The most undervalued aspect to coin values.....

ANACONDA

in my opinion it is surface toning or coloration.

I think that surface toning is barely taking into consideration by the two majors (PCGS and NGC) yet it one of the most important things
to me.

A blotchy, spotted or dark coin which may be original and clean and well preserved and in a proof 68 holder is worth less to me
that an average 67 or an exceptional 66.

It would not surprise me if sometime in the future a grading service comes about which would not holder as a 68 or even a 67
a blotchy, spotted or dark coin which may be original and clean and well preserved and which would have been graded as a 68 by
PCGS or NGC.

This topic of ugly yet well preserved coins was brougt to mind recently by my seeing a particularly ugly Proof 68 Barber Half. I thought
that that coin was dangerous because it may be worth X today but in the future it might be worth far less, when the grading services
finally realize that coins are art and that surface preservation is but a part (albeit not a small part) of aesthetics which is what art is
almost all about.

Just my opinion.

adrian

SethChandler

Great observation, but how will we ever define(grade) the value of art......which is what coins really are? Defining surface preservation is the easy part, its a science. How will a standard ever COMBINE the two?

Seth

braddick

ANACONDA- excellent point. It is why the "sight unseen" market was a dismal failure.

Possibly the idea of TWO grades on an insert? One technical. One "Market".

For example, you just posted an amazing Sesqui on another thread. PCGS deemed this killer coin an "MS64" whereas I'd place it in the Superb GEM catagory (MS67+).
Who knows? Maybe it's got a mark or two I'm not seeing in the photo that keeps it out of a (technical) GEM MS65 or better holder, but I don't care. You could line up all the 66's and probably not one would match the Eye Appeal.

Sure- let me know the strike/marks/luster via the one grade- but then tell me the WHOLE truth: Is it overall stunning? If so- step up PCGS and come up with a system that awards these coins in the market place.

AbesNeighbor

Great Thread!

I recently paid a substantial premium for an MS64 $2 1/2 Indian. The coin is very well struck, has very clean fields and other areas... I thought was very PQ for the grade and possibly could upgrade. I've been told by two dealers, at separate shows, That I respect for their grading abilities that the coin lacks the PIZAZ, or luster (eye appeal) for a higher grade.

So much for that. But the coin is beautiful in my opinion.

quarterjack

Adrian, i agree with you 100%. I have an 54 Prf. Frankie that's graded 67but is down right butt ugly, don't know what ever posessed me to purchase it. It's surely the most unattractive piece i have,although technically it's all there.

Dave

Catch22

I'm not a fan of sight unseen valuation. I've always contended that a coin's grade should be assigned solely on it's technical merits with valuation being strictly a matter between a buyer and seller. If taken to it's logical conclusion, a coin with toning and other environmental reactions should lose technical grading points for being less than mint state. This is not to say that an attractively toned coin grading MS-65 couldn't bring a far greater premium over a coin grading MS-66 or 67.

This brings me to another point that should be considered. Coin price guides are just that...guides. They are not the final word on pricing and are far too often out of touch with actual valuations based on market conditions such as demand and availability.

In my opinion, where the grading services are doing a disservice to the hobby is in their attempts to assign valuations based on grade enhancements rather than the less subjective technical aspects of a coins level of preservation. They attempt to "make" coins rather than simply evaluating the degree of preservation.

jeffnpcb

Just a sthey painstakingly have cleaned the fresco's and paintings to remove the enviromental damage, why can't the market accept a properly restored coin without all the blasting of this issue from the snoobs of coin collecting and grading companies?
I do not know, other than any devices that use ultrasonic technics in a mild solution to remove the debris on the surface.
There are better ways, buy are not accepted and only a few will give a net grade which is complete BS. I have many coins before 1900 that are of a matte finish but you would think they are cleaned. It was condition of worn dies and poor technical skills that would not alloy early coins to all have a mint luster. But what do we all know, only the results of graders and the bad names of cleaned, whizzed or whatever excuse they can use not to grade a coin!

