A question for the experts (and near experts) - What is meant by a "technical" MS65 or MS6
FC57Coins
Posts: 9,140 ✭
Here's something I've been wondering about. If you read the descriptions provided by ANA and PCGS as to what makes a coin grade MS65 or 66, you find that eye appeal plays a big role in the grade and deservedly so. However, every so often you run into an MS65 or above coin that's down right ugly! The explanation I hear sometimes is that it's a "Technical" 65 or 66. Well if that's the case, does that mean that if the coin had any "eye appeal" at all, it would grade higher? - Explain that one to me? Thanks!
Regards
Frank
Regards
Frank
0
Comments
PCGS Grades
If it doesn't have this, it's hard for me to be interested unless it's a scarce date and I can't afford better.
But in response to your question, Yes I feel if a piece has great eye appeal it can and will bring up the grade. And negative eye appeal can and will lower the grade. Just my thoughts, If you buy coins with great eye appeal you will never regret it.
BTW, I by no means consider myself an expert
Hope this helps
stman
<< <i>No expert here but no mention of eye appeal in the grading standards on this pcgs list >>
Good morning:
Here is an excerpt from the official ANA grading standards on MS66's and MS 65's:
MS-66. Must have above average quality of strike and full original mint luster, with no more than two or three minor but noticeable contact marks. A few very light hairlines may show under magnification, or there may be one or two light scuff marks showing of frosted surfaces or in the field. The eye appeal must be above average and very pleasing for the date and mint. Copper coins display full original or lightly toned color as designated.
MS-65. Shows an attractive high quality of luster and strike for the date and mint. A few small scattered contact marks, or two larger marks may be present, and one or two small patches of hairlines may show under magnification. Noticeable light scuff marks may show on the high points of the design. Overall quality is above average and overall eye appeal is very pleasing. Copper coins have full luster with original or darkened color as designated.
The PCGS book also offers the same type of reference, but it's too early for me to seek that out and the coffee hasn't hit yet
Anyway, I think eye appeal is a tremendously important aspect of any coin at this level, which is what started me wondering about this "technical grade" schtick... If someone is asking MS65 money for a coin that looks like it got dropped in mud, but the strike is good and there are no major hits, I'm going to have to think about it long and hard, and unless we're talking major rarity, I'm not going to pay anywhere near MS65 money for it. So the question then comes back to my original point, if the eye appeal isn't there, why would a grading company like PCGS or NGC - assign a grade to it. Im sure some of you old timers have seen real dogs in high grade slabs from NGC with hideous toning.
Thanks
Frank
PS - let's not get into the "buy the coin not the slab" discourse - that's for another thread!
By the way this 29S Merc is in a NGC MS67 holder and stayed in the same grade after it was conserved.
Actually, your coin is better than a lot that I've seen. What I'm talking about are the more hideous examples like the one I saw in the picture below. This coin has/had a PCGS MS65FBL grade, and to be honest, and I know that eye appeal for everyone is different, but I think in this particular case, its just kind of generally accepted hideous. So now, if this coin was white, or had great toning, would it be an MS66? That's my question.
Regards,
Frank
This is a somewhat vague answer but this issue is also somewhat vauge also when coins are in plastic. If the coin was Raw I believe the seller would be justified in trying to get a higher grade price for the coin if the above conditions were met.
Ugly isn't a factor in technical grading, nor is pretty... that's why they call it technical!
The reality, however, is that grading is an art performed by humans who are impacted by all sorts of aesthetic factors. The ANA guideline for MS-65 is notably vague... something like "full, original mint luster and relatively few contact marks with no distracting marks in the prime focal areas." With a standard so open to interpretation, you can bet that most people are going to factor pretty and ugly before spending their hard-earned dollars!
It is generally acknowledged that overall, PCGS is the strictest grading service (although there are notable exceptions) and hence, their coins bring the highest prices in most areas. NGC is second, and there may be a long-standing reason. In the early days, NGC used to be the place to send darkly toned coins because they were frequently a point more liberal than PCGS. This became a point of contention and at a later date, John Albanese scoured the coin shows buying back the worst of these because they were such a poor advertisement for the company. Today, I think that PCGS and NGC grade pretty much on the same lines, and I can't help but wonder if NGC's rank isn't based on that old and lingering perception.
