Some one said - " The 1934 S Peace dollar has a piece of paper or cardboard inside the flip. I have never seen one before on ANACS photo certs. Maybe the PVC came from this addition?"
How do you get PVC damage from a paper / cardboard addition?
@cameonut2011 said:
Correct me if I am wrong, but MS61-62, 64, and 66 didn’t exist on the scale and 68+ were basically unheard of in 1984, no? Based on that, it looks more consistent than what you might think although admittedly the data does suggest grade inflation for WLH.
The book they gave me to use had 60, 65 and 70. I determined that those were not enough grades so I added 63 and 67 when we opened for business in 1979. Somewhere along the line we added 64 and 66. I am pretty sure that 61, 62, 68 and 69 were added after I left in 1984, but I must admit that there was one really nice Barber Dime I graded as an MS-69 just because it was that nice. Afterwards I decided that we would not be using that number after all.
@FlyingAl said:
I see "gradeflation" as more of a developing of standards. We understand them more, so they shift ever so slightly. With time, we'll see a slow to it.
LOL, I was collecting in the mid-1960's. Back then grading was all over the place; however, there was only one unchangeable, actual standard: MINT STATE = NO TRACE OF WEAR. By the mid-1980's there were no standards only guides that continued to promote the slide called the "evolution" of grading. Professionals did not get more knowledgeable. What they learned was MS virtually did not exist for some coins, everyone was told MS was the best, and prices were rising. Finally, Bowers put that dark little inside secret into words and wrote that coins that were formerly AU (NOT MS) are now MS. The condition of those newly "made" MS coins did not change, only the "grading game" changed.
Orrrrr….. ANACS was not consistent and used untechnical standards. It’s very funny how some people worship the era in which the concept of grading as a whole was still in development and needed finetuning, as if that were an accurate or consistent era. It was not. There is a reason why things have changed.
Clearly you don't know what your talking about as the Capt's reply shows.
Except that I do. I don’t really care for the Capt’s self-aggrandizement in every comment he makes - he clearly feels the need to insist on his own importance. He’s not a trustworthy source since he is clearly very biased about his own merit and capabilities. Great, he was involved in the inception of grading 50 years ago. That doesn’t mean he had a good system in place 50 years ago or that he can go head to head with the best graders today (he can’t).
...and you know this how, exactly?
I don't even know you but would still put my $100 against your $1 that he could do better than you, "You".
Simple observation. His comments are not accurate.
@Floridafacelifter said:
Here’s the 34-D that went from MS-60 to MS-66
And the 39-D that went from MS-60 to MS-65+
Do you have the 34-D handy? If so, could you please look at the right rim on both sides and tell me what you see?
Thank you.
TD
Not sure what I’m looking for but here they are
That's a completely normal and unaltered rim. The roundness where it meets the edge is how it should look and not a sign of manipulation. Filing would result in a jagged bevel. Repair work would have the wrong texture and shine. Undoubtedly, there is nothing wrong with the coin and ANACS was simply being silly or inaccurate (as they often enough were) - but of course, the aforementioned ANACS grader in this thread will claim that's impossible and try to invent alternate scenarios, because he's the best grader on the planet and invented grading and therefore they MUST have been correct. There is no reasonable scenario in which these two coins get an MS60. They are either gem or UNC Details, and they certainly don't look UNC Details.
Without having seen it in hand, you are definitively saying this rim hasn't been touched?
You're entitled to your opinion about Capt whether anyone agrees or not but you have zero credibility. What a joke.
Yes, it absolutely has not been altered from any of the pics that have been posted. This should be obvious to anyone with any legitimate ability. The fact that the Captain has in this very thread stated that there are rim repairs that he could not visually detect should indicate . . . something. Keep on attacking my "credibility" though, that'll get you real far in this conversation.
I've seen Peace dollars and WL half dollars with that exact rime characteristic and they we virgin rims with frost. The rims of that coin (over the "Y") have no frost left but they look 100% natural to me.
@BigJohnD said:
I had a few Indian proofs that went from ANACS questionable color to straight grades - I also thought that ANACS was rough back in the days...
I agree but remember, back in the days so was PCGS - at first. Now people are saying CACG is too tough. If history is correct, they will also become more forgiving, after all, grading is evolving right?
