"I'm starting to lose respect for ANACS"
dorkkarl
Posts: 12,691 ✭✭✭
it's a good think you can always buy pcgs coins sight unseen & never question the grades, isn't it? like this one for example.
K S
K S
0
Comments
Does this mean you are starting to lose respect for PCGS?
don'y those issues apply here as well???
K S
i don't buy the "weakly struck" notion either. how, w/out some sort of surface friction, did this 1856 retain lighter color in the fields than between the letters & detail?
of course, we're all speculating on a SIGHT-UNSEEN coin..... hmmm?
K S
I sure as heck wouldn't be buying $6,000 coins from that series until I learned.
It looks a little better color wise in the pictures of the coin in the holder.
But yes I never just buy a coin based on what the holder say's the grade is.
D.H. has said pcgs gets the grade right about 97% of the time. Last month he said they are grading 100k coins a month. So that leaves 3,000 coins that month that might not be graded right.
1885-CC ANACS MS-64 DMPL Morgan Dollar
1885-CC ANACS MS-64 DMPL Thread Link
Stuart
Collect 18th & 19th Century US Type Coins, Silver Dollars, $20 Gold Double Eagles and World Crowns & Talers with High Eye Appeal
"Luck is what happens when Preparation meets Opportunity"
That Morgan is a very pretty coin!
That FE may very well be MS due to the soft strike but it is one Butt Ugly 56 Flyer.
I have seen a couple of them like that in the past year or so with one of them being a PCGS AU58 that was equally as ugly.
MS it may be but I certainly would not pay MS or probably even AU money for it. HIGHLY unattractive coin. Some plastic collector will grab that one for the registry game. When I was actively looking for a nice circ. '56 flyer a few years back the nicest ones I ran across were in ANACS holders. The few circs I ran across in PCGS holders were awful looking and would have been "netted" by ANACS in heartbeat and deservedly so.
Here's a pic of my AU50. Yes, AU50!
All I can imagine is the dealer laughing at me if I claimed it was mint state.
Free Trial
Wolf359: Thanks very much for the kind words on my new 1885-CC. Please refer to the following thread on the coin if interested: 1885-CC ANACS MS-64 DMPL Morgan Thread
In answer to your above question, after initial examination of the coin, it looks more like a PCGS MS-65 PL (or better) than an MS-64 DMPL. The mirror surfaces have some cartwheel, so they are not glassy water clear -- but at least a strong PL.
I will show the coin to some knowledgable folks and will determine if it should be submitted to PCGS for grading. The previous owner unsuccessfully tried to cross it to PCGS, which I think failed due to it perhaps not making PCGS' stringent DMPL designation. (i.e according to David Hall PCGS won't cross a coin and reduce the DMPL designation to PL.)
It's a wonderful and beautiful coin which I am very proud to own, and it will be a very fun & interesting project
DorkKarl: Welcome back!!
Stuart
Collect 18th & 19th Century US Type Coins, Silver Dollars, $20 Gold Double Eagles and World Crowns & Talers with High Eye Appeal
"Luck is what happens when Preparation meets Opportunity"
K S
NEVER LET HIPPO MOUTH OVERLOAD HUMMINGBIRD BUTT!!!
WORK HARDER!!!!
Millions on WELFARE depend on you!
<< <i>Regardless of whether or not this particular Flying Eagle cent is Mint State, you always have to ask yourself "what would a dealer say if I tried selling this coin raw?"
All I can imagine is the dealer laughing at me if I claimed it was mint state.
Thus you've proven the value of certified coins. You're right. The Dealer would laugh at that coin if offered raw as MintState. It IS MintState though (albeit, weakly struck) and that same Dealer would sell it as such. Certification will protect you from getting ripped off.
peacockcoins
Honestly, that does not appear to be a mint state coin or weakly struck. It does look like a very very strong Extra Fine or AU.
I'm not up on the Flying Cents issues, perhaps it's common to see the "STATES" soft in a strike? As on an "O" mint Morgan dollar.... the reverse breast feathers are often soft, almost worn looking, even on an uncirculated coin.
Spanky
Kyle
<< <i>Where's K6AZ on this one???? >>
still losing respect maybe?
K S
I really don't think it's struck through grease or anything. I think it's just not fully struck due to the hardness of the metal and the relief of the coin. After all the '56 was an "expermental" piece wasn't it??
It's MS but it's sure Ugly! Just what I'd want, A plucked eagle.
It looks like the same coin that sold for over 8K a fews ago (link).
The snow3's have really "taken Off" the past year or so.
