Options
How About A Pilgram To Grade!!!!****GRADE POSTED***
stman
Posts: 11,352 ✭✭✭✭✭
Take a shot. Not mine.
Please... Save The Stories, Just Answer My Questions, And Tell Me How Much!!!!!
0
Comments
I'll venture a guess and state, Superb GEM.
peacockcoins
<< <i>If it's not yours, it should be. It would be a nice compliment to your MS67 toned Peace >>
Thanks, and I would like it to be mine. But since I just acquired that Peace$ you mentioned, I probably will wait till next year to buy another coin.
technical grade 64
market grade 66/67 range
stman PMed me the slabbed grade after my guesstimation, but i,m not going to spill the beans on it....as if i hadnt already........uh, nevermind. i didnt say anything.........
LSCC#1864
Ebay Stuff
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
Chatter in obv fields and on brim of hat keep it from gem status. But, having said that, it wouldn't surprise me if it was in an MS-65/66 holder. It does have nice eye appeal, but I still grade technically.
Cheers,
Bob
65
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
I thought this can't be graded by NGC MS66*. It indeed is. I can understand a bump of 1 point, but this appears at least a 2 point bump. I thought like many of you a 64 from a technical standpoint at best.
Another reason I started this thread is..... I've heard many on here and in PM say NGC's answer to the "No bump for color or eye-appeal" is the "Coveted Star." Well, I feel this is a good example that this statement may not be true. It's a beautiful coin BUT MS66*????????
I think grading services should only tecnically grade a coin and let the market determine value based upon eye appeal. What's pleasing to the eye of one collector (or grader) could be another collector's/grader's dog. I've seen many 66/67 coins in 64 holders because of eye appeal. Eye appeal should be taken out of the equation. If the coin is a 66 but ugly, it's still a 66 and it should be up to the buyer as to whether or not they pay 66 money for it or pass.
This Pilgrim, while a beautiful coin, is a 64 at best but because someone at NGC has determined the coin has eye-appeal it should be bumped up two points. The result, some poor sap is going to get stuck with a 64 in a 66 holder for 66 money.
Just my eversohumble opinion.
Cheers,
Bob
<< <i>My position is that NO grading service should use eye appeal in determining the grade. Technical grading in itself is extremely subjective, but by adding eye-appeal to the mix you further muddy the waters. >>
Bob--what you describe here is the way Canadian's grade coins. That is exactly the way ICCS grades. That is their philosophy. And the longer I am around coins, one which I tend to think is pretty solid.
Clankeye
I said earlier that I would be surprised if it wasn't at least a 5, turns out I was conservative. Kudos to everyone who thinks they can look at a coin photo and exactly guess a grade, I can't. NGC tried to technically grade coins and the koolaid drinkers bashed them for this saying it might technically be a 65 but its ugly. Once again which way do you wan't it?
I certainly don't believe in grading from images with certainty. But, let's face it, we are asked to do so all the time on this forum, so occasionally I with tender an opinion. I do so with the Clankeye * system. As in, here's what I think *(but it's a scan so don't hold me to it).
I think this coin is a pretty good illustration of the way NGC and PCGS grade coins in the reality of the coin market at this point in the evolution of the hobby. I'm not opposed to it. I just think the eye appeal bumps on technical grade make for a lot of "wiggle room"--and throw in the * designation on top of it, and you are going to have exactly what we have--a lot of debate.
No problem there. Gentlemen, start your engines.
Clankeye
In all seriousness, it is entirely possible, that on a sight-seen basis, some of you who graded it less than MS65, would grade it MS66 and that some of you who graded it MS66, would grade it less than MS65.
<< <i>I think it's a great looking coin, and I would certainly expect to pay more for it based upon it's eye appeal. I don't believe in a free lunch with coins. If it has that certain "zing" you are going to pay for it, and rightfully so.
I certainly don't believe in grading from images with certainty. But, let's face it, we are asked to do so all the time on this forum, so occasionally I with tender an opinion. I do so with the Clankeye * system. As in, here's what I think *(but it's a scan so don't hold me to it).
