A couple of real world examples of PCGS inconsistency, including images.
Russ
Posts: 48,514 ✭✭✭
I'll be posting this over in Q&A, but thought I'd also post it here for discussion.
Let me say first, that I have no complaints with PCGS's current conservative grading. In point of fact, I LIKE it. I've bounced plenty of earlier graded PCGS proof Kennedys because I thought they did not make the grade on the holder. My beef, the same as many others, is the inconsistency; in particular when it comes to the cameo designation. Here are a couple examples.
Example #1:
I bought this coin in the holder on the left. I felt it merited a technical grade of 66, so I cracked it out and resubmitted it. As you can see, it came back as a 67, but lost the cameo designation. I still believe the coin is a technical 66, but because they didn't want to CAM it, they bumped it a point.
So, the question is, why was it a cameo the first time around and not the second?
As an aside, I'll note that I took the risk when I cracked it out so I'm not going to complain. I've had my share go the other direction.
We take the good with the bad.
Example #2:
Coin #1:
Coin #2:
These images were shot under identical lighting conditions. One coin is designated a deep cameo, the other designated only a cameo. Can you tell me which is which?
If you saw the holders you could tell, and you wouldn't even have to look at the grade. All you'd have to do is know that one of them has a barcode (recently graded), and the other has no barcode (earlier graded).
BTW, I have plenty more examples like this. So, Big Dave, what is going on here?
Russ, NCNE
Let me say first, that I have no complaints with PCGS's current conservative grading. In point of fact, I LIKE it. I've bounced plenty of earlier graded PCGS proof Kennedys because I thought they did not make the grade on the holder. My beef, the same as many others, is the inconsistency; in particular when it comes to the cameo designation. Here are a couple examples.
Example #1:
I bought this coin in the holder on the left. I felt it merited a technical grade of 66, so I cracked it out and resubmitted it. As you can see, it came back as a 67, but lost the cameo designation. I still believe the coin is a technical 66, but because they didn't want to CAM it, they bumped it a point.
So, the question is, why was it a cameo the first time around and not the second?
As an aside, I'll note that I took the risk when I cracked it out so I'm not going to complain. I've had my share go the other direction.
We take the good with the bad.Example #2:
Coin #1:
Coin #2:
These images were shot under identical lighting conditions. One coin is designated a deep cameo, the other designated only a cameo. Can you tell me which is which?
If you saw the holders you could tell, and you wouldn't even have to look at the grade. All you'd have to do is know that one of them has a barcode (recently graded), and the other has no barcode (earlier graded).
BTW, I have plenty more examples like this. So, Big Dave, what is going on here?
Russ, NCNE
0
Comments
but of course, this doesn't address your point.
is greater inconsistency a byproduct of too many submissions in a particular category of coins?
K S
"France said this week they need more evidence to convince them Saddam is a threat. Yeah, last time France asked for more evidence it came rollin thru Paris with a German Flag on it." -Dave Letterman
The angle is also identical. Nothing was moved, no repositioning of anything. Pulled one slab, popped the oher in exactly the same place. Your assertion that it was changed because of a difference in reflection off the coin shows how little you know about variances in mirror depth on cameo coins.
Russ, NCNE
CG
--------
Howdy from Houston...
Can't keep my eyes
from the circling skies
Tongue tied and twisted
Just an earthbound misfit,
I
">my registry set
Russ, NCNE
And, in example number one, the PR-67 coin looks cameo. Does the reverse make it?
I completely agree. If a coin is in a 67 holder, it's there for a reason. As I said, I don't think the slabbed coin pictured above should even be in a 67 holder. I think it's a 66.
But, that's not really the point of this thread. The point is PCGS's inconsistency with the cameo designation.
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>And, in example number one, the PR-67 coin looks cameo. Does the reverse make it? >>
Numispro,
Example #1 is the same coin. The reverse makes it, but the real question is why was it a cameo the first time PCGS graded it, and not the second?
Russ, NCNE
I'm sorry. I misunderstood that you were looking for opinion, not on a crusade. Carry on in all your righteousness.
Perhaps someday I too will know everything, as you so obviously do, but until then, I have only my experience to go on. Pray for me brother, please pray for me.
"France said this week they need more evidence to convince them Saddam is a threat. Yeah, last time France asked for more evidence it came rollin thru Paris with a German Flag on it." -Dave Letterman
<< <i>i do not like the whole "cam", "dcam" etc, right along w/ "rb", "bn", "rd", etc. ditto "fb", etc. it just clutters up a grading system where, the last thing we need is more clutter. >>
Oh come on, Karl!! You're kidding, right? You mean to tell me having a Lincoln Cent graded MS67 RD CAM or MS65 RB DCAM or any of the other THIRTY possible designation is confusing? Get real!
