Expert's Opinions on Grading Uncirculated Bust Halves, Gradeflation
Nysoto
Posts: 3,818 ✭✭✭✭✭
Stman's thread on cabinet friction vrs. wear was very interesting and brought out some strong opinions because of the $ involved in the AU/MS decision.
With some digging, here are some opinions of noted experts:
Overton - MS60 - no traces of wear or circulation. Strike may be weak or uneven with some areas showing very little detail. Contact marks or abrasions on the coins surface from other coins may appear to be wear. However, these will normally NOT AFFECT ALL HIGH POINTS AS WEAR FROM CIRCULATION DOES.
Sheridan Downey - "For technical grading puposes it doesn't matter whether wear is derived from one's pocket, a velvet lined coin drawer, the sliding of plastic across a coin or a squeeze of the fingers. I each instance the luster is lost, along with a few microns of metal. THE SOURCE OF THE FRICTION SHOULD BE IRRELEVANT TO GRADE. I doubt that anyone is able to distinguish circulation wear from cabinet friction 100% of the time."
Sheridan also described Carl Carlson of Stack's (now deceased) as having the enviable experience of opening unquestionalbly original bank wrapped rolls and finding many of the "uncirculated" pieces with discoloration and friction on the cap, curls, cheek or bust. In the late 1800's banks started to store half dollars in rolls rather than bags or boxes. The coins were manually counted, bringing finger and slide marks to a certain percentage of the of the uncirculated pieces. Sheridan states "A numerical grade may be both inadequate and unnecessary to an appropriate description of such "uncirculated" coins. Use of a numerical grade forces a decision on what may be only a semantic problem: how do we define wear. Grading services must make that difficult decision. Dealers and collectors, I suggest, should be content with adjectival descriptions of such borderline coins, eg., "no signs of circulation, but... (explanation for break in luster)."
Q. David Bowers - "The grading references are not particularly helpful. In my opinion, such pieces should be graded by the fields, not the higher points. If one were to insist that the high points of Miss Liberty's features be frosty and without signs of marks, then MS65 Capped Bust half dollars would be extreme rarities."
Edgar Souders - "Grading Capped Bust Halves is an art based on understanding. Often CBHs' were not struck up well along the dentilated border or the die may have been so worn that the dentils were pretty much worn away. Therefore, the central device becomes the first place to receive contact or wear - not the protective border. Circulation rubs will be visible on most of these highest areas BUT NOT ALL OF THEM. If they are on all of the highest points and the CBH has considerable dentilation then you are viewing an AU CBH. If there are many marks, broken luster and the fields are noticeably marked than the coin falls somewhere in the AU grades classification."
Which is most relevant? Any disagreements?
I attended the John Reich Collectors Society annual meeting at the Pittsburgh ANA. Much of the discussion was on gradeflation, several board members and members provided commentary on the gradeflation present in the bust coinage series - AU's without luster, MS coin with significant friction, etc. There was no disagreement that gradeflation is occuring.
What is causing the gradeflation? What impact does this have on collectors?
Are collectors, in some cases, spending $6000 on an 1830's MS65 bust half that should be a $400 AU58?
Also an issue - unnecessary dipping/conserving of bust coins for financial gain.
Which has more wear? An original, deeply toned bust half with subdued luster and very slight rub on some highpoints, or the same coin dipped in acid with its original skin stripped? Which should be graded higher?
Bill
With some digging, here are some opinions of noted experts:
Overton - MS60 - no traces of wear or circulation. Strike may be weak or uneven with some areas showing very little detail. Contact marks or abrasions on the coins surface from other coins may appear to be wear. However, these will normally NOT AFFECT ALL HIGH POINTS AS WEAR FROM CIRCULATION DOES.
Sheridan Downey - "For technical grading puposes it doesn't matter whether wear is derived from one's pocket, a velvet lined coin drawer, the sliding of plastic across a coin or a squeeze of the fingers. I each instance the luster is lost, along with a few microns of metal. THE SOURCE OF THE FRICTION SHOULD BE IRRELEVANT TO GRADE. I doubt that anyone is able to distinguish circulation wear from cabinet friction 100% of the time."
