Most Overgraded Coin Award: Honorable Mention
Singapore
Posts: 578
http://www.coinfacts.com/colonials/vermont_coppers/vt_ryder_06.htm
First time this one sold it was in a PCGS53 holder which I thought was amazing. Next time it was called a 55. I figure it will be an MS62 when sold again later this year.
First time this one sold it was in a PCGS53 holder which I thought was amazing. Next time it was called a 55. I figure it will be an MS62 when sold again later this year.
Singapore
0
Comments
How do you do the link?
Then what do you call this one -
http://cgi.liveauctions.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2152092573
Well, the second coin was pedigreed to the Ezra Cole sale in 1986 at which time it was called XF40. And I do believe this one is better than the first coin shown.
Now I'll accept that grading standards may have changed over the years, but what doesn't quite work for me is that back in the 80s there were other finer landscape coins sold as AUs. So I guess those would all be considered uncirculated now?
Basically there has been an incredible grade compression over the last couple of years, fueled largely by 3rd party graders and their 'market grading', where a wide variety of coins are now being shoe-horned (numismatically speaking) into the AU category.
The first coin formerly was a PCGS 53, now its a 55. The second one was formerly a PCGS 55, now its a 58.
What's your point??
Pete
But I've noticed where this has happened that the prices are relatively lower as well. Look at the "bid" price for a 1916-D Mercury Dime in VF. It's $1,275.00. It looks like a bargain except that what is now VF is what we once called VG.
While I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with what the "correct" grade of the 1804 $1 should be, it strikes me as embarrassing that a coin of that significance, should receive such disparate grades from expert graders.
Either the graders screwed up initially or they did later - either way, it's a shame and someone / some owner along the line was done a great disservice or a great favor. I'm afraid that, rather than it being a case of the coin's being better understood, it was a contest to see which grading service could get (and perhaps keep) the coin in their holder, just as it was with the Eliasberg coins.
This might be getting off topic a bit (or maybe a lot!) but this discussion brings up another thing that bothers me - that being, in my opinion, at least, the major grading services' giving the benefit of the doubt to or being liberal in the grading of ultra-rarities. Perhaps that could be the topic for another thread.
From what I can see the grading services have lowered their standards for key dates, not just ultra rarities. There is so much overgraded stuff in numismatic circulation now that it would be hard to fix, but to me the situation is still disturbing.
In "the good old days" less than scapulous dealers had bad habit of lowering standards for key date coins. Sadly the grading services seem to be guilty of the same practice.
But it isn't.
Imagine a Vermont landscape which in 1986 was nice but nothing remarkable has now ascended to the lofy heights of the 'finest known'. Its nothing short of ridiculous.
While 3rd party grading is one of the better things to come along in Numismatics, the fact that 3rd party grading and liberal grading go hand in hand is a damn shame.
I'm to the point of virtually ignoring the PCGS grades on coins when buying them, even though I prefer having slabbed coins because I think slabs (and slab grades) matter greatly when it comes time to sell primarily as there are clearly many, many people who feel as Adam and TradeDollarNut apparently do - that the PCGS grade must be THE accurate grade because PCGS deemed it so. In today's numistmatic markletplace, they're right.
And finally, I respectfully disagree with Bill Jones' assessment (at least in relation to Colonials on which he was not specifically commenting) that while grading standards have relaxed prices have declined bringing the market back in sync.
The price of an AU Landscape copper hasn't much changed in the last few years, but the coin called AU certainly has. Extrapolate that across coins and types and series and it equals much stronger prices for the same old coins. And as I have posted before, with colonials it literally is the very same old coins as they are not all that hard to trace to previous auction appearances.
I happen to know that coin - in fact, I owned part of it for two weeks. I fronted the money for Legend Numismatics to purchase the coin before it was sold to Phil Flannagan. I've researched the coin and think I understand the process by which it was made and the intricacies involved with grading the piece. More than likely, those who criticize are just looking at the jump from low end AU to Choice AU and saying "one more example of grade inflation". But do they really understand how the coin was created and why PCGS chose to grade it that way? I do. If you don't, then don't criticize.
