Options
Help me out with this Arkansas
Iwog
Posts: 1,089 ✭✭✭
In the past few years I've been specializing in Arkansas commemoratives and have become quite familiar with the different striking characteristics, (including the scarcity of true luster on this series) the black art of grading an Arkansas, and the market for high end examples. However I'm a bit puzzled by the latest Anaconda offering of the finest known 1939 PCGS graded MS67 coin that was listed on ebay last week.
Ebay Link
This is how I would describe this coin raw: 1939 Arkansas MS64 borderline MS65. Numerous marks on cheek and other high points as is typical for the issue. Subdued luster as is common and a somewhat weak strike showing as flatness in the nose and Liberty.
Now what am I missing here? I don't want to hear "you can't grade a coin from a photo" because you certainly CAN see bagmarks in a photo and this coin is full of them. The strike isn't full, and the luster is ho hum. Comparing it to my 1938 MS66 coin here, I am of the opinion that the MS66 has fewer marks, better luster, and far better strike than the MS67 wonder. Is this simply a PCGS mistake or am I missing something?
Ebay Link
This is how I would describe this coin raw: 1939 Arkansas MS64 borderline MS65. Numerous marks on cheek and other high points as is typical for the issue. Subdued luster as is common and a somewhat weak strike showing as flatness in the nose and Liberty.
Now what am I missing here? I don't want to hear "you can't grade a coin from a photo" because you certainly CAN see bagmarks in a photo and this coin is full of them. The strike isn't full, and the luster is ho hum. Comparing it to my 1938 MS66 coin here, I am of the opinion that the MS66 has fewer marks, better luster, and far better strike than the MS67 wonder. Is this simply a PCGS mistake or am I missing something?
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
0
Comments
Have a Great Day!
Louis
When you say the 1939 is "head and shoulders" above the 1938, what are you looking at?
This still doesn't explain why a coin with all these marks is getting an MS67.
Here's an extra Arkansas that I just sold off on eBay earlier this week (this is not a plug -- the coin was already sold...I just don't have a picture handy to post) Link to see picture . Granted the ARC picture is nicer than mine and their coin has some neat toning, but mine was in a 65 holder and I can't say that their's is 2 points better...maybe 1 but not 2. I like the luster on yours and it looks like a solid 66+ from the photo.
I've already spent several thousand $$ this year on TPG grading fees and have come to the conclusion that TPG's will not allow regular collectors to find and make nice coins. Hind sight is 20/20 and they are always able to rationlize a coin's grade once it's already in a holder -- but to get it in to the right holder in the first place is a different story.
This is really subjective/biased but I liken TPG's to a fraternity -- there are pledges, neophites and brothers. During pledging you get hazed/abused -- and you're in pledging for about $100k, once you become a neophite you can now drink beers with the brothers but you still get beat up every once in a while -- you're a neophite for another $100k, and one day when you succumb to the fact that the coin business is completely corrupt and figure out that "pledging is a total scam/racket", well then, they now have to make you a brother ... and you can get coins like the ARC coin in to a TPG 67 holder
No disrespect to TPG's -- but statistically speaking, looking at 1000's of TPG coins will demonstrate what they call "subjectivity" in grading. That's a load -- subjectivity becomes bias once you look at the statistical data. One cannot deny facts and cannot mask "bias towards brothers" in the shrowd of "grading subjectivity" for too long.
Bruce Scher
That being said, please tell me scher how you determined that the 1939 smokes my 1938 when it has more bag marks, less luster, and a weaker strike. Are you saying that the appearance of originality (which cannot be quantified and is VERY subjective) is worth two whole grade points? Explain why you think this coin is an MS67 when there's a nice big scuff visible in the middle of the cheek. (you can even see it in the poor photograph)
K S
My coin WAS dipped, I know this because I dipped it briefly myself to remove a few small spots. It has full cartwheel luster and original surfaces. Your comment that it was "dipped to death" is absurd since this coin has absolutely NO characteristics of an overdipped coin. Amazingly, the surfaces of the 1939 would DEFINE overdipped had they not been on an Arkansas! Gunmetal grey, no hot and cold bands visible in the photographs, and a very typical overdipped appearance.