Sheridan also described Carl Carlson of Stack's (now deceased) as having the enviable experience of opening unquestionalbly original bank wrapped rolls and finding many of the "uncirculated" pieces with discoloration and friction on the cap, curls, cheek or bust. In the late 1800's banks started to store half dollars in rolls rather than bags or boxes. The coins were manually counted, bringing finger and slide marks to a certain percentage of the of the uncirculated pieces. Sheridan states "A numerical grade may be both inadequate and unnecessary to an appropriate description of such "uncirculated" coins. Use of a numerical grade forces a decision on what may be only a semantic problem: how do we define wear. Grading services must make that difficult decision. Dealers and collectors, I suggest, should be content with adjectival descriptions of such borderline coins, eg., "no signs of circulation, but... (explanation for break in luster)."
Q. David Bowers - "The grading references are not particularly helpful. In my opinion, such pieces should be graded by the fields, not the higher points. If one were to insist that the high points of Miss Liberty's features be frosty and without signs of marks, then MS65 Capped Bust half dollars would be extreme rarities."
Edgar Souders - "Grading Capped Bust Halves is an art based on understanding. Often CBHs' were not struck up well along the dentilated border or the die may have been so worn that the dentils were pretty much worn away. Therefore, the central device becomes the first place to receive contact or wear - not the protective border. Circulation rubs will be visible on most of these highest areas BUT NOT ALL OF THEM. If they are on all of the highest points and the CBH has considerable dentilation then you are viewing an AU CBH. If there are many marks, broken luster and the fields are noticeably marked than the coin falls somewhere in the AU grades classification."
Which is most relevant? Any disagreements?
I attended the John Reich Collectors Society annual meeting at the Pittsburgh ANA. Much of the discussion was on gradeflation, several board members and members provided commentary on the gradeflation present in the bust coinage series - AU's without luster, MS coin with significant friction, etc. There was no disagreement that gradeflation is occuring.
What is causing the gradeflation? What impact does this have on collectors?
Are collectors, in some cases, spending $6000 on an 1830's MS65 bust half that should be a $400 AU58?
Also an issue - unnecessary dipping/conserving of bust coins for financial gain.
Which has more wear? An original, deeply toned bust half with subdued luster and very slight rub on some highpoints, or the same coin dipped in acid with its original skin stripped? Which should be graded higher?
Bill
Robert Scot: Engraving Liberty - biography of US Mint's first chief engraver
0
Comments
Nysoto,
Great thread! Well written and provocative. The issues that you raise have long been an issue for me. I can't stand it when dealers walk up to our table with grade-flation Bust Halves; dipped-out coins in MS-64 or 65 holders, or Ch. AU-58 coins that do have great luster and detail, but are graded as MS-65.
My thoughts are that Bust Halves, and all coins really, should not be graded on a curve just because they are old or are rarely found in uncirculated condition. Call it like it is; if it has rub, it's not uncirculated. What's the shame in having a beautiful 1823 Bust Half with dazzling luster and great detail, but just a touch of rub? Whether it's technically an AU-58 or an MS-64, it's still the same beautiful coin.
That being said, I also think that it is completely unfair for collectors or dealers to attempt to apply Greysheet prices to above average coins. If a coin is a super-slider (looks MS-63 but has a touch of rub), then it should command a premium over a typical AU-58. Each coin should be evaluated independently and priced according to it's own uniqueness and aesthetic qualities.
Here's an example: We just sold a Bust Half to a forum member for $1,400. It's an AU-58, but it is dripping with luster and has mind-blowing toning. It is just a stunning coin. The point is that sometimes coins should be graded by price as opposed to a technical number. Someone recently asked me what a 3 cent silver that we were selling was graded. There was no grade on our flip, because the coin had incredible color and nice luster, but was priced at over Unc. money. I told the guy that "it is graded as $300". I then went on to explain that it was just a super-slider, hence the price. He bought the coin.