This S-3 flyer is an MS coin easily. However, it has one of the worst strikes(whatever the cause) I have ever seen on a 56 Flyer. I wouldnt even buy this coin at 25% of 63 money if offered to me. The lack of detail totally kills this coin. I was offered a similar coin a year or so ago, and passed quickly. Even though the coin grades Ms-63, I dont like seeing it in a holder that could be traded sight-unseen, the buyer would be shocked when he recieved it, Id suspect.
If this coin were struck normally and had the surfaces this coin has it would easily fetch 16-17K IMO
1. The distances between the upper and lower dies was mis-aligned vertically (ie set too far apart) so when the "hammer die” cycled in the press, it literally didn't go down far enough to fully strike the coin; or
2. There was not enough power (downward force) when the coining press was activated. I think by 1856 the mint had steam presses, so perhaps this coin was struck at the end of the daily run when the boiler was turned off and the power was just the residual steam pressure left (or 1st coin struck before sufficient pressure had built up to fully cycle the press).
A 3rd possibility could be that they were setting up the dies and this was a "trial" strike for setting up the proper die alignment. The MS 1856 FE cents were the initial minting of the new CN designed cent and there would have been lots of set-up work to get the dies properly aligned and the proper striking force needed to strike this new and harder metal. - As the mint was then gearing up to give samples of these coins to congress, this coin probably would not have been any of those given to congressmen as a sample of the new coinage as they would have been carefully struck, but later, when the 1856 FE became popular (hence the large re-striking in 1858), it may have may have been inadvertently released or someone from the mint may have taken it home after replacing it with one of the older and out of favor large cents.
In any event it may well be mint state, but poorly struck - it doesn't look like a grease or filled die though, it looks like improper die striking pressure.
“It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.” Mark Twain
Newmismatist
I thought I was a hardcore grading nazi but that's really gestapho.
62?? I thought 60 was the grade for MS junk.
Actually, I would have a difficult time assigning a grade to this coin without also making remarks on the holder. In fact, I tend to agree with the arguement for assigning technical grades and letting the aesthetics be between buyer and seller. Obviously this would put a crimp in the site unseen trading market. In my grading world (fantasy) I would assign a grade of MS-70 to a coin that leaves the mint as struck and without handling marks. A coin that is as struck could be a 70 and have aesthetic issues that warrant mentioning between a buyer and a seller. In my mind, that beats the current system of crack outs and resubmissions with huge price swings between 1 grading point...bear in mind what we always hear...grading is an art and a matter of opinion.
I'm not comfortable knowing that so few people are determining prices based on opinions between them. Knowing full well that even their own opinions change from day to day and year to year. Not a day goes by that i'm not amazed that the rare coin market has accepted and embraced this notion.
When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not hereditary.
Thomas Paine
the same MIGHT be true of the anacs dollar that k6az lost respect for. for all we know, that dollar has 80% luster in-hand, but was struck crappy.
bottom line is still the same: do not buy coins sight unseen.
K S
Karl - You're entitled to set your own grading standards. Heck, even ACG has that right. But don't expect others to follow. Bottom line is that PCGS and NGC do not knock weakly struck MS coins down to AU. BTW, neither do I.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
That sometimes happens, but the strike would need to be much worse.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>Bottom line is that PCGS and NGC do not knock weakly struck MS coins down to AU. BTW, neither do I. >>
so, you would acceptingly buy such a coin sight-unseen - AS MS-62???
K S
<< <i>
<< <i>Bottom line is that PCGS and NGC do not knock weakly struck MS coins down to AU. BTW, neither do I. >>
so, you would acceptingly buy such a coin sight-unseen - AS MS-62??? K S >>
It is still an MS-62. The question is how much is it WORTH. It might only be worth AU-50 money (or less). The value of a coin is not perfectly tied to its grade. Ugly coins typically are worth less than beautiful coins.
Tom
Frankly, I don't do MS because I don't have the eye. But the above is part of my confusion regarding MS grades. If you put 2 EF or 2 VF coins side by side they will look very similar. I guarantee that if you put that MS62 FE next to many other MS62 FE's they will not look anything alike. Obviously one would not be like the others.
That doesn't make sense to me.
Joe.