I was around when the ANA published their guide and ANACS started grading coins. Word at the shows was they were too strict; however, I felt they were OK. No dealers I knew followed the ANA Guide but we collectors did. The main problem was their grades did not match a coins value in most cases.
Now these coins being posted as ANA 60's going to 66 must be outliers but it depends on when the cert was issued. No offence to anyone working at ANACS or any other service in the 70's but they were not coin dealers. I will say that the ANACS team assembled in the 1980's before Rick Montgomery was hired away had an outstanding reputation among collectors for their grading and authentication.
@Married2Coins said:
LOL, I was collecting in the mid-1960's. Back then grading was all over the place; however, there was only one unchangeable, actual standard: MINT STATE = NO TRACE OF WEAR. By the mid-1980's there were no standards only guides that continued to promote the slide called the "evolution" of grading. Professionals did not get more knowledgeable. What they learned was MS virtually did not exist for some coins, everyone was told MS was the best, and prices were rising. Finally, Bowers put that dark little inside secret into words and wrote that coins that were formerly AU (NOT MS) are now MS. The condition of those newly "made" MS coins did not change, only the "grading game" changed.
It seems like the grading changes before and after the TPGs are like 2 different Bell Curves....one is the Standard Bell Curve we see with normal height distribution and symetrical tails.....the other one is a flatter, more spread out curve....lower height distribution....and a tail bias to the right (higher grades).
@Married2Coins said:
I was around when the ANA published their guide and ANACS started grading coins. Word at the shows was they were too strict; however, I felt they were OK. No dealers I knew followed the ANA Guide but we collectors did. The main problem was their grades did not match a coins value in most cases.
Now these coins being posted as ANA 60's going to 66 must be outliers but it depends on when the cert was issued. No offence to anyone working at ANACS or any other service in the 70's but they were not coin dealers. I will say that the ANACS team assembled in the 1980's before Rick Montgomery was hired away had an outstanding reputation among collectors for their grading and authentication.
As I have said many times before, we started the Grading Service just as the Hunt Brothers attempt to corner the silver market was pumping billions of dollars into the coin market, and the coin market jacked its grading up and up to take advantage of that market. People complained that we were "too strict" because we would not change our grading to match the bubble market grading, under which virtually every coin now called an MS-64 was being sold as an MS-65.
Then the bubble burst, and the market became incredibly strict in its grading because nobody wanted to buy anything. For the crater market to buy anything at the MS-65 price it had to be what is now called an MS-66, if not better The same people who had said that we were "too strict" now complained that we were "too loose," but we hadn't changed. They had.
As to the two coins in the OP graded MS-60/60, the Gentleman who posted them was kind enough to let me know what kind of certificates they had, and they were of the types introduced in 1987. Obviously I never saw the coins in hand, but based upon the procedures I left in place when I moved on such a grade would normally mean that there was a perceived problem which knocked the coin down to the lowest number grade within the word grade. Whether the graders who looked at the coins were correct or not I do not know, but I did train some of them.
TD
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
@Married2Coins said:
I was around when the ANA published their guide and ANACS started grading coins. Word at the shows was they were too strict; however, I felt they were OK. No dealers I knew followed the ANA Guide but we collectors did. The main problem was their grades did not match a coins value in most cases.
Now these coins being posted as ANA 60's going to 66 must be outliers but it depends on when the cert was issued. No offence to anyone working at ANACS or any other service in the 70's but they were not coin dealers. I will say that the ANACS team assembled in the 1980's before Rick Montgomery was hired away had an outstanding reputation among collectors for their grading and authentication.
As I have said many times before, we started the Grading Service just as the Hunt Brothers attempt to corner the silver market was pumping billions of dollars into the coin market, and the coin market jacked its grading up and up to take advantage of that market. People complained that we were "too strict" because we would not change our grading to match the bubble market grading, under which virtually every coin now called an MS-64 was being sold as an MS-65.
Then the bubble burst, and the market became incredibly strict in its grading because nobody wanted to buy anything. For the crater market to buy anything at the MS-65 price it had to be what is now called an MS-66, if not better The same people who had said that we were "too strict" now complained that we were "too loose," but we hadn't changed. They had.
As to the two coins in the OP graded MS-60/60, the Gentleman who posted them was kind enough to let me know what kind of certificates they had, and they were of the types introduced in 1987. Obviously I never saw the coins in hand, but based upon the procedures I left in place when I moved on such a grade would normally mean that there was a perceived problem which knocked the coin down to the lowest number grade within the word grade. Whether the graders who looked at the coins were correct or not I do not know, but I did train some of them.