Baley

I agree with that toning is an important part of eye appeal, just as eye appeal is one of the major aspects of coin grading, along with strike, luster, and surface preservation (which includes subcategories marks, wear, and interstingly enough, toning, which for this technical part is called variously "accumulation" or "corrosion" depending on whether actual matter had been deposited [dirt]or removed [rust] and takes into account surface involvement/contamination as physical properties themselves rather than determining how asthetically appealing are the color patterns created by diffraction of light through thin-film interference phenomena) such that toning is sometimes given a different proportion of the net grade by some graders (i.e. "valuers) than by others, just as I may think luster is the most important thing that separates a 67 from a 66 or 65, someone else may lean toward strike and another toward freedom from marks, or overall eye appeal including any pretty hues. I may value a balance for that for a given coin, such that all nuances of grade may be in harmony, and for another coin may forgive a relatively major flaw in order to gain an overall good value because another value factor is off the scale. I have nice peace dollar, well struck, lusterous, lovely toning, would be an easy 66 if not for a single big mark on the reverse, whoa, got a gorgeous 62 for a song, love the coin.

LincolnCentMan

Adrian,

I agree with you. Eye appeal is an extreamly importaint factor. The only market I see that has fully accepted this principal is that of the colorfully toned coins (rainbows, end rolls, target....) It's not uncommon for a nice rainbow morgan to bring 10x what the market price is for a white coin of the same denomination/year/grade.

Just a sthey painstakingly have cleaned the fresco's and paintings to remove the enviromental damage, why can't the market accept a properly restored coin without all the blasting of this issue from the snoobs of coin collecting and grading companies?

I have no problem with cleaned coins, so long as I cant tell they're cleaned. If I can tell, I have NO interest in them. They're problem coins.

David

pmh1nic

I remember being at an ANA grading seminar a few years back and going through some of their grading sets. There were coins with almost black toning with grades in the high MS range. I'm a big fan of toning and own/enjoy some relatively darkly toned coins but even I was taken back that coins with extremely dark toning with otherwise mark free surfaces could be graded MS-66 or 67. Toning that dark, that extremely inhibits luster, is a distraction and should result in an extreme deduction in grade, maybe no higher than MS-62 or 63. In the end I realize this is a judgement call on the part of the grader.

This is one of the reasons, as someone else alluded to, that even given third parrty professional grading you can never be sure what you're going to get when buying sight unseen.

coinguy1

<< <i>I think that surface toning is barely taking into consideration by the two majors (PCGS and NGC) yet it one of the most important things >>

Adrian, I will respectfully (but strongly) disagree with that premise, whether you meant to say "taking" or "taken".

It has been my experience that that both PCGS and NGC often give an extra grading point and occasionally two points, to coins with especially pretty color/toning/eye-appeal. And often, I see/hear people complain about that, with the gripe being that PCGS and NGC are using "market" rather than "technical" grading.

Perhaps the "blotchy, spotted or dark" coins that you don't like (I don't like them either, by the way) are ones where the grading companies resorted to "technical" instead of "market " grading. Or, maybe those coins were simply graded too liberally.

There is no way for the major grading companies to please everyone. Some collectors and dealers prefer "market" grading", which takes extraordinary color and eye-appeal into account, often at the expense of the technical merits of the coin. Others prefer "technical" grading, which focuses more on the technical quality of the coin, without regard to color and eye-appeal. Those in the latter camp want to decide for themselves if the color or eye-appeal merit a higher price but don't want to be told that the coin necessarily grades higher.

So, it appears that we are in agreement about the importance of eye-appeal and color. We merely disagree as to how important it currently is, in the eyes of NGC and PCGS.

cameoproofcoins

I would agree that there are many coins in high grades that simply have no eye appeal. They are darkly toned or lack life. I have also seen this on ultra cameo proof type. The coin may be technically a 68, but is hazed or has other problems that keep the fields from being black. Astute collectors are making judgements on the value of the coins, while those without the experience are way overpaying. I saw a board member here pay 50% more than a coin was worth to knowledgeable collectors, because they are simply looking at the technical grade.