My only advice to collectors regarding slabbed, very high grade Bust Halves is to be extremely careful and perhaps just avoid buying them. Stick to AU-58 to MS-62 Bust Halves. Look for the slabbed AU-58 coins that have great luster and eye appeal. Some dealers live and die by the Greysheet and you can pick up good deals if you look hard enough. That's what we do.
Our eBay auctions - TRUE auctions: start at $0.01, no reserve, 30 day unconditional return privilege & free shipping!
Seems like it went very well. We only see a certain amount of discussion on these Busties so I'm glad to learn and help any way I can.
Hopefully we don't drive the price up anymore by giving these beauty's more attention.
I look forward to comments in this thread and will check back often.
<< <i>Q. David Bowers - "The grading references are not particularly helpful. In my opinion, such pieces should be graded by the fields, not the higher points. If one were to insist that the high points of Miss Liberty's features be frosty and without signs of marks, then MS65 Capped Bust half dollars would be extreme rarities." >>
this comment makes me angry, & it's the type of marketing-oriented blabber-speak that keeps me from being a qdb admirer.
what exactly is WRONG w/ ms-65 capped bust halves being extreme rarieties? i guess it's better that they be common as french-fries - at least in plastic - so that way there's a bigger market to peddle over-graded pop-tops too, right?
geez.
i think that truly gem bust halves SHOULD be extreme-rarities & deserving of utmost respect. as you pointed out, these coins were frequently handled, & the chances of 1 escaping friction completely would be very remote. but they don't get the respect they deserve because ngc & pcgs slap so many ridiculous "ms-65" stickers on 'em.
K S
-YN Currently Collecting & Researching Colonial World Coins, Especially Spanish Coins, With a Great Interest in WWII Militaria.
My Ebay!
BTW, I think that Sheridan Downey's comments are right on the money.
The old excuse for wear being "cabinet friction" needs to be retired. Again, what's the shame is saying that a coin circulated? Buy your coins based upon eye appeal and personal satisfaction (i.e. how does it look in your collection?).
Our eBay auctions - TRUE auctions: start at $0.01, no reserve, 30 day unconditional return privilege & free shipping!
<< <i>Which has more wear? An original, deeply toned bust half with subdued luster and very slight rub on some highpoints, or the same coin dipped in acid with its original skin stripped? Which should be graded higher? >>
OK, I'll give my opinion on this one. Which has more wear? IMO they are both the same, dipped or not. Wear is wear, and you're not going to dip off the wear. Sure many people feel because with the toning showing, and the high points showing the wear more that dipping it gets rid of the wear. It might not be as noticeable after a dipping because the wear is not highlighted by the toning, but I guess they get a higher grade sometimes due to the luster maybe not being impaired by the toning.
And I'm not saying that all toning impairs luster either, some does, some doesn't. I don't want this to head into all that.
<< <i>That being said, I also think that it is completely unfair for collectors or dealers to attempt to apply Greysheet prices to above average coins. If a coin is a super-slider (looks MS-63 but has a touch of rub), then it should command a premium over a typical AU-58. Each coin should be evaluated independently and priced according to it's own uniqueness and aesthetic qualities. >>
Very interesting thread. Dennis, what I quoted of your's above is the definition of market grading, isn't it? When coins today are graded, they are not graded on a technical basis. We hear all the time "an extra point for toning," etc. Coins are graded for what they're worth, which is market grading.
Coins are graded for what they're worth, which is market grading.
Yes, and I completely disagree with "market grading". All coins should be graded on the same set of standards. If that means that there is no such thing as a truely uncirculated 1795 Flowing Hair Half Dollar, then we should accept that fact and cherish the few AU examples that exist.
Our eBay auctions - TRUE auctions: start at $0.01, no reserve, 30 day unconditional return privilege & free shipping!
