole.
@bennybravo said:
"But if you think CAC stickers (and by association, professional grading) are dumb, have at it." What do you think Mark? As a leader in this field, do you think folks should submit their coins to a grading service, and then resubmit them for a Bean that says the grading services are right about that grade? Would love to hear your take on this! Thanks.
Many coins don't merit professional grading. And of the ones that do, many of those don't merit submission to CAC.
If the coin's ungraded, it depends upon its approximate potential value (and liquidity) graded vs. ungraded. And if the coin's graded, it depends upon the approximate potential value (and liquidity) stickered by CAC vs, not stickered.
Thanks for the reply Mark. I see coins all the time of lower value ($100-$500) with those beans, being significantly marked up, and think why or who sent that in, and what the heck that had to cost to get it stickered for pretty common stuff. As someone who collects in the sub $500 per coin range in general, it has just never made sense to me to double check a grading service at that price point. Folks definitely do it though!
Many forget there was a time that CAC reviewed coins for free, and I believe legacy members still get 20 free per year.
Still many other low value coins may have been submitted in bulk and graded at very low costs.
I can tell you that if I had a coin shop I wouldn’t buy known artificially toned coins and try and pass the problem to someone else at their expense. Ethics do matter.
Nothing unethical was being suggested. Sorry if I was unclear but I never suggested that known or suspected issues not be disclosed.
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.
Maybe we have different definitions of the word "solid" which I interpret as being at the high end of the spectrum for a given grade.
You can't tell me that if you have a coin shop and you have two coins with AT that would be MS65 per ANA standards but one is at the "A" end of the spectrum and the other is at the "C" end of the spectrum and this is a coin where there's a significant price difference between 64, 65, and 66, that you wouldn't price the "solid" 65 with AT higher than the "C" 65. In fact the first step in pricing the coin is probably to assess a grade, reference the price guide for that grade and then apply a details discount. In this case you would no doubt price the 65 "A" higher than the 65 "C." Why? Because one is solidly a a 65 and the other is barely a 65.
I think the posts above about coins with chop marks prove that a coin with a details condition can and are very gradeable and if they are gradeable they fall somewhere on the spectrum (like me!) and part of the spectrum per my definition is in the realm of solid even if it has a details condition.
I guess you guys are saying a coin can't be _solid _if it's not CAC eligible which excludes any details coins, which is another definition and we are all entitled to our own definitions, but I think the coin market and what coins sell for argue that nicer details coins sell for more money than less-nice details coins.
Your example is not ludicrous. If the coin is a solid 67 with a hole in it, then that's what it is. any proficient grader can pick it up and say, "Wow, that's a very nice 67. Too bad there's a hole in it." No doubt though that the value and desirability of the coin is significantly impaired due to the hole.
@bennybravo said:
"But if you think CAC stickers (and by association, professional grading) are dumb, have at it." What do you think Mark? As a leader in this field, do you think folks should submit their coins to a grading service, and then resubmit them for a Bean that says the grading services are right about that grade? Would love to hear your take on this! Thanks.
Many coins don't merit professional grading. And of the ones that do, many of those don't merit submission to CAC.
If the coin's ungraded, it depends upon its approximate potential value (and liquidity) graded vs. ungraded. And if the coin's graded, it depends upon the approximate potential value (and liquidity) stickered by CAC vs, not stickered.
Thanks for the reply Mark. I see coins all the time of lower value ($100-$500) with those beans, being significantly marked up, and think why or who sent that in, and what the heck that had to cost to get it stickered for pretty common stuff. As someone who collects in the sub $500 per coin range in general, it has just never made sense to me to double check a grading service at that price point. Folks definitely do it though!
Many forget there was a time that CAC reviewed coins for free, and I believe legacy members still get 20 free per year.
Still many other low value coins may have been submitted in bulk and graded at very low costs.
I can tell you that if I had a coin shop I wouldn’t buy known artificially toned coins and try and pass the problem to someone else at their expense. Ethics do matter.
I would label them "UNC details AT" and not put any other grades on it. And that's what everyone except our one insistent forum friend XF does because you can't grade problem coins. XF details isn't a grade of XF, it's a statement that the coin had the details of an XF coin despite the joke, polishing and AT.
OK, and how does a coin shop price it? They grade it, reference the price guides, and then apply a condition discount.
Pricing is based largely on the degree of DAMAGE and has alnost nothing to do with whether one has a stronger strike or something like that.
Additionally - They (CAC /Non CAC) are 2 different pricing levels (inventory classes) in the CDN - Bid / CPG Retail. So whether I buy one or the other a moot issue for me. I Just price them accordingly.