Clankeye

<< <i>Some collectors and dealers prefer "market" grading", which takes extraordinary color and eye-appeal into account, often at the expense of the technical merits of the coin. Others prefer "technical" grading, which focuses more on the technical quality of the coin, >>



What is described here is a perfect summation of the way coins are graded in America (PCGS--NGC) as opposed to the way they are graded in Canada by their leading TPG (ICCS).

ICCS does not take toning or eye appeal into account when assigning grade to a coin. According to their philosophy they let the price in the after market take those qualities into account. Here, as we know PCGS and NGC will give the grade bump for toning and eye appeal and the number that comes affixed to the slab will define the starting perimeters of the price in the market.

I find the two different approaches interesting. And what I really find interesting is when the two worlds meet and PCGS and NGC grade Canadian coins.

Clankeye

cladking

Coinguy1; Certainly the grading services will never please everybody and not everybody
will ever agree on which of two coins is preferable for grade. It seems that this is the best
possible argument for a more descriptive grading system. If one number won't define grade
at least a few numbers will impart some information about the appearance of a coin and this
is the only reason to grade them at all!

Wisconsin

To me eye appeal is everything. The problem is that everyone has a different idea of what they like. The grade of the coin gives you starting place to try to determine value. From there you have to decide what you will pay based on what you like or dislike about the coin. I would never want to buy a coin sight unseen with just knowing what it graded. Some are ugly, some are cleaned, lack luster, eye appeal, and on and on.

Jay

coinguy1

<< <i>Coinguy1, Certainly the grading services will never please everybody and not everybody will ever agree on which of two coins is preferable for grade. It seems that this is the best possible argument for a more descriptive grading system. If one number won't define grade at least a few numbers will impart some information about the appearance of a coin and this is the only reason to grade them at all! >>


cladking - that is not a bad idea! I don't expect that the major grading services will do it or that, if they did, that it would eliminate complaints. But, it would be an improvement, none the less.

cladking

<< <i>
cladking - that is not a bad idea! I don't expect that the major grading services will do it or that, if they did, that it would eliminate complaints. But, it would be an improvement, none the less. >>



Cool. Now all we have to do is get a couple million coin collectors and
a couple of grading services to agree.

ANACONDA

"Defining surface preservation is the easy part, its a science."

I think what you're saying is that defining surface preservation is a more objective undertaking than the quantification of beauty. I agree.

However, subjective evaluations can be objectified to some degree.

Ask ten guys to grade a coin's beauty . Average them together. That will give you a quantification of the coin's beauty. It is potentially replicable to a fairly high degree.

"Possibly the idea of TWO grades on an insert? One technical. One "Market"."

Two grades is unwieldy and just adds to the difficulties in printing sheets and in communicating the system to newbies. Better to just incorporate "desirability" into one number with decimal grading to tenths.


adrian

joejeweler

And on the holders, after the grade number, we can add one of the following:

"DU" (Dark Unattractive" toning)

"U" ("Unattractive" toning)

"A" ("Attractive" toning)

"M" ("Monster" toning)

"JD" ("Jaw Dropping" toning)

This might re-open some sight unseen trading on the final two at least.

topstuf

That's why ALL coins are NET graded. Plastic don't matter.

In the final analysis it comes down to:

What they SAY

and

What they PAY

topstuf

"Hi, I sent in a coin and was wondering when I can expect it.
It's.....WHERE????
The ........E S T H E T I C S............room?

ANACONDA

"ANACONDA- excellent point. It is why the 'sight unseen' market was a dismal failure."

First of all it is my opinion that the sight unseen market was a failure as compared to how it was envisioned. It, though, does in fact exist. And it is a dramatic improvement in the market for coins.

The largest reason it was a failure as compared to the vision for it, in my opinion, is because grading services used and still use the wrong method to grade coins which results in unpredictable grading results. Getting your dollars worth in coins and buying them sight unseen can't be done if the grading is inconsistent to the degree that it is unless you're going to be paying ridiculously low prices for coins which of course totally interferes with a orderly market.

It is my opinion that they should not be using consensus grading as i understand they do. If they went to an average of the grades internally assigned, used decimal points and some other modifications which i have written about at length, the sight unseen martet could be improved upon dramtically as well as coin grading as a whole.

