As for the Morgans, I imagine the image may have overemphasized some of the marks, and as you point out, prooflikes also tend to make some marks look worse than they would on a white or frosty surface.
That said, PCGS seems to be deservedly critical for this issue ('81-S), as many can be found prooflike AND with relatively few marks. Can't say with certainty whether it would have gotten the same grade at PCGS, although I wouldn't expect it to. The '84-CC looks appropriately graded to me - those marks are more than likely blemishes than scratches. Of course, I believe I favor technical grading according to the PCGS "published" standards, and as long as we can agree on how we interpret those, slab number be damned.
The main point I wanted to make, before things got testy, is simply ... you got the grades I would expect from NGC. I happen to think the major services are consistent; most times, I don't agree with the number assigned, and am pleasantly surprised when I can buy the ones I do agree with.
In response to your question about the pics, it could be that, though I see as much detail in a well taken picture as I can with a 10X loupe. You really can't rely 100% on pictures though as they are 2D and you really need 3D to be able to judge a coin properly, but one gets the gist of the coin I think - you bring up a good point - if a picture hasn't been dinked with I guess the likelyhood is that we'll be more pleased with the coin when we see it in person, therefore we maybe a little more critical.
Gilbert - I was expecting the book today - but it didn't arrive - maybe tomorrow hopefully. I'm having a little difficulty signing on to MSN.com so I can't post any pictures or answer any PM's right now, but when I get that resolved I want to show you guys something that will help answer the question as to why we seem to argue/discuss/bicker - whatever you want to call it. And maybe this'll get more discussion going
Comments
Get your 2nd edition Half dollar book yet?
As for the Morgans, I imagine the image may have overemphasized some of the marks, and as you point out, prooflikes also tend to make some marks look worse than they would on a white or frosty surface.
That said, PCGS seems to be deservedly critical for this issue ('81-S), as many can be found prooflike AND with relatively few marks. Can't say with certainty whether it would have gotten the same grade at PCGS, although I wouldn't expect it to. The '84-CC looks appropriately graded to me - those marks are more than likely blemishes than scratches. Of course, I believe I favor technical grading according to the PCGS "published" standards, and as long as we can agree on how we interpret those, slab number be damned.
The main point I wanted to make, before things got testy, is simply ... you got the grades I would expect from NGC. I happen to think the major services are consistent; most times, I don't agree with the number assigned, and am pleasantly surprised when I can buy the ones I do agree with.
In response to your question about the pics, it could be that, though I see as much detail in a well taken picture as I can with a 10X loupe. You really can't rely 100% on pictures though as they are 2D and you really need 3D to be able to judge a coin properly, but one gets the gist of the coin I think - you bring up a good point - if a picture hasn't been dinked with I guess the likelyhood is that we'll be more pleased with the coin when we see it in person, therefore we maybe a little more critical.
Frank
Frank