I think this coin is a pretty good illustration of the way NGC and PCGS grade coins in the reality of the coin market at this point in the evolution of the hobby. I'm not opposed to it. I just think the eye appeal bumps on technical grade make for a lot of "wiggle room"--and throw in the * designation on top of it, and you are going to have exactly what we have--a lot of debate.
No problem there. Gentlemen, start your engines.
Clankeye >>
Well put Clankeye, this is one of the things that makes this hobby more fun and interesting. I could care less what it grades I like the coin and would determine based on how much I like it what I would pay for it. See I am really a simple collector.
I also understand this is just an image, but just with the scuffs in the field alone told me I wouldn't be bidding on this coin as a 66. Matter of fact when I decided to post this for the board I knew I wouldn't be bidding at all. (Add I'm not that stupid.)
I thought it would be good for discussion, and OK maybe a few arguments. Myself.... I try to find the very few coins that are technically graded correctly with nice color and or eye-appeal. Very tough to do these days.
Just ask Coinguy1
Here's the rub. That pilgrim is a 63, maybe a 64 on an easy grading day. To be Gem that hat brim needs to be free of marks and it can only have a minor mark or two in the field. This commem isn't even close. This Pilgrim has great appeal and may be worthy of 65/66 money, but no more.
So what we have is a coin that based on grade alone is valued at $100-$200. At MS66 it is valued at well over $1000. The market value has already been bumped by the market grading. But wait.....it will be sold as a MS66 with great eye appeal. So instead of being sold at the already market graded MS66 price, the dealer will want MS66+ or $2000 - $3000. That is way to much to pay for a MS63.
This happens all the time. We collectors end up being fooled into believing we have an awesome MS66 (that is what the great PCGS or NGC have graded it) with great eye appeal that we pay MS67 dollars for when what we have is a MS63 that we should add a nice premium to for outstanding appeal. But 20 to 30 times sheet? Thats outrageous. The dealers are laughing all the way to the bank compliments of Market Grading.
Lets get back to putting the grades on the labels and not the value estimate. The grade is only one consideration when determining value. Lets not have the grading services merge considerations under the guise of grading.
Now I know my rant here is not going to change a thing. But maybe a lurker or a newbie may learn something here, something I hope most of us already know.
<< <i>All of you guys (no matter how low or high you "graded" the coin) who make judgments, based solely upon images, are nuts and unfair. End of story >>
True, but I disagree to some extent. When we are looking at an image for bidding purposes on the internet.... that's all we have to go by sometimes. So we can only access it to the best of our ability.
The assessment could be right or wrong. But if one doesn't like to mess with returning coins, I'd rather just weed out the ones that I don't care for. Yes, just by the image alone.
Yup, you're right we're nuts!!!!
As to the rest of what you say, yes I understand where you are coming from and agree with you to some extent.
Clankeye
Alright....I'll split the difference with you. MS64
peacockcoins
I've been thinking about your post, and besides I want to stir things up some more...
What you are saying in effect is that you think all coins should be valued on purely a basis of technical grade. It is worth monetarily exactly what the price guides say a coin should be worth at that Sheldon designation for that grade.
Why should the price of a coin be based on technical numerical grade alone? Why should that necessarily be the only factor?
Who says surface preservation is what gives a coin it's total value?
Even if that coin was in a 63 holder you're not going to get it for 63 money. Not unless someone who just doesn't have a clue is selling it.
Now, I earlier indicated that I like the ICCS way of technical grading--I do--but I've found you don't find the really incredible coins that ICCS did not give the eye appeal bump trading at ordinary levels for the technical grade--they go for much more in most cases.
But, even if a coin such as this Pilgrim was in a holder with a much lower grade designation, don't think that the price inflation that a seller is going to ask isn't going to happen to some extent anyway.
Eye appeal is a factor in determining the value of a coin. Why not? The question is should it be a factor in determining the technical grade of a coin. And right now, in numismatics, the major US grading services say "Yes."
