Submission results, complete with images, commentary and BAGGING.
Russ
Posts: 48,514 ✭✭✭
Note: This actually posted three days ago (2.03) but I had it put on hold to send one of the coins back to the graders. More on that below. My grades are noted parenthetically in bold.
Submission #3032536, zip code 98032
1 21411667 1869 2C USA MS65BN (MS63RB)
2 21411668 1956 50C Type 2 USA PR67CA (PR66DCAM)
3 21411669 1964 50C USA MS66 (MS66)
4 21411670 1964 50C USA PR68CA (PR67DCAM)
5 21411671 1964 50C USA PR69CA (PR68DCAM)
6 21411672 1964 50C Accented Hair USA PR67 (PR65) (Don't know what happened here.
)
7 21411673 1964 50C Accented Hair USA PR67 (PR67)
8 21411674 1964 50C Accented Hair USA PR67 (PR67)
9 21411675 1964 50C Accented Hair USA PR67 (PR67)
10 21411676 1964 50C Accented Hair USA PR67 (PR67)
11 21411677 1965 50C SMS USA MS67 (MS66)
Date Received: 11/13/2003
Date Shipped: No Date Specified
Line 1:
I purchased this coin as an NGC MS64RB. I sent it in for crossover and, feeling it was overgraded by a point, had a minimum of MS63RB on the submission:
Submission #3032533: DNC
Thinking maybe it was a case of holder BIAS, I cracked it out and resubmitted it:
Submission #3032534: Bodybag, altered surfaces
So, I resubmitted it again (obviously) and now it grades MS65BN??!!! This is pure, utter BS! Besides the fact that coin is not gem by any stretch of the imagination, and is not brown but rather RB, I have to go through the line three times to get it graded? Where were these so called "world-class" graders? Hungover from the holidays?
It is a pop 1/0 TOP POP, though.
Line 2:
In the original thread about this coin, I said I thought it would either grade PR66DCAM or PR67CAM. I was hoping for option #1, but PCGS chose option #2.
Line 3:
An example of the fact that some nice coins can be picked up on eBay if one shops carefully. Very solid for the grade of MS66 and just flat appealing.
Line 5:
A perfect example of PCGS's reticence to give the Deep Cameo designation to 1950 through 1964 proof coins, but instead goosing the grade by a point and putting them in a cameo holder. This is another with an interesting history.
I bought it as a PCGS PR67DCAM. Cracked it out and sent it off to NCS to take care of the spot on the reverse. They bounced it, saying the spot was not removable.
So, I resubmitted it to PCGS figuring I'd at least get it back in a 67DCAM holder - about right with the spot. That time, it came back PR68CAM!
Cracked it out again, and sent it back off to NCS with a note to conserve it regardless. This time it came back with the spot reduced to just a transparency. I didn't re-image it before sending it off to PCGS again, so imagine it with just a barely visible whisper where the spot is.
This time, it comes back PR69CAM! The coin is a no-brainer DCAM, and one they're going to keep seeing until they get it right.
Line 11:
This is the coin that put the submission on hold while it went back to the grading room. PCGS is well known for copping out on nice business strike 1965-1967 Kennedys and slapping them in SMS holders. Of course, they stubbornly refused to budge and left it in an SMS holder. I'm convinced the coin is a business strike, so it's another one they're going to see again.
So, there you have it. The good, the bad, the ugly and the ridiculous.
Russ, NCNE
Submission #3032536, zip code 98032
1 21411667 1869 2C USA MS65BN (MS63RB)
2 21411668 1956 50C Type 2 USA PR67CA (PR66DCAM)
3 21411669 1964 50C USA MS66 (MS66)
4 21411670 1964 50C USA PR68CA (PR67DCAM)
5 21411671 1964 50C USA PR69CA (PR68DCAM)
6 21411672 1964 50C Accented Hair USA PR67 (PR65) (Don't know what happened here.
)7 21411673 1964 50C Accented Hair USA PR67 (PR67)
8 21411674 1964 50C Accented Hair USA PR67 (PR67)
9 21411675 1964 50C Accented Hair USA PR67 (PR67)
10 21411676 1964 50C Accented Hair USA PR67 (PR67)
11 21411677 1965 50C SMS USA MS67 (MS66)
Date Received: 11/13/2003
Date Shipped: No Date Specified
Line 1:
I purchased this coin as an NGC MS64RB. I sent it in for crossover and, feeling it was overgraded by a point, had a minimum of MS63RB on the submission:
Submission #3032533: DNC
Thinking maybe it was a case of holder BIAS, I cracked it out and resubmitted it:
Submission #3032534: Bodybag, altered surfaces
So, I resubmitted it again (obviously) and now it grades MS65BN??!!! This is pure, utter BS! Besides the fact that coin is not gem by any stretch of the imagination, and is not brown but rather RB, I have to go through the line three times to get it graded? Where were these so called "world-class" graders? Hungover from the holidays?