To an extent the TPG's do this on a lot of series. For example, the grading definitions for a gem + coin require fully stuck up devices. A 1941 S walking Liberty is allmost always struck with a weak hand. Rather than simply admit the truth, that a gem 41 S is a very rare thing, the TPG's simply say "Well, better than average strike counts."
If a coin from a given year/mint/variety in a certain condition doesn't exist, then it doesn't exist. Don't change the rules just to fit that coin.
Jim
Tom
I guess as Nysoto mentioned in the previous thread (and kinda how I see it as well) that with full field unbroken luster and just the slightest bit of friction perhaps on just one high point might qualify for the unc status. And IMO more-so if only on one side of the coin.
Also agree the services market grade other series as well with roll friction stacking friction etc. Morgans will have these characteristics, as well as you pointed out the Walkers. How about the stacking friction we always see on the breast of Liberty on Walkers?
At times (and I'm thinking out loud here) perhaps folks are REALLY looking hard at these Bust halves for the very smallest bit of nothing because there is so much controversy on this series? I don't know I'm just throwing it out there.
These days, I try not to micro-grade the things and just go by value. I have a perfect example of a Bust Half that I got recently. The main reason I haven't put it up for discussion here is it is a scan. And it doesn't show the beautiful luster, and I know no matter how many times I say it indeed has nice full luster..... folks will come on here and say "There is no luster
STMan: I think that folks are looking very hard at Bust halves in this hot coin market because they compare gorgeous AU-58's with the highest eye appeal selling for between $500-$750, vs. $1200-$2000 for MS-63's, and trying to determine if the MS-63's are really worth the market premium... (I'm not saying whether they are or aren't worth the premium -- but I'm glad that I made my MS-63 because I would have hard time shelling out that much money for an MS-63)
<< How about the stacking friction we always see on the breast of Liberty on Walkers? >>
I have the same observation (as above quote) about $20 Saints. The buyer calls it "wear", while the seller calls it "stacking friction". It's not easy to find an MS-62 or 63 Saint without the evidence of these marks, and I think that choice examples without this friction are worth a market premium as they are not "commercial uncs".
Here's my "type example" of a choice AU-58 Capped Bust Half that I would call a "Gem AU-58" that looks like at least an MS-63... to help illustrate the original points that Nysoto was making when he originated this thread...
1835 PCGS AU-58 Capped Bust Half
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"
<< <i>To an extent the TPG's do this on a lot of series. For example, the grading definitions for a gem + coin require fully stuck up devices. A 1941 S walking Liberty is allmost always struck with a weak hand. Rather than simply admit the truth, that a gem 41 S is a very rare thing, the TPG's simply say "Well, better than average strike counts." >>
I've seen the same thing... I have a '44-S Mercury Dime in an MS66 holder... it is SO WEAKLY STRUCK that there is NO DETAIL in the hair by Ms. Liberty's ear, and the rods of the fasces meld together in places, and there is even a LARGE flat spot on the Fasces... MS63, at best...
42/92
I will try to take a photo with better lighting and less shadowing that may provide more insight.
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"
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Roadrunner
The idea that MS65 CBHs might be prohibitively rare if graded correctly makes perfect sense to me. Who cares how the wear got there? It's there, and therefore the coin should be precluded from obtaining the MS designation. How to value these pieces is always tricky, but if we start with some honesty in the grade then we can have some true discourse as to the value. I contend that a knowledgeable numismatist will likely be the person who eventually owns a gem AU58 sooner than a novice or speculator will simply because a true gem AU58 will command far in excess the price of a low end MS coin, and it deserves it. This type of thinking is directly at odds with QDB and I think that QDB makes a poor decision with respect to these coins, in this case.
