Another problem with estimated sets...

khayse

I have a walker collection and was looking at the Dr S.D. Collection

I was impressed by the 1917-S Rev in MS67. Wow. I thought I would lookup up the highest grade for this one.
So I went to the Beverly Hill Collection and
saw that he had a 1917-S rev in MS66 and that there are none graded higher.

So there are none graded MS67 but that's what S.D. 's was estimated at.

Should this be allowed?

-KHayse

Zerbe

The Wayne Miller, all time finest Morgan Dollar Varieties, Proof, is showing a PR67 ZERBE. That coin never has existed and still does not exist at PCGS or NGC. I never said anything, but wondered how they could post a PR67 ZERBE coin, if none has ever been slabbed.




ZERBE

DAM

I believe what PCGS did was in good taste. But to compare collections with an estimated grade is ridiculous. Who are the "experts" that provided the estimated grades and when were the estimates made. Grading standards were different 50 years ago, for example.

To avoid contoversy/argument, I propose that PCGS provide a seperate heading for "Pre - Third Party Grading Service Collections". If a coin from a certain collection has been graded by a grading service, show that grade. For all other grades, an estimated grade would be acceptable. That way, regardless of grade, it doesn't effect current Registry sets who's coins must be graded by PCGS to be allowed in the Registry.

Just my thoughts...