Main thing - I have to like the coin. If CAC (having pay more) very picky and I have to feel it’s select, PQ. Plus the deal has got to be there for me / my auc bid, bourse offer range.
Summary - see them (CAC, non CAC) as basically 2 separate inventory classes.
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.
Maybe we have different definitions of the word "solid" which I interpret as being at the high end of the spectrum for a given grade.
You can't tell me that if you have a coin shop and you have two coins with AT that would be MS65 per ANA standards but one is at the "A" end of the spectrum and the other is at the "C" end of the spectrum and this is a coin where there's a significant price difference between 64, 65, and 66, that you wouldn't price the "solid" 65 with AT higher than the "C" 65. In fact the first step in pricing the coin is probably to assess a grade, reference the price guide for that grade and then apply a details discount. In this case you would no doubt price the 65 "A" higher than the 65 "C." Why? Because one is solidly a a 65 and the other is barely a 65.
I think the posts above about coins with chop marks prove that a coin with a details condition can and are very gradeable and if they are gradeable they fall somewhere on the spectrum (like me!) and part of the spectrum per my definition is in the realm of solid even if it has a details condition.
I guess you guys are saying a coin can't be _solid _if it's not CAC eligible which excludes any details coins, which is another definition and we are all entitled to our own definitions, but I think the coin market and what coins sell for argue that nicer details coins sell for more money than less-nice details coins.
Your example is not ludicrous. If the coin is a solid 67 with a hole in it, then that's what it is. any proficient grader can pick it up and say, "Wow, that's a very nice 67. Too bad there's a hole in it." No doubt though that the value and desirability of the coin is significantly impaired due to the hole.
@bennybravo said:
"But if you think CAC stickers (and by association, professional grading) are dumb, have at it." What do you think Mark? As a leader in this field, do you think folks should submit their coins to a grading service, and then resubmit them for a Bean that says the grading services are right about that grade? Would love to hear your take on this! Thanks.
Many coins don't merit professional grading. And of the ones that do, many of those don't merit submission to CAC.
If the coin's ungraded, it depends upon its approximate potential value (and liquidity) graded vs. ungraded. And if the coin's graded, it depends upon the approximate potential value (and liquidity) stickered by CAC vs, not stickered.
Thanks for the reply Mark. I see coins all the time of lower value ($100-$500) with those beans, being significantly marked up, and think why or who sent that in, and what the heck that had to cost to get it stickered for pretty common stuff. As someone who collects in the sub $500 per coin range in general, it has just never made sense to me to double check a grading service at that price point. Folks definitely do it though!
Many forget there was a time that CAC reviewed coins for free, and I believe legacy members still get 20 free per year.
Still many other low value coins may have been submitted in bulk and graded at very low costs.
I can tell you that if I had a coin shop I wouldn’t buy known artificially toned coins and try and pass the problem to someone else at their expense. Ethics do matter.
Nothing unethical was being suggested. Sorry if I was unclear but I never suggested that known or suspected issues not be disclosed.
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.
Maybe we have different definitions of the word "solid" which I interpret as being at the high end of the spectrum for a given grade.
You can't tell me that if you have a coin shop and you have two coins with AT that would be MS65 per ANA standards but one is at the "A" end of the spectrum and the other is at the "C" end of the spectrum and this is a coin where there's a significant price difference between 64, 65, and 66, that you wouldn't price the "solid" 65 with AT higher than the "C" 65. In fact the first step in pricing the coin is probably to assess a grade, reference the price guide for that grade and then apply a details discount. In this case you would no doubt price the 65 "A" higher than the 65 "C." Why? Because one is solidly a a 65 and the other is barely a 65.
I think the posts above about coins with chop marks prove that a coin with a details condition can and are very gradeable and if they are gradeable they fall somewhere on the spectrum (like me!) and part of the spectrum per my definition is in the realm of solid even if it has a details condition.
I guess you guys are saying a coin can't be _solid _if it's not CAC eligible which excludes any details coins, which is another definition and we are all entitled to our own definitions, but I think the coin market and what coins sell for argue that nicer details coins sell for more money than less-nice details coins.
Your example is not ludicrous. If the coin is a solid 67 with a hole in it, then that's what it is. any proficient grader can pick it up and say, "Wow, that's a very nice 67. Too bad there's a hole in it." No doubt though that the value and desirability of the coin is significantly impaired due to the hole.
@bennybravo said:
"But if you think CAC stickers (and by association, professional grading) are dumb, have at it." What do you think Mark? As a leader in this field, do you think folks should submit their coins to a grading service, and then resubmit them for a Bean that says the grading services are right about that grade? Would love to hear your take on this! Thanks.