My own collection only contains one AU CBH at the moment, an AU53 1823 with beautiful, original color and some frost. There are, however, a number of choice lower grade coins within my collection and these original coins are also undervalued.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
K S
<< <i>If they can't be MS, but AU58 doesn't seem adequate, then maybe they should start using 59 as a designation where warranted. >>
I don't think that solves anything, really. It's still "below 60" on the numerical scale and the price sheets would continue to show these coins with a lesser value than an MS-60, which is almost never going to be the case in terms of market pricing.
<< <i>If they can't be MS, but AU58 doesn't seem adequate, then maybe they should start using 59 as a designation where warranted. >>
The last thing we need is more numbers, what we really need is for buyers to learn about what THEY are buying. If a AU58 coin is really all there then the knowledgeable buyer will realize it and pay the appropriate price (it happens everyday). The more the slabbers try to cater to the uniformed the worse the system gets, the dumbening (SP??) of collectors just seems to get worse every day as they think the slabbers will take care of them but it will never happen. The original premise of slabbing was to give an unbiased opinion of a coins grade/condition NOT its value but as the services try to tell people what a coin is worth (gradeflation) the worse the system gets. And unfortunately things seem to be on a slippery slope with no where to go but down.
<< <i>Is the problem gradeflation or just a lack of consistent standards over time as applied to states of preservation? >>
I think the "problem," such as it is, is that the TPGs seem to be going more toward market grading the coin. Even if it's a true "super slider," if they think it's worth much more than AU-58 money it is increasingly put into an MS slab.
I don't really think the TPGs should be doing this. As I and others have noted previously, the truly "gemmy" PQ AU-58s are routinely selling for MS-62+ money anyway; there's no need to "market grade" it into an MS-62 holder. Knowledgeable buyers who can see the coin will know it's worth way more than a lot of the technical 60s and 61s anyway.
I agree that cabinet friction and wear both produce AU coins. What is honestly necessary is that collectors get away from dependance on #'s. Early American coins; coins that were struck before the steam press and closed collars, should be evaluated and described verbally. At that time, a coin could be described as cabinet friction vs. wear. "Never circulated" could be used to describe cabinet friction, etc.
As I have stated elsewhere, early American coins are quite scarce in really mint state, no wear condition.
Verbal descriptions are the very best way to describe early American coins. Numerical description does not lend itself very well to these coins.
Numerical grading is a good shorthand, but the # can never be the final determinant.
I firmly believe in numismatics as the world's greatest hobby, but recognize that this is a luxury and without collectors, we can all spend/melt our collections/inventories.
eBaystore
<< <i>
<< <i>Is the problem gradeflation or just a lack of consistent standards over time as applied to states of preservation? >>
I think the "problem," such as it is, is that the TPGs seem to be going more toward market grading the coin. Even if it's a true "super slider," if they think it's worth much more than AU-58 money it is increasingly put into an MS slab.
I don't really think the TPGs should be doing this. As I and others have noted previously, the truly "gemmy" PQ AU-58s are routinely selling for MS-62+ money anyway; there's no need to "market grade" it into an MS-62 holder. Knowledgeable buyers who can see the coin will know it's worth way more than a lot of the technical 60s and 61s anyway. >>
I could not agree more, that really throws the whole grading system off when the services add a point just because the coin has super toning or booming luster. Just grade the coin and let the collectors decide if it is extra special toning or luster, when I was heavy into Busties I used to like the price guide put out by Pierre Frike (I know I massacred the spelling on his last name) he always had three prices for each grade Scudzy,Average and Choice instead of just trying to assign one price for each grade. That system really works for all series since no two coins are alike, wish more price guides would adopt that system as it would more accurately portray the value of most coins. This one price fits each grade does not accurately reflect the quality of coins available on the market.
Collectors and dealers who cannot think outside of the columns in a price guide (Greysheet, Trends, Red Book, etc.) are partially to blame for gradeflation. I don't mean that pejoratively .......just making an observation. It's understandable, especially for a newbie, to rely heavily upon price guides, especially considering the rampant amount of deceit and dishonesty in the hobby. The problem is that many people have a difficult time trying to apply a value to a coin based upon aesthetics. Maybe it's laziness, or perhaps it's simply inability to do so. More than likely, it's simply taking the path of least resistance; reading the grade on a slab and then finding the corresponding value in a price guide.