TD
First, you asked who I am for a private message but I don't know or couldn't find it. I have no problem saying I'm a 70 year old collector who lives in Washington, DC where both ANACS and INS services were started. I knew Hoskins, and Fazzari, and took classes/learned from them and other well-known and more youthful graders than us at the top of the game today (I already got the name dropper badge) at several Summer Seminars or elsewhere. Julian Leidman was the most famous coin dealer in the area. I never missed a coin show in MD or VA and visited the eight or so dealers shops in the area regularly. I got hooked on the subject of coin grading, have lived the evolution, and hold/defend many old-time and obsolete opinions.
Your post contained excellent comments on the history you covered. A person who is actually involved is the most accurate. That's why you are one of my favorite posters. IMO, the older grading services either failed (INS); became irrelevant (Accugrade); or were forced to change (ANACS) because the coin dealers took over the job of applying grades to a round piece of metal by adding unrelated concepts to its actual condition such as eye-appeal, and value. Fortunately for all of us, when combined with a "sticker," things seem to be working out. How do they say it..."You can never go back."
BTW, in a grading seminar, one of the first questions asked by our instructor (he is banned from this forum but mentioned above) was "Why do we need grading?" Then, step-by-step he dismantled our universal reply - "to establish a coin's value."
PS Are you at liberty to tell us the names of the graders you trained. I feel this is very important for students of numismatic history like ourselves! I'll bet you must have trained some of those long-time ANACS graders I admire that are still working there today so they should not mind. I've heard the story from one of them regarding why you resigned from ANACS. IMHO, you are a man to be admired for your principles and deserving of all your numismatic accolades.
@Married2Coins said:
I agree but remember, back in the days so was PCGS - at first. Now people are saying CACG is too tough. If history is correct, they will also become more forgiving, after all, grading is evolving right?
The difference to me (who wasn't there 30-40 years ago, admittedly): when the TPGs and their predecessors (ANACs, etc.) came into being it had mostly been the wild wild west, all over the place, if you go by The Golden Era of coin collecting from 1950-1980. XF coins being called MS was the outlier. The differences for the most part were in numerical increments where coins were often off by 2, 3, or even 4 grades. Most dealers didn't even use all the numbers as I have read. "Choice Uncirculated" and the likes with a grade for that verbal description.
Today, CACG is "tough" relative to two long-standing TPGs who have been around for decades. They are causing a small ruckus apparently not so much for being 1 grade tougher but more so for calling coins that are MS as AU (or lower) or even Details (with no grade).
@Married2Coins said:
I agree but remember, back in the days so was PCGS - at first. Now people are saying CACG is too tough. If history is correct, they will also become more forgiving, after all, grading is evolving right?
The difference to me (who wasn't there 30-40 years ago, admittedly): when the TPGs and their predecessors (ANACs, etc.) came into being it had mostly been the wild wild west, all over the place, if you go by The Golden Era of coin collecting from 1950-1980. XF coins being called MS was the outlier. The differences for the most part were in numerical increments where coins were often off by 2, 3, or even 4 grades. Most dealers didn't even use all the numbers as I have read. "Choice Uncirculated" and the likes with a grade for that verbal description.
Today, CACG is "tough" relative to two long-standing TPGs who have been around for decades. They are causing a small ruckus apparently not so much for being 1 grade tougher but more so for calling coins that are MS as AU (or lower) or even Details (with no grade).
If CAC calls a coin AU rather than MS you can be sure there is friction on the relief. Those guys can tell the difference between a loss of design due to a weak strike vs rub.
@Married2Coins said:
I agree but remember, back in the days so was PCGS - at first. Now people are saying CACG is too tough. If history is correct, they will also become more forgiving, after all, grading is evolving right?
The difference to me (who wasn't there 30-40 years ago, admittedly): when the TPGs and their predecessors (ANACs, etc.) came into being it had mostly been the wild wild west, all over the place, if you go by The Golden Era of coin collecting from 1950-1980. XF coins being called MS was the outlier. The differences for the most part were in numerical increments where coins were often off by 2, 3, or even 4 grades. Most dealers didn't even use all the numbers as I have read. "Choice Uncirculated" and the likes with a grade for that verbal description.