Many coins don't merit professional grading. And of the ones that do, many of those don't merit submission to CAC.
If the coin's ungraded, it depends upon its approximate potential value (and liquidity) graded vs. ungraded. And if the coin's graded, it depends upon the approximate potential value (and liquidity) stickered by CAC vs, not stickered.
Thanks for the reply Mark. I see coins all the time of lower value ($100-$500) with those beans, being significantly marked up, and think why or who sent that in, and what the heck that had to cost to get it stickered for pretty common stuff. As someone who collects in the sub $500 per coin range in general, it has just never made sense to me to double check a grading service at that price point. Folks definitely do it though!
Many forget there was a time that CAC reviewed coins for free, and I believe legacy members still get 20 free per year.
Still many other low value coins may have been submitted in bulk and graded at very low costs.
I can tell you that if I had a coin shop I wouldn’t buy known artificially toned coins and try and pass the problem to someone else at their expense. Ethics do matter.
I would label them "UNC details AT" and not put any other grades on it. And that's what everyone except our one insistent forum friend XF does because you can't grade problem coins. XF details isn't a grade of XF, it's a statement that the coin had the details of an XF coin despite the joke, polishing and AT.
OK, and how does a coin shop price it? They grade it, reference the price guides, and then apply a condition discount.
Pricing is based largely on the degree of DAMAGE and has alnost nothing to do with whether one has a stronger strike or something like that.
We all get that the specific type and degree of damage affects the size of the discount/price adjustment, but the starting point it the price guide based on the condition (grade) of the coin.
You can't tell me that if you have 2 XF Details 1893-S Morgans, both with similar, equivalent AT, that you're not going to price the one that meets XF45 standards the same as the one that meets XF40 standards. My guess is they will be priced $3-4k apart (similar to the price guide difference if they were non-details coins), and have a similar percentage off of the price guide (20, 30, 40%, whatever) to account for being Details. All of this to say that in the end, the dealer did grade the coin. And if a customer asked about the pricing, the explanation would start by saying that you feel one is an XF45 and the other is XF40 and you based you discounted it from those guide prices.
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.
Maybe we have different definitions of the word "solid" which I interpret as being at the high end of the spectrum for a given grade.
You can't tell me that if you have a coin shop and you have two coins with AT that would be MS65 per ANA standards but one is at the "A" end of the spectrum and the other is at the "C" end of the spectrum and this is a coin where there's a significant price difference between 64, 65, and 66, that you wouldn't price the "solid" 65 with AT higher than the "C" 65. In fact the first step in pricing the coin is probably to assess a grade, reference the price guide for that grade and then apply a details discount. In this case you would no doubt price the 65 "A" higher than the 65 "C." Why? Because one is solidly a a 65 and the other is barely a 65.
I think the posts above about coins with chop marks prove that a coin with a details condition can and are very gradeable and if they are gradeable they fall somewhere on the spectrum (like me!) and part of the spectrum per my definition is in the realm of solid even if it has a details condition.
I guess you guys are saying a coin can't be _solid _if it's not CAC eligible which excludes any details coins, which is another definition and we are all entitled to our own definitions, but I think the coin market and what coins sell for argue that nicer details coins sell for more money than less-nice details coins.
Your example is not ludicrous. If the coin is a solid 67 with a hole in it, then that's what it is. any proficient grader can pick it up and say, "Wow, that's a very nice 67. Too bad there's a hole in it." No doubt though that the value and desirability of the coin is significantly impaired due to the hole.
@bennybravo said:
"But if you think CAC stickers (and by association, professional grading) are dumb, have at it." What do you think Mark? As a leader in this field, do you think folks should submit their coins to a grading service, and then resubmit them for a Bean that says the grading services are right about that grade? Would love to hear your take on this! Thanks.
Many coins don't merit professional grading. And of the ones that do, many of those don't merit submission to CAC.
If the coin's ungraded, it depends upon its approximate potential value (and liquidity) graded vs. ungraded. And if the coin's graded, it depends upon the approximate potential value (and liquidity) stickered by CAC vs, not stickered.
Thanks for the reply Mark. I see coins all the time of lower value ($100-$500) with those beans, being significantly marked up, and think why or who sent that in, and what the heck that had to cost to get it stickered for pretty common stuff. As someone who collects in the sub $500 per coin range in general, it has just never made sense to me to double check a grading service at that price point. Folks definitely do it though!
Many forget there was a time that CAC reviewed coins for free, and I believe legacy members still get 20 free per year.