So you can see the problem; the majority of the market demands that each coin have a technical grade so that it can have its value established by simply applying the price listed in a price guide. It's not fair for a super flashy AU-58 bust half to be priced the same as a flat, ho-hum AU-58 bust half, so the grading services (and dealers) will grade such coins on a curve (a.k.a. gradeflation).
Somewhere along the line, the hobby of coin collecting became the business of coin collecting. In other words, money has taken precedence over personal satisifaction for one's coins. If collectors (and dealers) would learn to grade and value coins on a coin-by-coin basis and use the price guides only as a guide, then that could perhaps help the problem. The reality is, however, that too much damage has been done by the sea of gradeflation slabbed coins on the market. Many will be entombed forever because of the unrealistic grades listed on the holders and the financial implications associated with removing them.
Again, my opinion is that market grading (gradeflation) is a travesty and a real dark spot on the hobby.
Our eBay auctions - TRUE auctions: start at $0.01, no reserve, 30 day unconditional return privilege & free shipping!
<< <i>...when I was heavy into Busties I used to like the price guide put out by Pierre Frike (I know I massacred the spelling on his last name) he always had three prices for each grade Scudzy,Average and Choice instead of just trying to assign one price for each grade. That system really works for all series since no two coins are alike, wish more price guides would adopt that system as it would more accurately portray the value of most coins. This one price fits each grade does not accurately reflect the quality of coins available on the market. >>
Interesting. I'd imagine that if this were ever done, you'd probably have more than three classifications of "quality" or "eye appeal", such as "AU-58A" through "AU-58E", where A is the most choice, C is average and E is "scudzy." With such a system, price guides could show AU-58A coins at (say) MS-62/63 money, AU-58B coins at MS-60/61 money and so on.
You could do this for all grades, really, but I think this distinction would be most crucial for AU-58 (and possibly AU-55 as well).
Having said all that, I don't think the TPGs or price guides should do any of this; I'm just throwing out mental flatulence here about how such a distinction could be made (and it would still be preferable to "market grading" particularly nice 58s into an MS-63 slab). Collectors with an eye for quality will know how to distinguish the sliders worth a strong offer from the ones not even worth MS-60 money.
Does anyone know why the Greysheet has not already done so, and whether or not they have plans to ?
I think this would be an incremental step towards broad market recognition that AU-58's are a distinctive grade, and pricing for high-end (True Slider -- Slight Luster Break) AU-58's could (and probably should) eventually exceed pricing for MS-60's.
This is a great thread with some very provocative thinking!!
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"
again & again, i keep coming back to this: if you like the coin, if you really REALLY like it, then the price does not matter. what that also means is that the grade does not matter. if you buy a coin because YOU LIKE IT, & not because a bit of paper stuck in a piece of has a certain ### printed on it, then gradeflation could not even exist.
K S
The same is true for rare Early dollars. 60 up to 63 sheet bids are today being paid for AU 58 dollars that are scarce. An XF 45 1797 sm letters recently sold for $26,500, where AU 50 bid was $20,000.
The market does fine for AU halves and dollars that are hard to find. The more common dates and varieties that grade AU58 will bring 60 money.(and since there are very few coins graded MS60, the price for the 58 has taken over the 60 bid in many areas).
And when a circulated AU 55-58 gets into a 63 slab, most knowledgeable collectors will still pay only 60 money for the common dates, but will up their bids for the rare ones. I think the market is doing fine adjusting the prices for the specific coin. We don't need any more definitions of grade-there would still be a difference of opinion on " BU, or almost so, original toning, weak stars 1 thru 3, die crack thru nose, but does not detract, possible old cleaning, but nicely retoned. "
We still set the price which we think is fair, regardless of the description.