Today, CACG is "tough" relative to two long-standing TPGs who have been around for decades. They are causing a small ruckus apparently not so much for being 1 grade tougher but more so for calling coins that are MS as AU (or lower) or even Details (with no grade).
If CAC calls a coin AU rather than MS you can be sure there is friction on the relief. Those guys can tell the difference between a loss of design due to a weak strike vs rub.
Why do you say that? The graders there are not the most respected ones in the industry.
@Married2Coins said:
I agree but remember, back in the days so was PCGS - at first. Now people are saying CACG is too tough. If history is correct, they will also become more forgiving, after all, grading is evolving right?
The difference to me (who wasn't there 30-40 years ago, admittedly): when the TPGs and their predecessors (ANACs, etc.) came into being it had mostly been the wild wild west, all over the place, if you go by The Golden Era of coin collecting from 1950-1980. XF coins being called MS was the outlier. The differences for the most part were in numerical increments where coins were often off by 2, 3, or even 4 grades. Most dealers didn't even use all the numbers as I have read. "Choice Uncirculated" and the likes with a grade for that verbal description.
Today, CACG is "tough" relative to two long-standing TPGs who have been around for decades. They are causing a small ruckus apparently not so much for being 1 grade tougher but more so for calling coins that are MS as AU (or lower) or even Details (with no grade).
If CAC calls a coin AU rather than MS you can be sure there is friction on the relief. Those guys can tell the difference between a loss of design due to a weak strike vs rub.
I saw a couple weeks ago a coin that was submitted fresh from Mint Set plastic getting an AU grade.
Call me stupid, but I have a hard time believing an AU coin pops outta a Mint Set, especially when JA said that a MS Walker was in his pocket for a month (not sure if that's the right timeframe, but it was a significant time) and was still MS.
@Married2Coins said:
I agree but remember, back in the days so was PCGS - at first. Now people are saying CACG is too tough. If history is correct, they will also become more forgiving, after all, grading is evolving right?
The difference to me (who wasn't there 30-40 years ago, admittedly): when the TPGs and their predecessors (ANACs, etc.) came into being it had mostly been the wild wild west, all over the place, if you go by The Golden Era of coin collecting from 1950-1980. XF coins being called MS was the outlier. The differences for the most part were in numerical increments where coins were often off by 2, 3, or even 4 grades. Most dealers didn't even use all the numbers as I have read. "Choice Uncirculated" and the likes with a grade for that verbal description.
Today, CACG is "tough" relative to two long-standing TPGs who have been around for decades. They are causing a small ruckus apparently not so much for being 1 grade tougher but more so for calling coins that are MS as AU (or lower) or even Details (with no grade).
If CAC calls a coin AU rather than MS you can be sure there is friction on the relief. Those guys can tell the difference between a loss of design due to a weak strike vs rub.
Why do you say that? The graders there are not the most respected ones in the industry.
You will learn that grading is subjective and IF you study enough, attend enough classes, see a lot of coins, (learn the commercial coin market is a big plus) then...you, YOU will become a very proficient grader also and perhaps work at a TPGS one day. The best graders in the business don't all work/own TPGS but all proficient graders are respected - EVEN THE ONES WHO POLICE THE OTHERS and revert back closer to old standards that were very strict (when applied)..
@Married2Coins said:
I agree but remember, back in the days so was PCGS - at first. Now people are saying CACG is too tough. If history is correct, they will also become more forgiving, after all, grading is evolving right?
The difference to me (who wasn't there 30-40 years ago, admittedly): when the TPGs and their predecessors (ANACs, etc.) came into being it had mostly been the wild wild west, all over the place, if you go by The Golden Era of coin collecting from 1950-1980. XF coins being called MS was the outlier. The differences for the most part were in numerical increments where coins were often off by 2, 3, or even 4 grades. Most dealers didn't even use all the numbers as I have read. "Choice Uncirculated" and the likes with a grade for that verbal description.
Today, CACG is "tough" relative to two long-standing TPGs who have been around for decades. They are causing a small ruckus apparently not so much for being 1 grade tougher but more so for calling coins that are MS as AU (or lower) or even Details (with no grade).
If CAC calls a coin AU rather than MS you can be sure there is friction on the relief. Those guys can tell the difference between a loss of design due to a weak strike vs rub.