ANACONDA

Just a sthey painstakingly have cleaned the fresco's and paintings to remove the enviromental damage, why can't the market accept a properly restored coin without all the blasting of this issue from the snoobs of coin collecting and grading companies?


They're coins. If you want to clean them or artificially toned them or throw them into the ocean or ensconse them in lucite, go for it.

Proper conservation (cleanin) often enhances the value of a coin. The coin's enhanced value seems to indicate that it is market acceptable.

By the way, to add fuel to the smoke i'm smelling.....remember when PCGS stated they didn't grade cleaned coins...then said they didn't grade harshly cleaned coins.......when will they say they don't grade coins with harsh artificial toning?

baccaruda

So, a coin that is attractive can get a better technical grade? I don't agree with that logic. suppose an obviously circulated coin is particularly attractive - it can be graded as uncirculated?

I like color, but there are people here that would hate what I considered to be the most beautiful rainbow tone. Color is 100% subjective, leave that to the owner.

ANACONDA

"I agree with that toning is an important part of eye appeal, just as eye appeal is one of the major aspects of coin grading, along with strike, luster, and surface preservation (which includes subcategories marks, wear, and interstingly enough, toning, which for this technical part is called variously "accumulation" or "corrosion" depending on whether actual matter had been deposited [dirt]or removed [rust] and takes into account surface involvement/contamination as physical properties themselves rather than determining how asthetically appealing are the color patterns created by diffraction of light through thin-film interference phenomena) such that toning is sometimes given a different proportion of the net grade by some graders (i.e. "valuers) than by others, just as I may think luster is the most important thing that separates a 67 from a 66 or 65, someone else may lean toward strike and another toward freedom from marks, or overall eye appeal including any pretty hues. "

Do we agree that it is the most undervalued?

(Congratulations. I hereby hand the run-on sentance crown to you.)

ANACONDA

"It has been my experience that that both PCGS and NGC often give an extra grading point and occasionally two points, to coins with especially pretty color/toning/eye-appeal. And often, I see/hear people complain about that, with the gripe being that PCGS and NGC are using "market" rather than "technical" grading. "

Excellent point......i should have clarified my statement to focus on the fact that my primary point is that ugly coins often get holdered without discounts for ugly toning.

I think that the grading services are much more inclined and properly so, to give points for gorgeous color but they unfortunately don't properly discount for ugly toning. Nothing worse than a Proof 68 Barber Half that is butt ugly and which will end up in some clueless newbie's box at twice what it's worth.

"There is no way for the major grading companies to please everyone."

Their goal should be to maximize shareholder wealth, over the long term. Doing things that make sense is the path.

adrian

sinin1

I think the most undervalued aspect to coin values is LUSTER -

I do not feel I have seen a coin where LUSTER takes away from the grade or value,

but I have seen many coins that toning was not in my opinion very attractive and down - valued the coin to me.


What some people find as attractive toning, others find as so - so or not attractive, how can this be quantified repeatably?

coinguy1

Adrian, NOW, we are in (nearly - I want to keep a little disagreement in reserve for a rainy day) complete agreement.

ANACONDA

"That's why ALL coins are NET graded. Plastic don't matter.

In the final analysis it comes down to:

What they SAY

and

What they PAY "

What is paid could be altered dramatically by a sharpening of grading methodologies.

coachleonard

To me, the most fascinating aspect of coin values is... we'll never KNOW which coin(s) are the most valuable! The most valuable coin in the history of mankind may be sitting in a $1 dollar junk box somewhere. Why? Because, except in a few cases, we don't know where a coin has been during
its' existence, who owned it , handled it, what role that coin played in history. If we did, coin values would turn upsidedown overnight. It's that old saying "If only this coin could talk.." Well, some can, but for the
most part, the coins in our collections are dead silent.

Elcontador

Adrian,

Couldn't disagree with you more re the grading services not knocking down a coin's grade when the toning isn't universally liked or unattractive.
I can't comment re your Barber Half example, because I didn't see the coin. I would like to know when it was graded, however.