God forbid the Lincoln Cent had "bands" or whatever! lol
jom
<< <i>While the lighting may be similar on these two photos, the angle is clearly different (notice the reflection of the light to the right of JFK's head). Yes, it is subtle, but it is enough to alter the refection of light. Therefore to make a comparison of these two photos is futile. Russ, you know well that you could make either of them look better, or worse, than the other, regardless of their specific grades, simply by changing the angle of the photograph. No matter what anyone tries to tell you, or what you believe, you can't judge a coin without holding in your hand, espcially with CAM and DCAM designations. >>
Exactly right Dwood. Actually, your statement shows just how much you DO know about Cameo and DCAM. You can take a very high quality Cameo and tilt it "juuust right" and make the mirrors "black out". However, with just a teeny, tiny bit of change in the angle and the mirrors will light up. Without having those 2 coins in your hot little hands, up close and personal, it is very difficult to adequately assess the coins.
The comparison is good, though better done in person.
We must be wrong?
Russ said so?!?
Making the fields of a coin "black out" is one of the easiest, and OLDEST tricks in the book (it is really impressive when done with a Lincoln proof, or any copper with a highly reflective surface). I go to great pains to make sure I DO NOT black out the fields, because it hides even the most glaring flaws in the surface of a coin, and I photograph mine so I'll have a handy, ACCURATE reference to study the coin by. I've only been taking pictures for 34 years though, and still prefer film to digital (see, I must be crazy?!?) so what would I know?
Russ didn't want opinions. He only wanted support to make his point. It was a set-up. That is clearly obvious now, and I'm sorry I fell for it. I'll try hard not to let it happen again.
"France said this week they need more evidence to convince them Saddam is a threat. Yeah, last time France asked for more evidence it came rollin thru Paris with a German Flag on it." -Dave Letterman
You didn't offer an opinion, you offered an accusation that I deliberately changed the angle in an attempt to deceive. I did no such thing, and I don't appreciate being called a liar.
Russ, NCNE
2 cam
2 questions, which if you can supply an answer to, I'll be more than happy to apologize, and give you 30 minutes to draw a crowd:
1. Where did I accuse you of deliberately doing anything? I merely pointed out that the angle, thogh very subtle, is indeed different (another possibility which I ruled out is that one of the coins is thicker, or closer, or struck NOTICEABLY deeper than the other).
2. Who called you a liar?
If you're implying that I called you a liar, well, then you're a liar. Actually though, I think your true knowledge has once again been revealed by your desire to appear omniscient.
I think you're a little sensitive, or perhaps paranoid, my friend. Just because I think you're a hypocrite doesn't mean I'm out to get you. Honestly, it doesn't. I do, and I'm not.
"France said this week they need more evidence to convince them Saddam is a threat. Yeah, last time France asked for more evidence it came rollin thru Paris with a German Flag on it." -Dave Letterman
<< <i>
<< <i>And, in example number one, the PR-67 coin looks cameo. Does the reverse make it? >>
Numispro,
Example #1 is the same coin. The reverse makes it, but the real question is why was it a cameo the first time PCGS graded it, and not the second?
Russ, NCNE >>
For the same reason that is was a 65 the first time and not the second.
this forum is turning into a real "biker bar".
2 Cam-Slams!
1 Russ POTD!
#1 pr67 cameo
#2 pr 68 dcameo
DCAM????????????????????????????
<< <i>man,
this forum is turning into a real "biker bar". >>
I disagree, there's more civility in most "biker bars".
Joe
Going by the picts I say #1 is not DCam because the frost looks weak on JFK's face, I see some breaks around his chin & jawline and the eagle's right wing by the banner seems to be lacking frost
#2 would be the DCam gauging by the pictures. the frost looks weak on the H in HALF in both picts which would make the DCam designation questionable unless it's just your pictures.
Getting a numerical upgrade while loosing the surface designation is old news. This has been happening ever since PCGS started using these designatioins, it's nothing new.
It used to really give me fits when I was into Morgans. It caused me problems when I would crack a slab to put the coin in a Capital Holder then get tired of Capital Holders and get the coin slabbed again. Many times I had a 65 DMPL turn into a 66PL but of course it resulted in a more valuable coin so I didn't complain. I would sell my "new" higher graded coin and but another DMPL. Finally I got smart and quit cracking DMPLs.
I say #2 is the DCAM.
We return you to the previously scheduled brawl.
Dave -- I was very disappointed when I clicked on your link.
William S. Burroughs, Cities of the Red Night
ding ding ding...you are the first person to say anything about it
<< <i>These images were shot under identical lighting conditions. One coin is designated a deep cameo, the other designated only a cameo. Can you tell me which is which?
If you saw the holders you could tell, and you wouldn't even have to look at the grade. All you'd have to do is know that one of them has a barcode (recently graded), and the other has no barcode (earlier graded). >>
You say that one of the slabs doesn't have a barcode. That would make it a first generation slab and I didn't thik they used either Cam or DCAM designators back then. So far the earliest, as far as I know, that the cam and dcam designators was used was the fourth generation slab (1990 -1995) and they may not have been used at the beginning of that slab type.
I should have said it doesn't have the barcode on the front. It has it on the back.
Russ, NCNE