Still many other low value coins may have been submitted in bulk and graded at very low costs.
I can tell you that if I had a coin shop I wouldn’t buy known artificially toned coins and try and pass the problem to someone else at their expense. Ethics do matter.
Nothing unethical was being suggested. Sorry if I was unclear but I never suggested that known or suspected issues not be disclosed.
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.
Maybe we have different definitions of the word "solid" which I interpret as being at the high end of the spectrum for a given grade.
You can't tell me that if you have a coin shop and you have two coins with AT that would be MS65 per ANA standards but one is at the "A" end of the spectrum and the other is at the "C" end of the spectrum and this is a coin where there's a significant price difference between 64, 65, and 66, that you wouldn't price the "solid" 65 with AT higher than the "C" 65. In fact the first step in pricing the coin is probably to assess a grade, reference the price guide for that grade and then apply a details discount. In this case you would no doubt price the 65 "A" higher than the 65 "C." Why? Because one is solidly a a 65 and the other is barely a 65.
I think the posts above about coins with chop marks prove that a coin with a details condition can and are very gradeable and if they are gradeable they fall somewhere on the spectrum (like me!) and part of the spectrum per my definition is in the realm of solid even if it has a details condition.
I guess you guys are saying a coin can't be _solid _if it's not CAC eligible which excludes any details coins, which is another definition and we are all entitled to our own definitions, but I think the coin market and what coins sell for argue that nicer details coins sell for more money than less-nice details coins.
Your example is not ludicrous. If the coin is a solid 67 with a hole in it, then that's what it is. any proficient grader can pick it up and say, "Wow, that's a very nice 67. Too bad there's a hole in it." No doubt though that the value and desirability of the coin is significantly impaired due to the hole.
@bennybravo said:
"But if you think CAC stickers (and by association, professional grading) are dumb, have at it." What do you think Mark? As a leader in this field, do you think folks should submit their coins to a grading service, and then resubmit them for a Bean that says the grading services are right about that grade? Would love to hear your take on this! Thanks.
Many coins don't merit professional grading. And of the ones that do, many of those don't merit submission to CAC.
If the coin's ungraded, it depends upon its approximate potential value (and liquidity) graded vs. ungraded. And if the coin's graded, it depends upon the approximate potential value (and liquidity) stickered by CAC vs, not stickered.
Thanks for the reply Mark. I see coins all the time of lower value ($100-$500) with those beans, being significantly marked up, and think why or who sent that in, and what the heck that had to cost to get it stickered for pretty common stuff. As someone who collects in the sub $500 per coin range in general, it has just never made sense to me to double check a grading service at that price point. Folks definitely do it though!
Many forget there was a time that CAC reviewed coins for free, and I believe legacy members still get 20 free per year.
Still many other low value coins may have been submitted in bulk and graded at very low costs.
I can tell you that if I had a coin shop I wouldn’t buy known artificially toned coins and try and pass the problem to someone else at their expense. Ethics do matter.
I would label them "UNC details AT" and not put any other grades on it. And that's what everyone except our one insistent forum friend XF does because you can't grade problem coins. XF details isn't a grade of XF, it's a statement that the coin had the details of an XF coin despite the joke, polishing and AT.
OK, and how does a coin shop price it? They grade it, reference the price guides, and then apply a condition discount.
Pricing is based largely on the degree of DAMAGE and has alnost nothing to do with whether one has a stronger strike or something like that.
We all get that the specific type and degree of damage affects the size of the discount/price adjustment, but the starting point it the price guide based on the condition (grade) of the coin.
You can't tell me that if you have 2 XF Details 1893-S Morgans, both with similar, equivalent AT, that you're not going to price the one that meets XF45 standards the same as the one that meets XF40 standards. My guess is they will be priced $3-4k apart (similar to the price guide difference if they were non-details coins), and have a similar percentage off of the price guide (20, 30, 40%, whatever) to account for being Details. All of this to say that in the end, the dealer did grade the coin. And if a customer asked about the pricing, the explanation would start by saying that you feel one is an XF45 and the other is XF40 and you based you discounted it from those guide prices.
The difference won't be $3000. However, you just changed the question. XF45 vs XF40 isn't "solid for the grade" which is what you keep saying. Of course a VF details sells for less than an XF details, it has less details. But no one but you is trying to figure out if it's an A, B or C XF40.
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.
Maybe we have different definitions of the word "solid" which I interpret as being at the high end of the spectrum for a given grade.