I saw a couple weeks ago a coin that was submitted fresh from Mint Set plastic getting an AU grade.
Call me stupid, but I have a hard time believing an AU coin pops outta a Mint Set, especially when JA said that a MS Walker was in his pocket for a month (not sure if that's the right timeframe, but it was a significant time) and was still MS.
I would never call you stupid Al. You may be uninformed. I worked at a coin shop and packages of mint sets are tossed around and hauled to shows for years because they were considered to be junk. That may be the case. Otherwise, the tight butts at CACG may have gone too far. I personally hope they stay tight.
It will force others to do the same.
At a grading seminar, Randy Campbell, told us that the director of ANACS (I forgot his name) had a desk drawer full of unopened Mint issued coins that were sub-standard, impaired, and even AU! Anyway, we are writing about a "mystery coin." It is like talking about an Angel - many believe they exist but few have seen one.
@Married2Coins said:
I agree but remember, back in the days so was PCGS - at first. Now people are saying CACG is too tough. If history is correct, they will also become more forgiving, after all, grading is evolving right?
The difference to me (who wasn't there 30-40 years ago, admittedly): when the TPGs and their predecessors (ANACs, etc.) came into being it had mostly been the wild wild west, all over the place, if you go by The Golden Era of coin collecting from 1950-1980. XF coins being called MS was the outlier. The differences for the most part were in numerical increments where coins were often off by 2, 3, or even 4 grades. Most dealers didn't even use all the numbers as I have read. "Choice Uncirculated" and the likes with a grade for that verbal description.
Today, CACG is "tough" relative to two long-standing TPGs who have been around for decades. They are causing a small ruckus apparently not so much for being 1 grade tougher but more so for calling coins that are MS as AU (or lower) or even Details (with no grade).
If CAC calls a coin AU rather than MS you can be sure there is friction on the relief. Those guys can tell the difference between a loss of design due to a weak strike vs rub.
I saw a couple weeks ago a coin that was submitted fresh from Mint Set plastic getting an AU grade.
Call me stupid, but I have a hard time believing an AU coin pops outta a Mint Set, especially when JA said that a MS Walker was in his pocket for a month (not sure if that's the right timeframe, but it was a significant time) and was still MS.
I would never call you stupid Al. You may be uninformed. I worked at a coin shop and packages of mint sets are tossed around and hauled to shows for years because they were considered to be junk. That may be the case. Otherwise, the tight butts at CACG may have gone too far. I personally hope they stay tight.
It will force others to do the same.
At a grading seminar, Randy Campbell, told us that the director of ANACS (I forgot his name) had a desk drawer full of unopened Mint issued coins that were sub-standard, impaired, and even AU! Anyway, we are writing about a "mystery coin." It is like talking about an Angel - many believe they exist but few have seen one.
I wasn’t seeing any wear on the coin - personally I felt they went too far. The coin would almost certainly grade gem MS anywhere else.
@Married2Coins said:
I agree but remember, back in the days so was PCGS - at first. Now people are saying CACG is too tough. If history is correct, they will also become more forgiving, after all, grading is evolving right?
The difference to me (who wasn't there 30-40 years ago, admittedly): when the TPGs and their predecessors (ANACs, etc.) came into being it had mostly been the wild wild west, all over the place, if you go by The Golden Era of coin collecting from 1950-1980. XF coins being called MS was the outlier. The differences for the most part were in numerical increments where coins were often off by 2, 3, or even 4 grades. Most dealers didn't even use all the numbers as I have read. "Choice Uncirculated" and the likes with a grade for that verbal description.
Today, CACG is "tough" relative to two long-standing TPGs who have been around for decades. They are causing a small ruckus apparently not so much for being 1 grade tougher but more so for calling coins that are MS as AU (or lower) or even Details (with no grade).
If CAC calls a coin AU rather than MS you can be sure there is friction on the relief. Those guys can tell the difference between a loss of design due to a weak strike vs rub.
Why do you say that? The graders there are not the most respected ones in the industry.
You will learn that grading is subjective and IF you study enough, attend enough classes, see a lot of coins, (learn the commercial coin market is a big plus) then...you, YOU will become a very proficient grader also and perhaps work at a TPGS one day. The best graders in the business don't all work/own TPGS but all proficient graders are respected - EVEN THE ONES WHO POLICE THE OTHERS and revert back closer to old standards that were very strict (when applied)..