It is a pop 1/0 TOP POP, though.
Line 2:
In the original thread about this coin, I said I thought it would either grade PR66DCAM or PR67CAM. I was hoping for option #1, but PCGS chose option #2.
Line 3:
An example of the fact that some nice coins can be picked up on eBay if one shops carefully. Very solid for the grade of MS66 and just flat appealing.
Line 5:
A perfect example of PCGS's reticence to give the Deep Cameo designation to 1950 through 1964 proof coins, but instead goosing the grade by a point and putting them in a cameo holder. This is another with an interesting history.
I bought it as a PCGS PR67DCAM. Cracked it out and sent it off to NCS to take care of the spot on the reverse. They bounced it, saying the spot was not removable.
So, I resubmitted it to PCGS figuring I'd at least get it back in a 67DCAM holder - about right with the spot. That time, it came back PR68CAM!
Cracked it out again, and sent it back off to NCS with a note to conserve it regardless. This time it came back with the spot reduced to just a transparency. I didn't re-image it before sending it off to PCGS again, so imagine it with just a barely visible whisper where the spot is.
This time, it comes back PR69CAM! The coin is a no-brainer DCAM, and one they're going to keep seeing until they get it right.
Line 11:
This is the coin that put the submission on hold while it went back to the grading room. PCGS is well known for copping out on nice business strike 1965-1967 Kennedys and slapping them in SMS holders. Of course, they stubbornly refused to budge and left it in an SMS holder. I'm convinced the coin is a business strike, so it's another one they're going to see again.
So, there you have it. The good, the bad, the ugly and the ridiculous.
Russ, NCNE
0
Comments
Not a bad bunch, but did you have a hangover when you sent these in?
NEVER LET HIPPO MOUTH OVERLOAD HUMMINGBIRD BUTT!!!
WORK HARDER!!!!
Millions on WELFARE depend on you!
Grading like this makes you wonder about the PCGS grading contest.
FrederickCoinClub
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
Russ, NCNE
<< <i> Just more proof that the grade on a PCGS slab is negotiable if you have the funds to keep playing the "plastic game". >>
The Ludlow Brilliant Collection (1938-64)
Coin 1.----color is subjective, we don't all see it the same. while it looks to me as if it has enough obverse red for an RB designation, the reverse looks to be more brown. i'd agree with MS64 and wouldn't complain about 65.
Coins 2 & 5.----no comment on the grade but i think they both exhibit enough central frost weakness to justify no DCAM. another judgement call.
Coin 3.----hard not to like 'em when they look like that!!
Coin 11.----with so much difficulty distinguishing non-SMS and SMS for 1965 especially, i'd wonder if there are some diagnostics on this coin that could place it as one or the other. this has to be one of the more difficult things for the grading services. personally, i don't fault any of them, i place the blame on the U.S. Mint for creating the problem in the first place. i currently have a 1965 quarter in the logjam and also believe it to be a business strike. your coin is a beauty, Russ.
al h.
<< <i>more proof that coin grading is NOT a science. Everybody keep this in mind when buying coins in holders. >>
I agree and also keep this in mind when submitting. mike
Good thing you keep on them until they get it right.
My posts viewed
since 8/1/6
<< <i>I agree and also keep this in mind when submitting. >>
sometimes it is painful but I get reminded
<< <i>with so much difficulty distinguishing non-SMS and SMS for 1965 especially, i'd wonder if there are some diagnostics on this coin that could place it as one or the other. >>
Unfortunately, there are only two die marriages that are unique to the 1965 business strikes, and this coin isn't one of them. The other 10 are common to both SMS and business strikes.
Russ, NCNE
we send in submissions
every day
these "professional" graders
dont know near as much as we
we who do this stuff every day
they get em wrong
they get em right
they'll never be a simpler plight
of a submitter wanting to win the fight
the buck is all mighty
the service is teeny
we do thousands of these routinely
while they care not that you knew your grades quite keenly
they'll screw em up and say they came in that way
because all we can do is send em in and hope they dont stray
these folks are not gods nor are they dumb
they just do a job at the expense of your willingness to succumb
we have seen 45's go to 58's
we have seen ms66's go to 68's
there are those inbetween that makes no sense
those are the ones that cause us to vent
we will never change their system,nor their way of rationale
what we can do is crack til the real grade will unveil
short of this, we can forget wishful bliss
as 5 out of 10 they will always miss
you know and we know this is the deal
you have to step up and at least spin the wheel
short of that,your gripes and complaints
will go un-noticed until you prove they are not grading saints
Mike
Lincoln Wheats (1909 - 1958) Basic Set - Always Interested in Upgrading!