It's clear the 1938 is almost entirely original while the 1939 is impaired in a number of ways. This still doesn't answer how it got an MS67 grade however.
I've brought up some VERY specific criticism about this overgraded 1939:
It has too many bagmarks for an MS67
It has a weak strike, I even pointed out where this is visible.
It has impaired luster according to the ANA definition of luster.
In response I've been told this coin:
"is head and shoulders above your 66 in boldness of strike." (No specific examples)
"67 smokes his 66, way more original looking too." (original is undefined, nothing else specific mentioned)
"the "ms-66" coin looks like it's been dipped to death, & APPEARS to have no remainin original surface at all." (absolutely devoid of specific examples of how the 1938 is lacking)
Besides being WRONG in my opinion, these responses cannot be argued with because they don't contain any information! Can we please get past the "Anaconda's coin is great" mentality and start talking about what is actually on the coin?
<< <i>Eye appeal doesn't interest me in the least. >>
Take it up with all the TPGs... that's one of the four characteristics of grading, whether you like it or not. And in terms of eye appeal, Anaconda's isn't blast white--it's lightly toned entirely, with nice peripheral color... that's a heck of a lot more eye appealing than your coin.
Second, Anaconda's pictures are enormous. Small marks become very large when something that is an inch wide in real life suddenly becomes 8 inches wide. In addition, lighting can bring out, or hold back the appearance of marks. Depending on the lighting setup, the marks here could be seen at their worst. I guarantee they're not as bad as the image would show.
Third, look at the hair detail on the 67 vs. your 66... your's is flat, and Anaconda's is nice and crisp. LIBERTY might not be as strong on the 67, but again, lighting can make parts of a coin look weaker. It's a fact of life, that not everything can be shown in its best light in one photograph.
Fourth, Anaconda's picture doesn't seem to have been taken to show all the lustre. You can take a picture that shows specific bands of lustre in a cartwheel (your picture), or you can take them where the lighting is distributed over more of the coin, so it is more evenly lit, but the overall effect of a cartwheel is diminished. Knowing Anaconda's setup, I can assure you this coin is a blazer in hand.
Fifth, Bruce Sher has chimed in and said which coin is absolutely better. I'd take his word for it, as, based on his recent sale, he's got one heck of an eye.
Finally, I'd like to purchase all MS65s you can find that look like this. Or, maybe you should buy it and send it in for a grade guarantee so it gets downgraded. You'll get paid back, so you'll be out only the cost of a 65 to begin with. Sounds like a good deal to me.
Jeremy
<< <i>Help me out >>
Iwog, if you are sincere about that, you will need to be open to the realities that 1) eye-appeal (subjective or not) is an extremely important component of the grading equation and 2) the fact that (for a number of reasons) it is impossible to grade accurately from images. However, from your comments, I don't think you are open to those realities.
In response to your request for specifics: The MS67 appears to be cleaner AND more eye-appealing to me, and the luster looks quite vibrant. Accordingly, I prefer it over the MS66.
Regarding strike - strike is no big deal to me, either way, unless it is noticeably poor/weak - both coins are well enough struck so that I wouldn't be dissuaded from buying them. I'm more concerned about clean surfaces and eye-appeal than I am strike - that is my subjective preference.
Please listen with an open mind, rather than arguing with those who post here, in reply to your request for "help".
I (truly) have a great deal of respect for many high-end/long time collectors and dealers, here and elesewhere, and if they sent this coin in it probably would have a pretty good chance of being a 67 again. However, if my next door neighbor just signed up with a TPG to have coins graded and sent this coin in for grading, I would seriously doubt it would come back a 67.
There are many threads here about how AU58 coins wind up in MS63 holders, and vice versa, so I won't beat that subject to death. I've personally experimented a bit with this and have sent in coins and watched them move up/down by as much as 2 points in a matter of 90 days. The same graders are grading the same coin (grader turnover is not that bad), so their subjectivity should prevail on each occasion, yet each time it's different. That is not subjectivity.