Haha okay. You clearly have no idea what you’re talking about.
@Floridafacelifter
The fact that these coins were passed down, gives me tremendous pleasure knowing that I am not alone when I do the same.
These are all beautiful coins with special meaning, and I hope that you do not sell them off but keep them for one of your future family members.
Wayne
@WAYNEAS said: @Floridafacelifter
The fact that these coins were passed down, gives me tremendous pleasure knowing that I am not alone when I do the same.
These are all beautiful coins with special meaning, and I hope that you do not sell them off but keep them for one of your future family members.
Wayne
Thank you- they do mean a lot to me, and at Thanksgiving he actually gave me a double row box of Morgans and some sets I am currently going through and enjoying! Thank you for your post!
Without seeing the coins, can you honestly say that?
I think it is fair to say that for many (perhaps even most) of the coins that have gone up two, three, or more grades few have seen them in hand, that however doesn't disprove that many collectors feel gradeflation is real. I know that it has been said that grading today is an evolution and that higher grades are to be expected. I suppose that if the same graders were doing the grading today that graded these at ANACS that could be true. But I think that the lack of standards today is what has lead us to this result.
Over the past 40+ years, with a different and old school grading outfit, sure.
But I’d venture that someone would have gotten similar results 10, 20, or even more years ago.
Agreed, gradeflation has been happening for quite some time. We have been seeing the members here point out the upgrades that were easily identifiable on coin facts (prior to it being scrubbed) for well over ten years.
For sure- makes me hesitate to pay a premium for a pop 1/0 coin- I’ve had (2) pop 1/0 coins become pop 2/0 in the last couple of years- my Fugio and my Zerbe
Would never pay a premium based on pops for a particular coin for reasons mentioned above. The ultimate horror story is the 1896 Liberty Nickel in MS 66. PCGS had a pop 4 of them in I think 2004. Someone I knew paid $17K for one, Pops exploded around 2014, and I could have gotten a nice one for $6K two years later. I passed.
"Vou invadir o Nordeste, "Seu cabra da peste, "Sou Mangueira......."
Awesome thread @Floridafacelifter. You are so fortunate to have such a great collection. I also appreciate how humble you are. I'm glad you post here and show us your goodies!
I have a photo grade from 1981.
What year did ANACS start grading? 1979?
Student of numismatics and collector of Morgan dollars
Successful BST transactions with: Namvet Justindan Mattniss RWW olah_in_MA
Dantheman984 Toyz4geo SurfinxHI greencopper RWW bigjpst bretsan MWallace logger7
@Morgan13 said:
Awesome thread @Floridafacelifter. You are so fortunate to have such a great collection. I also appreciate how humble you are. I'm glad you post here and show us your goodies!
I have a photo grade from 1981.
What year did ANACS start grading? 1979?
@Morgan13 said:
Awesome thread @Floridafacelifter. You are so fortunate to have such a great collection. I also appreciate how humble you are. I'm glad you post here and show us your goodies!
I have a photo grade from 1981.
What year did ANACS start grading? 1979?
Grading began in 1979, ANACS started with authentication services only in 1972 according to the Conder101 book. Your photo cert is ANACS 4, which was used from mid 1980 to early/mid 1983, a very nice photo cert to have.
@Morgan13 said:
Awesome thread @Floridafacelifter. You are so fortunate to have such a great collection. I also appreciate how humble you are. I'm glad you post here and show us your goodies!
I have a photo grade from 1981.
What year did ANACS start grading? 1979?
March 1, 1979
TD
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
Comments
Some one said - " The 1934 S Peace dollar has a piece of paper or cardboard inside the flip. I have never seen one before on ANACS photo certs. Maybe the PVC came from this addition?"
How do you get PVC damage from a paper / cardboard addition?
Grade update- four coins have been conserved (PVC Residue) and graded by NGC
1918 10c MS64 FB
1918-S 10c AU58
1925 $ MS63
1934 $ AU58
Very nice, and nice photos as well!
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
you're such a valuable member Capt
Did you do it yourself? I usually do. PVC is easy on non copper.
I couldn’t even see it to begin with so I just left it to NGC to remove.