You can't tell me that if you have a coin shop and you have two coins with AT that would be MS65 per ANA standards but one is at the "A" end of the spectrum and the other is at the "C" end of the spectrum and this is a coin where there's a significant price difference between 64, 65, and 66, that you wouldn't price the "solid" 65 with AT higher than the "C" 65. In fact the first step in pricing the coin is probably to assess a grade, reference the price guide for that grade and then apply a details discount. In this case you would no doubt price the 65 "A" higher than the 65 "C." Why? Because one is solidly a a 65 and the other is barely a 65.
I think the posts above about coins with chop marks prove that a coin with a details condition can and are very gradeable and if they are gradeable they fall somewhere on the spectrum (like me!) and part of the spectrum per my definition is in the realm of solid even if it has a details condition.
I guess you guys are saying a coin can't be _solid _if it's not CAC eligible which excludes any details coins, which is another definition and we are all entitled to our own definitions, but I think the coin market and what coins sell for argue that nicer details coins sell for more money than less-nice details coins.
Your example is not ludicrous. If the coin is a solid 67 with a hole in it, then that's what it is. any proficient grader can pick it up and say, "Wow, that's a very nice 67. Too bad there's a hole in it." No doubt though that the value and desirability of the coin is significantly impaired due to the hole.
@bennybravo said:
"But if you think CAC stickers (and by association, professional grading) are dumb, have at it." What do you think Mark? As a leader in this field, do you think folks should submit their coins to a grading service, and then resubmit them for a Bean that says the grading services are right about that grade? Would love to hear your take on this! Thanks.
Many coins don't merit professional grading. And of the ones that do, many of those don't merit submission to CAC.
If the coin's ungraded, it depends upon its approximate potential value (and liquidity) graded vs. ungraded. And if the coin's graded, it depends upon the approximate potential value (and liquidity) stickered by CAC vs, not stickered.
Thanks for the reply Mark. I see coins all the time of lower value ($100-$500) with those beans, being significantly marked up, and think why or who sent that in, and what the heck that had to cost to get it stickered for pretty common stuff. As someone who collects in the sub $500 per coin range in general, it has just never made sense to me to double check a grading service at that price point. Folks definitely do it though!
Many forget there was a time that CAC reviewed coins for free, and I believe legacy members still get 20 free per year.
Still many other low value coins may have been submitted in bulk and graded at very low costs.
I can tell you that if I had a coin shop I wouldn’t buy known artificially toned coins and try and pass the problem to someone else at their expense. Ethics do matter.
Nothing unethical was being suggested. Sorry if I was unclear but I never suggested that known or suspected issues not be disclosed.
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.
Maybe we have different definitions of the word "solid" which I interpret as being at the high end of the spectrum for a given grade.
You can't tell me that if you have a coin shop and you have two coins with AT that would be MS65 per ANA standards but one is at the "A" end of the spectrum and the other is at the "C" end of the spectrum and this is a coin where there's a significant price difference between 64, 65, and 66, that you wouldn't price the "solid" 65 with AT higher than the "C" 65. In fact the first step in pricing the coin is probably to assess a grade, reference the price guide for that grade and then apply a details discount. In this case you would no doubt price the 65 "A" higher than the 65 "C." Why? Because one is solidly a a 65 and the other is barely a 65.
I think the posts above about coins with chop marks prove that a coin with a details condition can and are very gradeable and if they are gradeable they fall somewhere on the spectrum (like me!) and part of the spectrum per my definition is in the realm of solid even if it has a details condition.
I guess you guys are saying a coin can't be _solid _if it's not CAC eligible which excludes any details coins, which is another definition and we are all entitled to our own definitions, but I think the coin market and what coins sell for argue that nicer details coins sell for more money than less-nice details coins.
Your example is not ludicrous. If the coin is a solid 67 with a hole in it, then that's what it is. any proficient grader can pick it up and say, "Wow, that's a very nice 67. Too bad there's a hole in it." No doubt though that the value and desirability of the coin is significantly impaired due to the hole.
@bennybravo said:
"But if you think CAC stickers (and by association, professional grading) are dumb, have at it." What do you think Mark? As a leader in this field, do you think folks should submit their coins to a grading service, and then resubmit them for a Bean that says the grading services are right about that grade? Would love to hear your take on this! Thanks.
Many coins don't merit professional grading. And of the ones that do, many of those don't merit submission to CAC.
If the coin's ungraded, it depends upon its approximate potential value (and liquidity) graded vs. ungraded. And if the coin's graded, it depends upon the approximate potential value (and liquidity) stickered by CAC vs, not stickered.
Thanks for the reply Mark. I see coins all the time of lower value ($100-$500) with those beans, being significantly marked up, and think why or who sent that in, and what the heck that had to cost to get it stickered for pretty common stuff. As someone who collects in the sub $500 per coin range in general, it has just never made sense to me to double check a grading service at that price point. Folks definitely do it though!