Coinguy states: "The MS67 appears to be cleaner AND more eye-appealing to me, and the luster looks quite vibrant." ANA describes luster as the directional reflection of light caused by flow lines resulting in hot and cold areas on the surface of the coin. Since the 1939 is UTTERLY DEVOID of hot and cold areas, please educate me on what you're calling vibrant luster. Tell me where you see it, and if possible use your photo editor to draw a circle around the hot and cold transitions if you can. (This request will be totally ignored because as is common with most Arkansas coins, the luster has been damaged beyond recognition)
Strike. This is an MS67 coin that is prohibited from having a weak strike. Enough said.
Eye appeal. The worst fraud perpetuated on coin collectors since whizzing. All you need to do is convince a coin collector that a dull and lifeless coin has excellent eye appeal, then you can finally sell that display case full of dogs. As was predicted, the elitists on the board decided to quote other elitists on the board to try and prove that one coin has superior eye appeal over another coin without providing a shred of objective reasoning to support that opinion. In fact this makes my job extremely easy, because intellectually the ONLY action I need to take in order to disprove them is to state the opposite: The 1938 has superior eye appeal over the 1939. Not only is that a completely legitimate response, it can also be proven!! Give me 10 non-coin collectors and a blind test, and the 1938 will be selected as more desirable every time. Sadly, the elitists will say this isn't a fair test because a non-coin collector hasn't been properly "educated".
Airplanenut, there are plenty if MS65 coins that look like this coin and you aren't buying them. Your point about the hair detail is odd considering the hair detail is NOT the high point on the coin and therefore would not be an indication of strike, (didn't you know this?) and dismissing all the bag marks as simply the result of overmagnification is very strange considering how obvious and numerous they are, even in the non-magnified photograph!
So what I've gotten is exactly what I expected. The same people who always post on my threads refusing to give specific answers to the specific questions that I am asking. Also since some people can't take a hint, this post is a criticism of "eye-appeal" being used as a grading attribute when the term cannot be defined!!! Telling me that eye-appeal is a reality of the current market has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with this discussion, but does reflect the superior and condesending attitude of those who think they are superior.
This elitist nonsense is so totally pervasive on this board, that people are SEEING vibrant luster in a photograph that under ANY definition of luster does not exist! I've posted the ANA definition of luster repeatedly...........directional reflection of light resulting in hot and cold areas on the surface of the coin...........GO BACK AND READ IT AGAIN. If you cannot identify hot and cold areas on a coin, you are not seeing luster!! I have no idea how much this particular MS67 coin has been damaged, but because I've viewed hundreds of Arkansas coins I am reasonably sure that this is pretty much average. Greasy grey surface without a cartwheel. Am I wrong? It's possible but how come my requests for specific examples of luster/strike/marks/etc are being ignored?
For the record, my 1938 has a very deep and well defined cartwheel. In the photo the hot areas are to the left of the Indian's chin, above the EN in Centenial, and on the cap. The hot areas are clearly bordered by cold areas. Those who think the 1939 has luster, please provide the same type of description.....if you can.
<< <i>This elitist nonsense is so totally pervasive on this board, that people are SEEING vibrant luster in a photograph that under ANY definition of luster does not exist! >>
Take thousands upon thousands of photos of coins, and use multiple types of lighting, and multiple lighting setups. I guarantee it's not hard to make a lustrous coin brighter across the coin while removing the sharpness of the lustre. I've learned a lot about reading photos from taking a lot of pictures, and this is one thing I've learned.
Bruce Scher
The photograph of this 1939 Arkansas does not exibit luster. MOST Arkansas commemorative coins do not exhibit luster and that is why Q.D. Bowers wrote that most of these coins appear greasy and dull. This didn't stop Coinguy from saying the luster looks vibrant, even when he can't point to the actual luster to save his life. If there's a better definition of elitist, I have yet to hear it.
Iwog is back! And strangely enough, more charges of "elitist nonsense"......
Eye appeal doesn't interest me in the least
Then I think you're in the wrong hobby.....
I think Iwog's looks cleaner, but it's not as attractive as anaconda's version. I don't think anaconda's belongs in a 67 holder though......
Welcome back iwog!
Yous is soooooooooooooo much better than any of them...
There...you feel better now?
How lustrous are the following coins?
Please tell me how you arrived at your conclusions, as well.
<< <i>Can't tell. Too dark and crappy lighting. Are you going to answer any of my numerous questions? >>
They're not dark, just lighting that doesn't capture the lustre, it captures the toning. I can do the same thing with a white coin, and I can go in between. Just because a picture doesn't show that the lustre is blazing doesn't mean the coin doesn't have lustre.