LOL, I was collecting in the mid-1960's. Back then grading was all over the place; however, there was only one unchangeable, actual standard: MINT STATE = NO TRACE OF WEAR. By the mid-1980's there were no standards only guides that continued to promote the slide called the "evolution" of grading. Professionals did not get more knowledgeable. What they learned was MS virtually did not exist for some coins, everyone was told MS was the best, and prices were rising. Finally, Bowers put that dark little inside secret into words and wrote that coins that were formerly AU (NOT MS) are now MS. The condition of those newly "made" MS coins did not change, only the "grading game" changed.
I've seen Peace dollars and WL half dollars with that exact rime characteristic and they we virgin rims with frost. The rims of that coin (over the "Y") have no frost left but they look 100% natural to me.
I had a few Indian proofs that went from ANACS questionable color to straight grades - I also thought that ANACS was rough back in the days...
I agree but remember, back in the days so was PCGS - at first. Now people are saying CACG is too tough. If history is correct, they will also become more forgiving, after all, grading is evolving right?
Any chance the original ANACS grader confused die polish lines with hairline scratches on the 1934-D?
Ditto confusing frost breaks with cabinet friction on the 1939-D?
We have thousands of digital images to look at; they were learning as they went.
I was around when the ANA published their guide and ANACS started grading coins. Word at the shows was they were too strict; however, I felt they were OK. No dealers I knew followed the ANA Guide but we collectors did. The main problem was their grades did not match a coins value in most cases.
Now these coins being posted as ANA 60's going to 66 must be outliers but it depends on when the cert was issued. No offence to anyone working at ANACS or any other service in the 70's but they were not coin dealers. I will say that the ANACS team assembled in the 1980's before Rick Montgomery was hired away had an outstanding reputation among collectors for their grading and authentication.
It seems like the grading changes before and after the TPGs are like 2 different Bell Curves....one is the Standard Bell Curve we see with normal height distribution and symetrical tails.....the other one is a flatter, more spread out curve....lower height distribution....and a tail bias to the right (higher grades).
As I have said many times before, we started the Grading Service just as the Hunt Brothers attempt to corner the silver market was pumping billions of dollars into the coin market, and the coin market jacked its grading up and up to take advantage of that market. People complained that we were "too strict" because we would not change our grading to match the bubble market grading, under which virtually every coin now called an MS-64 was being sold as an MS-65.
Then the bubble burst, and the market became incredibly strict in its grading because nobody wanted to buy anything. For the crater market to buy anything at the MS-65 price it had to be what is now called an MS-66, if not better The same people who had said that we were "too strict" now complained that we were "too loose," but we hadn't changed. They had.
As to the two coins in the OP graded MS-60/60, the Gentleman who posted them was kind enough to let me know what kind of certificates they had, and they were of the types introduced in 1987. Obviously I never saw the coins in hand, but based upon the procedures I left in place when I moved on such a grade would normally mean that there was a perceived problem which knocked the coin down to the lowest number grade within the word grade. Whether the graders who looked at the coins were correct or not I do not know, but I did train some of them.
TD
First, you asked who I am for a private message but I don't know or couldn't find it. I have no problem saying I'm a 70 year old collector who lives in Washington, DC where both ANACS and INS services were started. I knew Hoskins, and Fazzari, and took classes/learned from them and other well-known and more youthful graders than us at the top of the game today (I already got the name dropper badge) at several Summer Seminars or elsewhere. Julian Leidman was the most famous coin dealer in the area. I never missed a coin show in MD or VA and visited the eight or so dealers shops in the area regularly. I got hooked on the subject of coin grading, have lived the evolution, and hold/defend many old-time and obsolete opinions.
Your post contained excellent comments on the history you covered. A person who is actually involved is the most accurate. That's why you are one of my favorite posters. IMO, the older grading services either failed (INS); became irrelevant (Accugrade); or were forced to change (ANACS) because the coin dealers took over the job of applying grades to a round piece of metal by adding unrelated concepts to its actual condition such as eye-appeal, and value. Fortunately for all of us, when combined with a "sticker," things seem to be working out. How do they say it..."You can never go back."
BTW, in a grading seminar, one of the first questions asked by our instructor (he is banned from this forum but mentioned above) was "Why do we need grading?" Then, step-by-step he dismantled our universal reply - "to establish a coin's value."