Many forget there was a time that CAC reviewed coins for free, and I believe legacy members still get 20 free per year.
Still many other low value coins may have been submitted in bulk and graded at very low costs.
I can tell you that if I had a coin shop I wouldn’t buy known artificially toned coins and try and pass the problem to someone else at their expense. Ethics do matter.
I would label them "UNC details AT" and not put any other grades on it. And that's what everyone except our one insistent forum friend XF does because you can't grade problem coins. XF details isn't a grade of XF, it's a statement that the coin had the details of an XF coin despite the joke, polishing and AT.
OK, and how does a coin shop price it? They grade it, reference the price guides, and then apply a condition discount.
Pricing is based largely on the degree of DAMAGE and has alnost nothing to do with whether one has a stronger strike or something like that.
We all get that the specific type and degree of damage affects the size of the discount/price adjustment, but the starting point it the price guide based on the condition (grade) of the coin.
You can't tell me that if you have 2 XF Details 1893-S Morgans, both with similar, equivalent AT, that you're not going to price the one that meets XF45 standards the same as the one that meets XF40 standards. My guess is they will be priced $3-4k apart (similar to the price guide difference if they were non-details coins), and have a similar percentage off of the price guide (20, 30, 40%, whatever) to account for being Details. All of this to say that in the end, the dealer did grade the coin. And if a customer asked about the pricing, the explanation would start by saying that you feel one is an XF45 and the other is XF40 and you based you discounted it from those guide prices.
The price guides aren’t intended to apply to detail grade coins - surely you know that.
And no dealers that I know would explain pricing or mention numerical grades in the way you stated.
I’ve been a full time dealer since 1979 and I’ve literally never heard anyone other than you say that a detail grade coin was “solid for the grade”. Please tell us how many times you’ve heard someone say it? If the answer is more than zero, you might not want to buy coins from whoever said it.
Just because you see this a certain way doesn’t mean that the rest of us have to. So think whatever you want but please give it a rest, here.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@braddick said:
It is intriguing to me the post-mint damage a Trade dollar receives by being chop marked can still warrant a straight MS63 grade.
I've just reviewed a whole bunch of past postings regarding chop marked Trade Dollars. How are they valued today? At a premium or at a discount?
It depends. The dates that are easy to find chopped are usually at a discount, typically something in the 20-75% range depending on the nature of the chops.
The dates that are difficult to find with chops are often at par or even have a premium.
EDIT: There are separate Greysheet, CPG, and CAC price guides for chopped coins. Thank you @JohnF !
Simple-I don't collect stickers. I buy coins I like, raw or graded. CAC stickering is more for the registry set collectors or those who think they add value. A common date Morgan silver dollar in MS63 value will not increase much with a CAC sticker. I have many coins that were graded before CAC came about. Not nearly all coins have been sent to CAC, none of mine have.
@rec78 said:
Simple-I don't collect stickers. I buy coins I like, raw or graded. CAC stickering is more for the registry set collectors or those who think they add value. A common date Morgan silver dollar in MS63 value will not increase much with a CAC sticker. I have many coins that were graded before CAC came about. Not nearly all coins have been sent to CAC, none of mine have.
That's somewhat different than a coin that failed to CAC which is what the OP intended.
Comments
Oh boy. I hope this is a joke thread. If'n you know how to grade a coin, you don't need a dumb sticker grading the grading services.
https://www.ebay.com/mys/active
If you know how to grade a coin, you don’t need grading services, either… that is, unless they’re better graders than you are. And unless they can sometimes help you avoid costly mistakes and provide you with liquidity and maximization of return when it comes time to sell.
But if you think CAC stickers (and by association, professional grading) are dumb, have at it.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Great post sir!
https://www.ebay.com/mys/active
"But if you think CAC stickers (and by association, professional grading) are dumb, have at it." What do you think Mark? As a leader in this field, do you think folks should submit their coins to a grading service, and then resubmit them for a Bean that says the grading services are right about that grade? Would love to hear your take on this! Thanks.
https://www.ebay.com/mys/active
@Catbert: best post of the thread (but did she sticker)?
“The thrill of the hunt never gets old”
PCGS Registry: Screaming Eagles
Copperindian
Retired sets: Soaring Eagles
Copperindian
Many coins don't merit professional grading. And of the ones that do, many of those don't merit submission to CAC.