Clankeye
I think I have been misunderstood.
I do not believe that coins should be valued based upon technical grade alone. Grade is only one consideration of value, and for me not the most important. I believe that this Pilgrim is not gem grade but it is worth 65/66 money due to its appeal. If it looks as nice in hand as in the image I would have no problem paying 66 money for it. The problem here is that NGC has proclaimed it as a 66 (market graded - both you and I agree that it is not a technical 66) and now dealers will start the value at 66 and add for the appeal. The appeal value was already included with the 66 grade and now its being bumped again. This is my objection.
BTW, there is not much difference in the price of 63 and 65 when compared to 66. The market grade bounce from my view of 63 to 66 is $1000. The bounce from your view of 65 to 66 is $725. Either way, the appeal is already in the price. Wouldn't it just be better if the grading companies just put the technical grade (MS63 or MS65) and then let us determine the added value for eye appeal.
<< <i>The problem here is that NGC has proclaimed it as a 66 (market graded - both you and I agree that it is not a technical 66) and now dealers will start the value at 66 and add for the appeal. The appeal value was already included with the 66 grade and now its being bumped again. This is my objection. >>
Ahhh, the "Double Bump." I've been saying this on here for a long time. Nobody listens to me but I keep saying it.
<< <i>I think I have been misunderstood. >>
Fats--
Sorry, I think I kind of ran with your post and interpreted more into it just to keep a lively discussion going.
What you have just said is well stated and I agree with it.
I think you are correct that the higher the designation on the holder, then the higher the starting point for the eye appeal premium. And it can finally get ridiculous and price a great coin you might enjoy for your collection right out of the picture. And the true collector knows--that's painful.
I have a feeling we are much more in agreement (in fact I know this from reading your posts) about most things numismatic, than we are at logger heads.
Even if you do show a clear prejudice against Dark Siders.
Just keeping the talk going....
Clankeye
Isn't that the way to get responses on here?
<< <i>All of you guys (no matter how low or high you "graded" the coin) who make judgments, based solely upon images, are nuts and unfair. End of story >>
In deference to poindexter - while it is true that you can't accurately grade a coin solely off a picture, I think most of us here have become adept at throwing grades at what we "think" pictures look like - but hopefully no one has become convinced that you can grade any other way than to have the coin in hand. If anything because of all the trickery that can be done with images.
Ogden
The market determined the price not the grade.
Long ago I owned a Roanoke that had dramatic toning very much like you see on those coins. It came from Larry Shepherd, and I believe it was one of three that came from the same card and were toned similarly. Mine was graded NGC 66 (and that is neither here not there--this is not directed at NGC).
At any rate, the coin was fantastic, except it had not one--but four-- visible hits on Sir Walter Raleigh's hat brim.
When I first saw the coin it took my breath away. I had never seen such dramatic toning on a commemorative. But... I have to say that after not much time, my enthusiasm began to fade and all I could see where those four hits on the hat brim. It got to be that every time I looked at the coin I was thinking how on earth could they grade this coin a 66. And then the debate would start in my mind--well, how could they not? Look at it? It's amazing!
Ultimately, I feel the coin was technically over graded by a couple of points. Was it worth the money I paid for it in a 66 holder? Well, let's just say I wish I still had it, because regardless of the holder I believe I could sell that coin for three to four times what I paid for it.
Which I don't lose sleep over. It's really not why I do this anymore. But, IrishMike's pics got me to thinking out loud again.
Clankeye
<< <i>
<< <i>The problem here is that NGC has proclaimed it as a 66 (market graded - both you and I agree that it is not a technical 66) and now dealers will start the value at 66 and add for the appeal. The appeal value was already included with the 66 grade and now its being bumped again. This is my objection. >>
Ahhh, the "Double Bump." I've been saying this on here for a long time. Nobody listens to me but I keep saying it.
Amazing This Pilgrim Bumped to the Moon