<< <i>Luster has nothing to do with brightness and everything to do with the directional reflection of light. >>
Read the above. If there's no light coming from a certain direction, the lustre won't show.
<< <i>dismissing all the bag marks as simply the result of overmagnification is very strange considering how obvious and numerous they are, even in the non-magnified photograph! >>
Regardless of magnification, lighting can show or hide marks. I can show you very clean coins that look like hell in photos, and vice versa. There's a reason everyone here who knows a thing about photography will tell you that it's all about the lighting. I really don't think we can all be wrong on this one.
<< <i>Also since some people can't take a hint, this post is a criticism of "eye-appeal" being used as a grading attribute when the term cannot be defined!!! >>
Define subjective grading. Go.
This is precisely why I try to avoid talking about eye appeal!!! It's subjective and far too influenced by herd mentality. I'd rather talk about attributes you can quantify such as luster, strike, and marks. I also intentionally left toning out this time although I prefer my coins without rust.
<< <i>Subjective grading: Giving an opinion on grade based on how much you like a coin, instead of attributes you can actually quantify. >>
So why can the pros differ in grade on a blast-white 1881-S morgan? They come well struck and with exceptional lustre, and the pros know what they look like. Yet, still, they don't always agree. And everything on the coin factored into the grading can be quantified.
If you're going to assign a numerical grade to a coin, that numerical grade is meaningless unless it can be clearly defined. Strange since I thought there were well established standards about what coins can grade MS67. This 1939 appears to violate them all.
Anaconda has always produced exceptional coin photography, the best I've seen outside of an auction catalog. I do see some rub on the cheek and eyebrow on the Anaconda coin. I also see a little on Iwog's 66 in the same places although it appears to be less than on the 67. There also appears to be a small nick across the 2nd and 3rd rays to the left of the sun on the reverse on the 67.
I have several 1939 Arks in 65 and both coins are better than any of mine. In my opinion, the 67 only gets that grade because of the color (which I think is silly). I think Iwog's 66 is a solid 66 and the Anaconda coin is also a solid 66 and towards the high end. It's a very nice coin but there's just something about the the coin that makes me feel it's lucky to be in a 67 holder.
1. 7-17-81 Warrenton GC Driver 310 yards 7th Hole (Par 4)
2. 5-22-99 Warrenton GC 6 iron 189 yards 10th Hole
3. 7-23-99 Oak Meadow CC 5 iron 180 yards 17th Hole
4. 9-19-99 Country Lake GC 6 iron 164 yards 15th Hole
5. 8-30-09 Country Lake GC Driver 258 yards 17th Hole (Par 4)
Collector of Barber Halves, Commems, MS64FBL Frankies, Full Step Jeffersons & Mint state Washington Quarters
The first image is the one we used in the eBay auction because it showed the color, the brightness, and the flash that the coin exhibits. Unfortunately, this will often make very minimal marks on the coin that are virtually impossible to see in-hand become quite enhanced and stand out way more.
The second image is with a single light source and shows the contrasting light and dark along with making the coin look dark in areas and not showing the true brightness and toning colors the coin exhibits. This way, however, doesn't make the miniscule marks look gargantuan as they do in the above picture.
If you haven't seen this coin in-hand, then you just don't understand it and no image is going to show in full glory what a coin like this truly looks like whether it's regarding eye appeal or technical grade.
<< <i>Honestly I don't remember doing anything more than flipping past it as yet another lusterless greasy Ark. >>
The only PCGS MS67? Sure, that's feasible.
Another angry thread by an angry man.
Pretty good summation......
I still have a number of questions that were totally ignored.
Poorguy,
What an amazing difference between the two images you shared. The second image hides virtually every mark on each cheek as well as other areas. Furthermore, details such as the laurel wreath suddenly appear hammered.
Nice comparison.
<< <i>Poorguy,
What an amazing difference between the two images you shared. The second image hides virtually every mark on each cheek as well as other areas. Furthermore, details such as the laurel wreath suddenly appear hammered.
Nice comparison. >>
Thanks,
As Jeremy said, it's all in the lighting.