If the coin's ungraded, it depends upon its approximate potential value (and liquidity) graded vs. ungraded. And if the coin's graded, it depends upon the approximate potential value (and liquidity) stickered by CAC vs, not stickered.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I buy the coin not the BEAN. However, if a coin is priced where I can buy it, the BEAN would be a plus. I don't look for coins that have a BEAN.
USN & USAF retired 1971-1993
Successful Transactions with more than 100 Members
@MFeld said:
Thanks for the reply Mark. I see coins all the time of lower value ($100-$500) with those beans, being significantly marked up, and think why or who sent that in, and what the heck that had to cost to get it stickered for pretty common stuff. As someone who collects in the sub $500 per coin range in general, it has just never made sense to me to double check a grading service at that price point. Folks definitely do it though!
https://www.ebay.com/mys/active
It all depends on the price difference versus the cost. If your $100 coin becomes $150 with the CAC, it might be worth the $20.
You’re most welcome.
There are coins in the price range you mentioned that do offer good upside vs. downside in spending the money for CAC submissions. But many others don’t. It depends on the coins, as some carry much larger premiums than others for CAC stickers.
Also, some submitters like to “test their grading skills” by submitting their coins to CAC, even if success won’t add as much value as the cost of submission.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
It is intriguing to me the post-mint damage a Trade dollar receives by being chop marked can still warrant a straight MS63 grade.
I can't think of any other examples anywhere a coin- after leaving the mint and is then altered/damaged can do so.
peacockcoins
Even my gummy bears know that without an Albanese bean they can't be the best.
Because "Coke" ain't what it used to be.
Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value. Zero. Voltaire. Ebay coinbowlllc
It will help your heirs not get hosed.
Good point, Pat!
I don’t think the exceptions made for chop marks are justified.
There are two other examples that quickly come to mind for me, though the “damage” - if that’s how it should be labeled - is far less conspicuous than chop marks.
One is the Dexter 1804 dollar with the “D” stamped on the reverse.
The other isn’t as widely known by numismatists but it’s equally intriguing to me. It’s an Ultra High Relief $20 with the initials “ASG” engraved on its edge. And guess whose estate the coin’s been positively traced to? 😉 For anyone with lots of time on their hands, the catalog description from when Heritage auctioned the coin in 2015 is linked below.
https://coins.ha.com/itm/proof-high-relief-double-eagles/1907-ultra-high-relief-20-inverted-edge-letters-asg-on-edge-pr68-by-both-ngc-and-pcgs-secure/a/1216-4412.s
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
There are non-U.S. exceptions with cut coins.
Maybe we have different definitions of the word "solid" which I interpret as being at the high end of the spectrum for a given grade.
You can't tell me that if you have a coin shop and you have two coins with AT that would be MS65 per ANA standards but one is at the "A" end of the spectrum and the other is at the "C" end of the spectrum and this is a coin where there's a significant price difference between 64, 65, and 66, that you wouldn't price the "solid" 65 with AT higher than the "C" 65. In fact the first step in pricing the coin is probably to assess a grade, reference the price guide for that grade and then apply a details discount. In this case you would no doubt price the 65 "A" higher than the 65 "C." Why? Because one is solidly a a 65 and the other is barely a 65.
I think the posts above about coins with chop marks prove that a coin with a details condition can and are very gradeable and if they are gradeable they fall somewhere on the spectrum (like me!) and part of the spectrum per my definition is in the realm of solid even if it has a details condition.
I guess you guys are saying a coin can't be _solid _if it's not CAC eligible which excludes any details coins, which is another definition and we are all entitled to our own definitions, but I think the coin market and what coins sell for argue that nicer details coins sell for more money than less-nice details coins.
Your example is not ludicrous. If the coin is a solid 67 with a hole in it, then that's what it is. any proficient grader can pick it up and say, "Wow, that's a very nice 67. Too bad there's a hole in it." No doubt though that the value and desirability of the coin is significantly impaired due to the hole.
Is there a limit I'm not aware of? You can't cap good discussion.
Many forget there was a time that CAC reviewed coins for free, and I believe legacy members still get 20 free per year.
Still many other low value coins may have been submitted in bulk and graded at very low costs.
Regarding 20 “free” CAC stickering services for Legacy members, I could be wrong, but I believe there’s no charge for up to that number of failures. If a coin “Passes”, we pay the fee!
Steve
Edit: As @DisneyFan explains below, my above comment is indeed incorrect!
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
Unfortunately, I learned the hard way that the Legacy members' 20-coin "free" special is limited to only the first 20 coins submitted annually on the economy tier whether they fail or not. After submitting 20 coins, the the charge is not waived if a future coin fails.
Easy for you to say. I suspect the graders at PCGS and NGC must use different logic as they must provide a service for the fee.