Overton, Downey, and Souder's insight provide a better understanding of mint state Bust Halves. Clearly, a bust half may have never circulated in commerce, but friction, regardless of the source, can render it AU. Bowers opinion, in this case, had a marketing implication.
Sheridan, Julian, and Dennis (Jadecoin) all believe a numerical grade can never fully describe a coin or provide valuation. If any of you get the opportunity, read a Sheridan Downey mail bid catalog. He will give accurate descriptions of coins that make a TPG useless. Very choice AU's will sell for MS62 prices, and some MS61's will sell for AU58 prices, depending on Sheridan's assessment of the coin. In the absence of an honest and knowledgable dealer like Sheridan, it is up to the collector to use his accumulated knowledge for pricing.
An example of the effects of gradeflation is the 8/31 thread "1806 Half Dollar Variety Experts Help Please" thread where the owner of the 1806 half in an old PCGS AU53 holder resubmitted and got a PCGS AU58 grade. The coin is now on ebay #3931457566, @ $6000 starting bid.
The previous collector got shafted on the price, the owner (a dealer) will get a windfall, and the new buyer will pay a price for a coin that may be overgraded. I suspect market grading by PCGS for nice toning, but maybe the eagle grew more feathers since last graded.
This was TPG failure, the collectors got shafted at both ends. This defeats the purpose of TPG.
A dipped and flashy bust half will frequently get high grades, compared to an original that has less than flashy luster from deep toning. This provides incentives to dip coins. I have much more problem with a coin whose original skin was stripped than an original that has a rubs on a few high points. Dipping removes metal, is this not a form of wear?
Thanks,
Bill
<< <i>Overton, Downey, and Souder's insight provide a better understanding of mint state Bust Halves. Clearly, a bust half may have never circulated in commerce, but friction, regardless of the source, can render it AU. Bowers opinion, in this case, had a marketing implication. >>
bingo & double bingo.
the only exception i make to metal displacement not being wear equivalent to circulation is roll friction, but that clearly does not apply to open-collar coins, which were not as a rule stored in rolls.
bear in mind too that what's said here re busties applies to the other denom's as well. in fact, it is possible that half-dimes are the worst offenders where coins with clear rub are in ms-63 or higher holders.
K S
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
it is possible that half-dimes are the worst offenders where coins with clear rub are in ms-63 or higher holders.
Yes, that is very true. I have long believed that Draped Bust Dimes and Half Dimes are the most egregiously over-graded early coins. I am seeing too many MS-63, 64 and 65 slabbed coins floating about. Some of the 64's and 65's that I have looked at have obvious luster breaks in the fields and beyond. They are also typically blast white. It's more likely that Bust Halves would have survived in true mint state condition based upon their role in commerce (bank to bank transactions, etc.). Dimes and Quarters were the work horse of commerce in the early 1800's (and beyond). I hold firm to the statement that truely uncirculated Draped Bust Dimes are very rare. Same for large-sized Bust Quarters.
Dennis
Our eBay auctions - TRUE auctions: start at $0.01, no reserve, 30 day unconditional return privilege & free shipping!
The idea of scuddzy, average and choice grade and price assignments has long been in use with early copper via Copper Quotes, by Robinson (CQR). I am not a member of EAC but I know several members who embrace the concept. I also think that dorkkarl has the proper idea when he writes that if you like the coin, you should buy it. A relatively static price structure, dictated by those who might or might not have the general numismatist's well being in mind, should not determine the ultimate purchase when it comes to coinage of this type. There are simply too many variable attributes attached to each coin to allow that.
As for the purpose of a TPG, well, I am not nearly so generous with my opinions. I believe that the ultimate goal of any TPG is the financial improvement of the TPG, and those who benefit from that improvement, above all else. If this improvement happens to help the numismatists out there, then that is a welcome ancilary benefit. Let's also remember that the modern TPGs were not founded to help the collector, rather, they were founded to make sight-unseen purchasing by dealers or institutions a smoother process.