What do you think of poorguy's second photo? To me, the second phote is roughly comparable to your photo of your (very nice) coin. In particular, the "LIBERTY" seems much bolder and the marks much less prominent in the second picture of the snake's coin. Doesn't it seem as if many of your "complaints" about the 67 coin disappear in the second picture?
Personally, I think Airplanenut hit the nail on the head: different photos can definitely emphasize different attributes of a coin. I also like IWOG's coin a lot but I also happen to like the snake's coin a lot also.
Mark
For that reason, I choose not to address the additional questions posed.
Mark, the second photo that was taken with a single light source makes it even more clear that this is a typical luster impaired Arkansas and has no business in an MS67 holder.
<< <i>Specifically show where I stated an opinion was a fact >>
Here:
<< <i>Funny how my posts always draw the usual suspects defending a dull lusterless coin as premium, even when every single fact disproves them >>
And here:
<< <i>(This request will be totally ignored because as is common with most Arkansas coins, the luster has been damaged beyond recognition) >>
And here:
<< <i>Strike. This is an MS67 coin that is prohibited from having a weak strike. Enough said. >>
And here:
<< <i>This elitist nonsense is so totally pervasive on this board, that people are SEEING vibrant luster in a photograph that under ANY definition of luster does not exist >>
And here:
<< <i>If you're going to assign a numerical grade to a coin, that numerical grade is meaningless unless it can be clearly defined >>
Each of the above quotes is an OPINION stated as if it were a FACT. "Enough said".
I am fully aware that my OPINIONS and observations are subjective and/or incorrect and not necessarily FACTS. Iwog, you should try being open to the same possibilty about your OPINIONS.
1. 7-17-81 Warrenton GC Driver 310 yards 7th Hole (Par 4)
2. 5-22-99 Warrenton GC 6 iron 189 yards 10th Hole
3. 7-23-99 Oak Meadow CC 5 iron 180 yards 17th Hole
4. 9-19-99 Country Lake GC 6 iron 164 yards 15th Hole
5. 8-30-09 Country Lake GC Driver 258 yards 17th Hole (Par 4)
Collector of Barber Halves, Commems, MS64FBL Frankies, Full Step Jeffersons & Mint state Washington Quarters
<< <i>The Anaconda coin has almost certainly been dipped. The toning is uneven and a bit splotchy >>
bwuahahaha! of course only dipped coins develop uneven toning??? bwuahahahaha! if anything, dipping is liable to result in MORE EVEN toning, provided the rinse & storage is proper,.
<< <i>My coin WAS dipped, I know this because I dipped it briefly myself to remove a few small spots. It has full cartwheel luster and original surfaces. Your comment that it was "dipped to death" is absurd since this coin has absolutely NO characteristics of an overdipped coin. >>
if your coin had "spots" before, why wouldn't you believe that it was already dipped before you dipped it again??? like what you claim happened to the anaconda coin??? you are making no sense here. the image of the blast white coin shows a STRIPPED coin imo.
<< <i>Eye appeal doesn't interest me in the least. It's subjective, elitist, frequently biased, and often totally based on the economic interest of the person discussing the coin >>
sheesh, if that don't define what coin collecting is all about, then what does? eye-appeal is ultimately THE ONLY factor that matters, way way beyond the "grade" that you seem all up in arms about for your coin. the SUBJECTIVE principles are exactly the reason why a genericized coin like your dipped-to-death arky SHOULD BE VALUED LOWER, & therefore grade lower. all that happens when you dip-n-strip is you remove character & reduce coins to their cheapest, basest, most common denominator, which is a chip of metal w/ pictures on it.
trying to level wacky charges like "elitist" - as if that were some kind of dirty word - gets you nowwhere. it also does nothing to discount the fact that stripping an arky down to base metal DOES NOT improve it in the slightest.
what's funniest of all is that i didn't even take luster into account in guessing that the anaconda coin was the superior coin - i based my opinon mostly on which was the better looking & more original appearing coin. until you get over you wacky notion that stripped coins are somehow better then those w/ character, you will never be open or truly interested in other opinions.
K S
Russ, NCNE
When dorkkarl is the voice of reason, you really have to wonder about the person on the other side of the argument!
Dorkkarl is the voice of reason more often than people want to admit!