Peak Numismatics
Monument, CO
The problem with toning and what part it plays in how coins are currently graded comes down to subjective opinion. The extremes are some might think that the very dark toning described above isn't unattractive while blast white enthusiast might view any toning as unwant oxidation that warrants a reduction in grade. If we look at it strictly from the standpoint of surface preservation then the surfaces of the toned coin, all else being equal, should prevent it from ever meriting the same grade as a white coin with identical characteristics since the surfaces of the toned coin have not been preserved as well as its blast white counterpart (assuming a coin that hasn't been dipped) even if the toning in the opinion of most is considered attractive.
I guess this is why grading will never truly be 100% technical because eye appeal (especially with respect to toning) is a factor in grading according to the ANA, PCGS, etc. grading standards.
I agree with much of what is contained in the replies to your question, but I'd like to answer in a diffreent way.
"Technical grading" is a term that is often used to distinguish between that and "market grading". To keep it relatively short, I will give just two examples - 1) many, of the "mint state" Bust Dollars (and other pre-1808 coins) in PCGS and NGC holders are, technically, only almost uncirculated, due to so called friction, rub, etc. But, under "market grading" standards, as applied by NGC and PCGS, it is deemed acceptable to grade those coins mint state. Also, EAC grading of copper coins, which might be equated to "technical grading" is usually much stricter than "market grading". Bottom line - if only "technical grading" was applied, many coins would be graded lower than they are currently. However, whatever the standard applied, I believe that the most important consideration, by far, is that the grading be consistent.
The last two sentences sums up alot of previous threads as regards "market grading". I agree that many coins technically would not be the grade on the slab due to market grading. As far as consistency is concerned I think you have to separate the technical grade from its eye appeal grade (I suggest something similar to the Red, RB, Brown designations of copper coins).
For instance we could have UT (ugly toned), AT ooooppss!!! (attractively toned) etc.
Joe.
A technical grade means the coin is ugly to look at
My posts viewed
since 8/1/6
Pmh - what you said about the ANA grading set doesn't surprise me a bit. For a long time there has been a debate about what factor does toning play in grading, as well as what factor strike plays in grading. I think this is going to have to be one for the ages, because no one is ever going to agree on what's acceptable or not. I guess the bottom line is that any grade, whether it's PCGS, NGC or whoever (except maybe ACG - WHO SAID THAT!) is an opinion rendered on a coin that you have to weigh against your degree of security with respect to your investment and your degree of satisfaction with respect to the eye appeal of your coin.
And the argument no doubt will continue...
Regards,
Frank
If you weren't just being funny (sorry, I haven't been on the board long enough to know), I must disagree with your comment that "A technical grade means the coin is ugly to look at".
There are many gorgeous coins that might grade MS66 on a technical basis, for instance, but which are graded MS67 due to wonderful color and/or eye-appeal. You don't have to agree with the grading but "technical" doesn't mean ugly. It is just a term for a type of grading.
You gave a great piece of advice to coin buyers where you stated "I guess the bottom line is that any grade, whether it's PCGS, NGC or whoever (except maybe ACG - WHO SAID THAT!) is an opinion rendered on a coin that you have to weigh against your degree of security with respect to your investment and your degree of satisfaction with respect to the eye appeal of your coin". That pretty much sums it up for all of us - dealer or collector, expert or novice, investor or collector.
al h.
Joe.
Frank
al h.
i look at a coin and if for me it is correctly graded technically or undergraded technically and if the coin has fantastic qualities or superb eye appeal and it speaks sings and walks and talks to me and it seems like a great value a coin that has a reason to rise in value and is overall a greAT MONSTER COIN........ then ...... well you know the rest of the story
if there are many coins in holders i do not like
then they are not for me
and they actually help the value of the first type of coin i mentioned above in number one!
sincerely michael
Currently, in many instances, "technical" gradind has taken on a negative connotation; I believe it to be due to individuals attempting to justify why an unattractive coin may be graded higher than would otherwise be expected.
I on the other hand view am of the belief that when described as such, a "technically" graded coin meets the criteria of a published standard (whichever is being used), and therefore, IMO, should be give us a better idea of the merits of a particular coin.