Mike - I can't be certain from the scan that the coin has ZERO rub, but I can be certain that MOST of the weakness is due to strike. The pattern of weakness is far too irregular to be entirely the result of wear. Also, I should say that if I saw the coin in person, I could be 100% sure if the coin has any wear.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Karl - The question should be: Would I acceptingly buy such a coin sight-SEEN - as MS-62? The answer is that it depends on the price, of course. More to the point, I could certainly imagine a well struck 62 that I would value at less than this weakly struck one.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>It is still an MS-62. The question is how much is it WORTH. It might only be worth AU-50 money (or less). The value of a coin is not perfectly tied to its grade. Ugly coins typically are worth less than beautiful coins. >>
nope, pcgs is supposed to "market grade" coins, which means the grade assigned should reflect the actual market value of the coin. no way is that flyer worth "ms-62" money. it's market value is somewhere around au money.
<< <i>Dorkkarl, are you one of the people that did not defend K6AZ's orginial thread (Without "-s) "I'm starting to lose respect for ANACS.". Because I was wondering why you named this thread with his title in quotes. Personally, I thought it was a minor mistake and nothing to get upset about. This coin by PCGS, however, I have different feelings for. It probably is weakly struck (First thing I noticed is the eagle has no eyes, and no pecker, basically no face), but I agree with you folks, it does look ugly. >>
link to my comments in the K6AZ thread. i stand by my comments.
<< <i>so, you would acceptingly buy such a coin sight-unseen - AS MS-62??? ... Karl - The question should be: Would I acceptingly buy such a coin sight-SEEN - as MS-62? The answer is that it depends on the price, of course. More to the point, I could certainly imagine a well struck 62 that I would value at less than this weakly struck one. >>
you missed my sarcastic point. K6AZ was complaining that he couldn't trust anacs buying coins sight UNseen. so my sarcasm was to state in this thread that you can "always buy pcgs coins sight seen" & link to a pcgs coin that someone's gonna get ripped on.
also, K6AZ was complaining about how much of a spread there is between xf & au $ for a 1903-s morgan dollar, again where if you bought it sight unseen, you might be in for a $300 disappointment. this pcgs coin, imo, stands to nail you for $$$THOUSANDS in disappointment if your so foolish as to bid sight UNseen.
the ironic thing is, K6AZ & i are BOTH complaining about coins that .... we aren't even considering after seeing the coin IN-HAND!
K S
Correct! That's what the guarantee is about.
If I buy this coin for MS62 $ (which is what I should be able to do based upon PCGS's grade) and find that I can not turn it around for better than AU $ I have been damaged.
Now don't tell me I should "know better" or "buy the coin not the plastic" because I don't believe those items are part of the guarantee. In addition, do you think the purchaser of that infamous "70" Lincoln Cent thought the coin was a 70?
Joe.
hey Karl
i don't really think that's part of the PCGS mission statement and i also don't think that's what they do as a general rule. sometimes it may seem that they are assigning a grade as a result of current prices, but i don't really think PCGS goes about their daily business thinking that they are assigning grades to set the prices of what a particular coin should sell for. perhaps they become influenced by what the price differences of a specific issue are from grade to grade sometimes, but that would seem to be tied more to an individual than to the company as a whole. just my opinion, of course.
with regard to the ongoing disagreement about the coin's grade, as Mr. Eureka said, it's almost a certainty that what we're seeing in the picture is strike weakness and not rub. that could be verified with the coin in hand easily by judging the luster at the points of weakness. there should be apparent luster in those areas. rubbed areas would be absent luster.
armed with that simple, basic understanding, the grade becomes a moot point. it is almost assuredly a Mint State coin. it then becomes a personal decision as to whether or not you can live with the price paid for the lack of detail. with a fullt struck MS62 the arguement would center on either weak luster or the number of contacts and the question would be the same. for the given price, can i live with the coin's appearance??
al h.
Joe.
why not body bag a ms-63 that's been poorly struck has a market value of just au-50?
K S
hey Joe
please don't misconstue my answer as trying to wiggle out of something i may have posted, but i don't really think the thread was based around the value of the coin. instead, it seems by the lead-in that the point being made was that the coin is overgraded and i don't necessarily agree with that point.
further, this isn't a series or an issue that i pay even token attention to. with that said, it looks clean to me with nice fields and no major distractions aside from the strike weakness. i like the color although it seems to have what i'd see on nickel and silver coins as possible evidence of an old cleaning because of the way the color hangs around the devices and lettering.
as far as paying MS62 money for the coin, as i said in my previous post it would be a matter of what the buyer could live with vs. the price they pay. something to consider might be what a collector would think of if making a long term purchase. looking down the road 10-20 years this coin will almost certainly appreciate from where it's bought today.
al h.
I hate it when you see my post before I can edit the spelling.
Always looking for nice type coins
my local dealer