PS Are you at liberty to tell us the names of the graders you trained. I feel this is very important for students of numismatic history like ourselves! I'll bet you must have trained some of those long-time ANACS graders I admire that are still working there today so they should not mind. I've heard the story from one of them regarding why you resigned from ANACS. IMHO, you are a man to be admired for your principles and deserving of all your numismatic accolades.
The difference to me (who wasn't there 30-40 years ago, admittedly): when the TPGs and their predecessors (ANACs, etc.) came into being it had mostly been the wild wild west, all over the place, if you go by The Golden Era of coin collecting from 1950-1980. XF coins being called MS was the outlier. The differences for the most part were in numerical increments where coins were often off by 2, 3, or even 4 grades. Most dealers didn't even use all the numbers as I have read. "Choice Uncirculated" and the likes with a grade for that verbal description.
Today, CACG is "tough" relative to two long-standing TPGs who have been around for decades. They are causing a small ruckus apparently not so much for being 1 grade tougher but more so for calling coins that are MS as AU (or lower) or even Details (with no grade).
If CAC calls a coin AU rather than MS you can be sure there is friction on the relief. Those guys can tell the difference between a loss of design due to a weak strike vs rub.
Why do you say that? The graders there are not the most respected ones in the industry.
I saw a couple weeks ago a coin that was submitted fresh from Mint Set plastic getting an AU grade.
Call me stupid, but I have a hard time believing an AU coin pops outta a Mint Set, especially when JA said that a MS Walker was in his pocket for a month (not sure if that's the right timeframe, but it was a significant time) and was still MS.
Coin Photographer.
You will learn that grading is subjective and IF you study enough, attend enough classes, see a lot of coins, (learn the commercial coin market is a big plus) then...you, YOU will become a very proficient grader also and perhaps work at a TPGS one day. The best graders in the business don't all work/own TPGS but all proficient graders are respected - EVEN THE ONES WHO POLICE THE OTHERS and revert back closer to old standards that were very strict (when applied)..
I would never call you stupid Al. You may be uninformed. I worked at a coin shop and packages of mint sets are tossed around and hauled to shows for years because they were considered to be junk. That may be the case. Otherwise, the tight butts at CACG may have gone too far. I personally hope they stay tight.
It will force others to do the same.
At a grading seminar, Randy Campbell, told us that the director of ANACS (I forgot his name) had a desk drawer full of unopened Mint issued coins that were sub-standard, impaired, and even AU! Anyway, we are writing about a "mystery coin." It is like talking about an Angel - many believe they exist but few have seen one.
I wasn’t seeing any wear on the coin - personally I felt they went too far. The coin would almost certainly grade gem MS anywhere else.
Coin Photographer.
Haha okay. You clearly have no idea what you’re talking about.
@Floridafacelifter
The fact that these coins were passed down, gives me tremendous pleasure knowing that I am not alone when I do the same.
These are all beautiful coins with special meaning, and I hope that you do not sell them off but keep them for one of your future family members.
Wayne
Kennedys are my quest...
Thank you- they do mean a lot to me, and at Thanksgiving he actually gave me a double row box of Morgans and some sets I am currently going through and enjoying! Thank you for your post!
Would never pay a premium based on pops for a particular coin for reasons mentioned above. The ultimate horror story is the 1896 Liberty Nickel in MS 66. PCGS had a pop 4 of them in I think 2004. Someone I knew paid $17K for one, Pops exploded around 2014, and I could have gotten a nice one for $6K two years later. I passed.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
Awesome thread @Floridafacelifter. You are so fortunate to have such a great collection. I also appreciate how humble you are. I'm glad you post here and show us your goodies!
I have a photo grade from 1981.
What year did ANACS start grading? 1979?
Student of numismatics and collector of Morgan dollars
Successful BST transactions with: Namvet Justindan Mattniss RWW olah_in_MA
Dantheman984 Toyz4geo SurfinxHI greencopper RWW bigjpst bretsan MWallace logger7
Calling @CaptHenway
Grading began in 1979, ANACS started with authentication services only in 1972 according to the Conder101 book. Your photo cert is ANACS 4, which was used from mid 1980 to early/mid 1983, a very nice photo cert to have.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
March 1, 1979
TD
@CaptHenway thank you
Student of numismatics and collector of Morgan dollars
Successful BST transactions with: Namvet Justindan Mattniss RWW olah_in_MA
Dantheman984 Toyz4geo SurfinxHI greencopper RWW bigjpst bretsan MWallace logger7