On the other hand, a "market" graded specimen is essentially one that currently is "valued" at the grade assigned and may NOT meet the published standard (i.e., an otherwise MS63 coin that is somewhat less available i higher grades gets graded higher based more on its availability and less on its merits).
Being as adaptable as I am
I have always been opposed to "independent grading services" VALUATING a coin as opposed to grading a coin based on certain supposed measurable criteria. I also believe that eye appeal (and certainly that IS subjective) has been and can be still incorporated in a technical grade. I am sure many hold opposing views.
I prefer technical grades when encapsulating vs market grades. I think market grades should be reserved for selling a coin, as it is solely determined by the trend prevalent at the same of sale.
to add: Yes Griffin6 what you described I suppose was the grading technique prevalent during the beginnings of the independent grading services in the past, and if memory serves, didn't go over quite well among the masses and is what allowed certain services to gain or lose respectability within the collecting community.
The problem is sometimes the toning is down right beautiful (IMHO and the opinion of many other collectors) and as a grader you might find it hard to downgrade the coin since the toning in the opinion of the grader might dramactically increase the eye appeal of the coin. Can you imagine downgrading this coin to MS-61 because of the toning:
Toned Morgan
(No comment from you on this one Iwog
But say the coin was down grade to MS-61 would that lessen the demand for it? I still think that those that love toned coins would bid it up to whatever the market would bare.
Neil
judging from the strike of the morgan i could see downgrading it from 65 and letting the market take care of assigning a premium from there. i only looked at the scan quickly and it appears to me to be weakly struck in the neighborhood of a 63-64 and market graded up to the assigned 65. why no reverse scan? because it's technically sound and won't help to sell on the market side because it's white!!
i think the grading services should stick to the technical merits of a coins appearance and not get involved in how the market judges eye appeal. my reasons are simple----the technical aspects of the grade SHOULD remain consistent while the market side of the grade changes as market "tastes" change. i doubt that the day will ever come that collectors place more value on a coin with a weak strike, dull and lifeless luster, bagmarked. but as time shows, tastes regarding eye appeal with regards to toning and brilliant coins does change.
so what does this mean with the morgan you linked? the coin has been market graded and as such it already asks a premium with the assigned grade and now will seek a premium on top of that as a result of the current market preference for "monster" toning. it's a beautiful coin in or out of the holder.
al h.
I hear you. My reason for posting this particular coin was not so much to judge it on its other technical merits but to illustrate how toning can be consider (based on your taste) a + or - as far as grading goes. If technical grading were strictly technical, assigning a grade based on things that for the most part can be judged objectively such as quality of strike, luster, the number, placement and size of contact marks and surface preservation, then toning (whether dark or rainbow) would merit a technical deduction.
This wouldn't be a problem in a sight seen market because buyers could judge what premium the toning should merit based on their taste. They'd see the MS-61 grade but realize after an examination of the coin that what knocked the grade down wasn't strike, luster or contact marks but the toning. The market value would be determined by how they felt the toning affected the eye appeal of the coin based on their personal taste.
But if all toning was viewed as a negative as far as surface preservation in the strict sense is concerned it would cause havoc in the sight unseen market. You could have a coin with beautiful toning (judge so in the opinion of most) but the technical grade wouldn't give you a hint as to the actual appear of the coin.
if you leave surface preservation out of the equation and stick with strike, luster and bagmarks you'll get a better idea of what i think a technical grade is. of course things such as pitting caused by corrosion and planchet flaws should be considered, but what you refer to as surface preservation could more accurately be called just color. i understand that with toning there is a physical change in the surface of a coin, but for the most part it sn't noticeable without extreme magnification.
i agree with you regarding the sight unseen market and how market grading may be helpful there, the only problem is that in a sight seen situation the fact that a coin is market graded high is still used as an advantage to gain a higher price.
something i notice on eBay is that if you take an equally graded coin, say MS65, one with flat brown or gray tone, the grade is hyped. with a rainbow colored coin, the tone is hyped. also, on a dull coin the seller will often try to stress the underlying luster while with the rainbow coins they most often will stress the underlying clean surfaces. the bottom line for me is that a coin with no luster and a coin with bag marked surfaces shouldn't receive the 65 grade so why the need to mention it? too confusing.
al h.