Ok. The grading companies are being paid for their service irrespective of final grade outcome and can’t assess the coin without looking at it closely. Do you not see this as wildly different than me looking at a damaged coin and moving on?
I can tell you that if I had a coin shop I wouldn’t buy known artificially toned coins and try and pass the problem to someone else at their expense. Ethics do matter.
I would label them "UNC details AT" and not put any other grades on it. And that's what everyone except our one insistent forum friend XF does because you can't grade problem coins. XF details isn't a grade of XF, it's a statement that the coin had the details of an XF coin despite the joke, polishing and AT.
Still no. A problem coin being "solid for the grade" is the same as a dead person being otherwise healthy. And that is how 99.99999% of collectors view it and understand it. You can try and redefine the term, but then you are only capable of talking to yourself.
Terms in the hobby have hobby specific meaning. For example, "uncirculated" doesn't mean it never circulated. To redefine the term just means no one understands you.
Actually, I think "uncirculated" does (or at least should) mean "never circulated". On the other hand, when we in this industry assign mint state/MS grades of 60 and higher, those grades don't necessarily mean the coins never circulated. But rather, even if they did circulate, they don't exhibit any wear.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I've just reviewed a whole bunch of past postings regarding chop marked Trade Dollars. How are they valued today? At a premium or at a discount?
When it has a hole in it
Lafayette Grading Set
At the end of the day, shouldn’t a MS6-whatever describe a level of preservation that a damaged/details coin can never meet?
Nothing unethical was being suggested. Sorry if I was unclear but I never suggested that known or suspected issues not be disclosed.
OK, and how does a coin shop price it? They grade it, reference the price guides, and then apply a condition discount.
Probably not if I knew it didn’t pass. Depends on other available info, price and scarcity. However, I can say that I’ve kept a number of coins that I’ve submitted myself that didn’t pass because I liked the coin. I’ve sold some too.
Pricing is based largely on the degree of DAMAGE and has alnost nothing to do with whether one has a stronger strike or something like that.
Additionally - They (CAC /Non CAC) are 2 different pricing levels (inventory classes) in the CDN - Bid / CPG Retail. So whether I buy one or the other a moot issue for me. I Just price them accordingly.
Main thing - I have to like the coin. If CAC (having pay more) very picky and I have to feel it’s select, PQ. Plus the deal has got to be there for me / my auc bid, bourse offer range.
Summary - see them (CAC, non CAC) as basically 2 separate inventory classes.
We all get that the specific type and degree of damage affects the size of the discount/price adjustment, but the starting point it the price guide based on the condition (grade) of the coin.
You can't tell me that if you have 2 XF Details 1893-S Morgans, both with similar, equivalent AT, that you're not going to price the one that meets XF45 standards the same as the one that meets XF40 standards. My guess is they will be priced $3-4k apart (similar to the price guide difference if they were non-details coins), and have a similar percentage off of the price guide (20, 30, 40%, whatever) to account for being Details. All of this to say that in the end, the dealer did grade the coin. And if a customer asked about the pricing, the explanation would start by saying that you feel one is an XF45 and the other is XF40 and you based you discounted it from those guide prices.
The difference won't be $3000. However, you just changed the question. XF45 vs XF40 isn't "solid for the grade" which is what you keep saying. Of course a VF details sells for less than an XF details, it has less details. But no one but you is trying to figure out if it's an A, B or C XF40.
The price guides aren’t intended to apply to detail grade coins - surely you know that.
And no dealers that I know would explain pricing or mention numerical grades in the way you stated.
I’ve been a full time dealer since 1979 and I’ve literally never heard anyone other than you say that a detail grade coin was “solid for the grade”. Please tell us how many times you’ve heard someone say it? If the answer is more than zero, you might not want to buy coins from whoever said it.
Just because you see this a certain way doesn’t mean that the rest of us have to. So think whatever you want but please give it a rest, here.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
It depends. The dates that are easy to find chopped are usually at a discount, typically something in the 20-75% range depending on the nature of the chops.
The dates that are difficult to find with chops are often at par or even have a premium.
EDIT: There are separate Greysheet, CPG, and CAC price guides for chopped coins. Thank you @JohnF !
Simple-I don't collect stickers. I buy coins I like, raw or graded. CAC stickering is more for the registry set collectors or those who think they add value. A common date Morgan silver dollar in MS63 value will not increase much with a CAC sticker. I have many coins that were graded before CAC came about. Not nearly all coins have been sent to CAC, none of mine have.
That's somewhat different than a coin that failed to CAC which is what the OP intended.