Lastly, is dipping a form of wear? I would say no as there is really no destruction of the coin's surfaces or flowlines through friction, however, there is definite alteration through chemistry. So, in my opinion, one might consider dipping a form of chemical alteration of the coin's surface, albeit a widely accepted chemical alteration.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
Dipping is not wear as defined by friction (impairment from use). But dipping is etching. A miniscule amount of metal is removed, as in the light rub of high points. Source of the metal removal should be irrelevant in grading.
I understand TPG's were formed to help sight unseen transactions for dealers. The ultimate goal of PCGS is to provide earnings growth to elevate CU stock price, and any dealer who uses PCGS to increase their earnings and reduce liability will come back for more business. I also understand resubmissions will increase revenue, and gradeflation facilitates resubmissions.
edit - industry acceptance of dipping also facilitates a huge amount of resubmissions.
If the goals of PCGS and other TPG's do not include benefits to the collector, including consistent grading, then my opinion of TPG's have dropped to zero.
Bill
I have had the arguement/debate about dipping previously on these boards and I agree completely that dipping removes metal and etches the coin and that metal is removed. This is why I defined what I consider to be wear.
I like your last statement very much.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
These problems can never be solved as long as grading is a large part opinion. Pre-TPG nearly all coins in the market had gradeflation. Even today how many collectors walk up to a table and pick up a Raw MS 63 coin and say gee this coin is marked for sale as an AU 58? With very few exceptions most Raw coin collectors and dealers are in love with their deals, and very few have lower opinions of their coins than most true experts would. Regardless of the complaints by many of how the TPG’s form their opinions they are still more likely to be fairer than a dealer trying to make maximum profit, or a Raw collector in love with his collection. It appears to me to be a simple fact of collecting that an expert with the least interest in a transaction, or ownership, will have the least biased opinion. Are there mistakes made by TPG’s, yes. Are there lots of little games going on where coins are just resubmitted to get a good grade, yes.
The fact still remains that like it or not the current system is much better than the “Old Days” As one boils down all of the various parts of building a Bust Half collection the collector must allocate both time, and money, to build the set. Unless you have extraordinary amounts of both of those it will become a huge distraction if one argues about every point given in a particular grade on every coin one acquires.
As already pointed out here if money is important in your particular equation than collecting XF-AU coins is a much better area to be. There will of course still be errors in grading but their relationship to dollars spent will be less significant than trying to buy
“Real” gem coins.
<< <i>Threads like this are always interesting, and I personally enjoy reading every post, but the fact remains that the system in place is better than we had before the TPG’s. >>
i completely disagree. the fact is that 3pg has convinced a lot of people who are coin-ignorant to think that they CAN be collectors w/out the work & effort needed to actually LEARN SOMETHING about coins. on the contrary, i honestly believe 3pg has damaged the HOBBY (though it has been excellent for the BUSINESS).
3pg continues to perpetuate the absurd myth that a grade, which is 100% subjective, changes over time, AND is not scientifically valid can be condensed into a single number. that absurdity has taken root as "Fact" in the minds of so many who know nothing more than how to look at the number on a chunk of plastic.
those people do NOT participate in the coin hobby.
i believe you've confused these 2 issues on multiple occasions in the past as well
the system in place before tpg's was FAR FAR superior, because then, YOU bought a coin because YOU liked it, not because some anonymous, faceless, nameless consensus group liked it.
K S
Until the dealer screws ya
I don't see this as an all or nothing proposition. TPG's best service IMO is authentification. Top TPG's have also cut down on those dipped-out sliders that in the past cost (unknowing, new) collectors a lot of money.
I also don't think it is a fair statement to say that I should become an expert at identifying a fake gold coin before I can purchase gold coin.
Joe.
Check out some of my 1794 Large Cents on www.coingallery.org
paying an expert to attribute a variety is excellent.
paying someone to determine for you whether or not you like the coin is pathetic. sorry, but it means you are NOT a coin collector.
K S