Further, just out of curiosity, isn't the jump from MS61 to MS62 a bigger overall jump in quality than a jump from low end AU to high end AU? And that jump occurs all the time! [It's certainly a bigger jump in price, therefore I think it's a bigger jump in quality]. Don't focus on the numbers - 8 points seems like a lot, but remember that going from VF20 to VF35 is a fine line and it's a whopping 15 points!
President, Racine Numismatic Society 2013-2014; Variety Resource Dimes; See 6/8/12 CDN for my article on Winged Liberty Dimes; Ebay
No offense intended. I was reacting to (my understanding of) your perception of the 1804 Dollar grade change as essentially a now more accurate assessment of the coin. I don't agree with that, but you may well know a story aboput that coin that I dont.
Re the difference in low to high end AU vs 61 to 62 - I agree.
My experience really is primarily with colonials where there isn't often a change from 61 to 62 as there would be for Silver Dollars or something, but there seems to be an en masse migration from XF40 to AU58 much like the expansion of the pioneers across the great plains.
I have seen the coin in person. I know the accepted story behind its creation. I think I know the thought process behind the grade:
The coin is weakly struck. This of itself does not preclude a grade below PF65. The coin NEVER circulated. Any wear is the result of attempts to "launder" the coin by the persons responsible for its creation. It's my belief that there is very little, if any, actual wear on the coin. What appears to be wear is, in fact, the weak strike combined with "adjustment marks" put on the coin by the creators in an attempt to simulate wear.
So, how would you grade the coin? No wear, weak strike, post strike impairments from inside the mint. Without the impairments, I'd grade it PF63 or so. The impairments demand a net grade. Opinions on the net grade (in the past) range from PF50 to PF58. Certainly within the range of reason and all depending upon the interpretation of whether there is wear, or weak strike, and how much the impairments take off the coin. I feel that the grading services who have seen the coin raw are better equipped to make this judgement than anyone submitting an opinion off a scan or photo. I also feel this is consistent with other coins I've seen graded that, while they may be technically mint state, have excessive contact marks that warrant an AU grade.
Just my opinion of the interpretation of the facts!
Mark - I have to disagree. I don't think the value of the coin changed one whit whether it's in a 50 holder or a 58 holder. On coins of this magnitude, a "ranking" occurs and the grade is almost irrelevant. Do you really think the Childs coin is a 68? The Siam coin a 67? The Eliasberg coin a 65? The Dexter coin a 64? I don't. But the ranking is correct, and that's really what matters. The Childs coin is the finest, followed by the Siam coin, the Eliasberg coin, the Dexter coin, etc. They aren't priced off the grade, they are priced off the rank. In fact, they are graded off the rank!
Just like with my 1885 Trade Dollar. I don't disagree with PCGS that the coin is a technical 65. But it certainly could be "ranked" as a 66, like other top rarities are ranked. It's the finest by three grades! The Eliasberg 1913 Liberty nickel is "ranked" as a 66, even tho it's a technical 64 or 65. But it certainly is the finest, and now that I understand how the classics are "ranked", I really don't have a problem with that coin in a 66 holder. As the saying goes....it's all relative!
We don't really disagree then. I didn't make any comments about the true "value" of the coin changing, just the grade. And, I agree with you about the "ranking system." However, I do feel that owners of the coins want the highest grades/ ranking they can get and sometimes mistakenly think that the value will be affected. This can lead to contests between NGC and PCGS to get ultra rarities into their holders.
I have never had a coin slabbed, I do like PCGS more than most others but I'm not saying they are always right. I like NGC and ANACS also. I do look at the coins and if u ever see my collection u will see a whopping 75% of it is raw. All I told u was what I thought of the grade, I graded them the same or near the same as PCGS, does that make me a slab collctor because I grade the same as a 3rd party grading company, It helps me by showing me I can graded a atleast few coins like some of the best in 3rd party grading bussiness.