I have not seen PCGS slab a SLQ in 6 or better if there is anything other than very light toning over Miss Liberty's head. I sent in an SLQ re in holder review to upgrade from a 5 to a 6 & was told it didn't because "color too thick." Jay Cline had a nice 20P in FH 5 that looked nicer than most 6s I've seen. There wasn't a mark on the coin & as is the case with all Unc. 20Ps I've seen, the strike was full. It had some darker original toning on the coin's rims.

I do agree, however, that universally attractive toning may bump up the grade of such a coin. Maybe five or ten years ago the services did not ding ugly coins gradewise. Not now.

ANACONDA

"Couldn't disagree with you more re the grading services not knocking down a coin's grade when the toning isn't universally liked or unattractive."

Are you saying that it is your opinion that PCGS does and has appropriately discounted for unattractive toning?

If that's what you're saying, then we do disagree.

By the way, what does your statement in the foreign language at the bottom of your post mean. (Incidentally, Barney of this forum is the only other person that i can recall who puts statements in foreign languages without interpretation at the bottom of his posts.)

Baley

I think that opinions vary as to how much to weigh each factor in a grade, and that is what makes coin arbitrage possible. sometimes toning is undervalued sometimes over. sometimes strike is undervalued sometimes over, ditto luster, marks, "rarity", whatever.

IMO trading coins would be a lot LESS interesting if every aspect could be quantified.

that said, I'm still in favor of a premium quality of grading service and think the market will support it, for those coins that merit the attention. this premium service would render a more detailed opinion than just the ordinary "slab, grade, attribution" and go into detail about the state of each factor, where relevant. would cost more, but would make the premiums more understandable.. would also remove some of the "mystique" of high end coins though, and make them more liquid and less subject to the "arbitrage" that occurs between the initial "estate" seller and the extreme conoisseur..

coinguy1

Adrian, among MANY, MANY, MANY other things , you said

<< <i>It is my opinion that they should not be using consensus grading as i understand they do. If they went to an average of the grades internally assigned, used decimal points and some other modifications which i have written about at length, the sight unseen market could be improved upon dramtically as well as coin grading as a whole. >>


a
Just for fun (or perhaps an exercise in futility), I assigned some hypothetical grades to three hypothetical coins and came up with a few hypothetical decimal grading results, to see, what, if anything, it might tell us.

Let's say we have three different MS Walking Liberty Half Dollars of the same date:

1) a nice/"PQ" MS65 that isn't quite fine enough to receive a consensus grade of MS66, under the consensus grading system now in place:

The most likely hypothetical grading results would/should be: 65,65,66, or a 65.33 under your system.


2) a "no brainer" MS65 that should not be called An MS64 or an MS66:

The most likely hypothetical grading results would/should be: 65,65,65 or a 65.0 under your system.

But,what if one grader called it an MS64 (65,65,64)? The decimal grade would be 64.66.
Or, perhaps one grader called it an MS66 (65,65,66)? The decimal grade would be 65.33.

3) a just make it/"liner" MS65 that is ok as an MS65 but would not be "wrong" in an MS64 holder:

The most likely hypothetical grading results would/should be: 65,65,64, or a 64.66 under your system.

I wont be the one to analyze my own hypothetical experiment (yet), but, what do you think these results tell us about the potential benefits of a decimal grading system?

PS - I realize there are other potential outcomes and grading result combinations, but, I attempted to be practical and realistic in the grades I assigned.

islemangu

I would agree toning is the most undervalued aspect but that part of this undervalued sentiment I believe is the cloud of uncertainity of AT and the high tech coin docs out there that this forum rountinely diverts discussion into. Is it a conflict of interest for the grading companies to become more proactive against AT in a manner of which I'm not sure? Maybe AT body bagged data being shared or exposing repeated submitters of AT or something? Passiveness by the companies does not reassure investors that want these coins especially in the wake of recent large scale colloborated scams of enrons and others in which the public trust was taken advantage of. Some past member responses of rarely seeing toned coins in the 70s before toning popularity and then other admitted coin docs rationalizing by just making a sick coin healthy leaves a small level of doubt that an exposure or a sharing of information to the public would remedy at least some investors' current apprehensions.