In the Higher Grades: Is More expected out of Classics than Moderns?

braddick

When I get a chance to view a graded Classic Seated half in MS66 I am awed by the beauty and condition. When I view a graded Kennedy in MS66 I see a coin with marks, haze and am generally distracted from the coin's beauty.

Does PCGS and NGC grade Classics a bit harsher? For example, could I "take" the marks off of that MS66 Kennedy and "place" them on the Seated half and still have an MS66? Somehow, I doubt it!

I've seen earlier material even in MS63 and it looks killer! (A 1919-S Standing Liberty quarter I viewed recently comes to mind.)
But, on ANY Modern coin I have really yet to see an MS63 that was a stand out coin.

I wonder if PCGS and NGC are tougher, grade for grade, on the earlier coins than the Moderns?

TomB

In my own experience I don't wonder so much if they are tougher on the grading of classics, rather, I wonder if they really care about the grading of moderns.

RegistryCoin

The "critical" grade levels of coins moves towards the higher grades, the later the date.

cladking

The problem is much more at the mint. They have had no critics for many
years because no one even looked at the coins. The quality started going
down around 1950 and then took a nose dive in 1965. Without demand
for attractive or collecable coins the mint concentrated on efficiency and econ-
omy. There are some attractive high grade moderns but the are few and far
between. Look in mint sets- - about 2% are nice gems, and 10% of these
are as nice as the classics. There are some nice pieces put in circulation also,
but for the main part they're too difficult to find to warrant the search.

FC57Coins

Pat:

I think it's a question of aesthetics. When you look at an SQL or a Seated Lib, or even a Morgan dollar, you're looking at works of art from a bygone era. I think the same would apply to a Monet or a Rembrandt, as opposed to perhaps some ultra modern piece of artwork that perhaps we don't yet appreciate or understand. I think the same holds true of coins today. Let's face it, yes they have their positives, but how can you compare a Kennedy to a Walking Lib, or a Washington to an SQL, or an Ike to a Morgan or Trade dollar? Get the picture? I've seen and have some MS67 Kennedy's and yes they look nice, they have the luster, they have the detail and the lack of dings and marks, but let's face it - it's something that we've been seeing for the last 40 years and have yet to gain an appreciation for. Now you look at a stunning Seated Liberty dollar, and you start asking questions like - where has it been, what stories could it tell, how could it have gone all these years preserved in this manner? I just picked up a 2002 Kennedy in PCGS MS67 for less than $20. OK - it'll be nice. Give me an MS67 Walker, Seated Lib, or even a lowly () Franklin, and I'll be raving about it for weeks. Sometimes we just get jaded to those things we have lots of and close at hand.

Frank

DHeath

Intricacy of design has sure changed. All we really have to look at now on most of the moderns is marks. The level of hair detail in the Morgan design compared to anything minted since draws great contrast (think Ike,SBA,Sac). Sorry, that was off topic, but Pat, one of the questions that has always haunted me is directly related to your question, and Tom's answer. Is there a grading halo around the more expensive coins that are more likely to be scrutinized by a more critical audience?

tjkillian

In my opinion, TomB is correct. PCGS/NGC just don't care about moderns and they have monkey's grading them. The monkey's just pull a lever to assign a grade. The classics are truly graded by astute collectors. I also have Kennedys that are ugly in MS-66 and Seated libertys in MS-62/MS-64 that are beautiful.

Tom

coinguy1

My experience has been, that sometimes, NGC and PCGS, rather than being stricter, are actually more forgiving in the case of outstanding rarities . Look at the PCGS PR68 1804 Dollar as an example. It's a very nice coin and no doubt the finest known. But, I have heard many dealers/experts question the PR68 rating. I'll throw out the 1933 $20 PCGS MS65, as another illustration. If that coin were a common date, I do not believe it would be graded MS65.

My hunch is, that the major grading companies, in a competition to get famous coins in their holders, push the grades. One other example which I'll mention is the Eliasberg collection. Both PCGS and NGC wanted Eliasberg coins in their holders and, in my opinion, and that of many others I've spoken to, graded many of those pieces higher than they otherwise would have.

Lastly, in the case of many of the inexpensive modern coins, I think that NGC and PCGS tend to realize many of them are not worth much $ and might assign higher grades than they would to more valuable coins. I realize that this seems to contradict my point about certain rarities mentioned above, but I believe both situations exist simultaneously.

IrishMike

The majority of submissions are modern coins, if they got tougher on grading, these submissions would slow down. You do the ecocomics.

airplanenut

<< <i>The majority of submissions are modern coins, if they got tougher on grading, these submissions would slow down. You do the ecocomics. >>

I don't have that many fingers and toes

fivecents

Braddick,
I belive the grading services are harder on the moderns than the classics. What if a pcgs graded morgan $1 had the same "look" as a pcgs graded modern commemorative in ms 66. It might have a chance at pcgs ms67 or ms68+.

Paul

braddick

Good point Paul. I guess it goes to show the better and more artisitic the design of the coin the more forgiving on its empediments and we tolerate more.

Eye Appeal certainly isn't JUST 'grade'.