As per established ANA grading standards: In order to grade higher than 65 a coin must be fully struck. Nowhere does it say "struck as well as this particular year/mm/denomination comes". And the coin in question isn't even struck well for a Walker--let alone fully struck.
Doesn't pcgs grade by their own standards, and not the standards of the ana?
My style is impetuous, my defense is impregnable !
<< <i>As per established ANA grading standards: In order to grade higher than 65 a coin must be fully struck. Nowhere does it say "struck as well as this particular year/mm/denomination comes". And the coin in question isn't even struck well for a Walker--let alone fully struck. >>
Jim, you seem to be speaking in absolute terms, and, with respect to ANA grading standards.
Like it or not, the major grading companies don't always grade to the ANA's published standards, and that doesn't necessarily make them wrong, either. I would also (amicably, of course) take issue your insistence, that in order to be worthy of an MS66, a given issue must exhibit a full strike compared to a theoretical full strike for that series. Allowances are often made for variances within a series and an MS66 of one date/issue can be noticeably sharper than an MS66 of another date/issue. You need not like it or go along with it, but that is the world of the present. Ditto for differences in luster within a given series or type.
Finally, no written standards (those of the ANA grading guide's included) allow for practical and objective applications in every instance. Much of the language used is ambiguous, and what might apply to or work for one coin and grade might not lend itself equally easily or objectively to another.
Not according to what they said when originally starting. Of course, they don't actually grade coins any more--they merely price them.
As for using one's own standards rather than readily estabished standards that was the problem everyone had with AGC. It wasn't that they couldn't grade--they did so quite well and were very consistant. It was that they used the owner's personally established grading standards which bore no resemblance to any other.
Just because I'm old doesn't mean I don't love to look at a pretty bust.
Since we've been throwing around the term "fully-struck", I would like a good definition of it. Is it a literal difinition, or just mean that it's above average or what?
<< <i>Since we've been throwing around the term "fully-struck", I would like a good definition of it. Is it a literal difinition, or just mean that it's above average or what? >>
That is where the problem lies... Personally, I usuallly consider fully-struck to be the strongest strike available in a particular series--not any particular year or mintmark--but for the entire type. Admittedly, these means that for certain individual years/MM the best of the best may never be considered fully struck. Fine, I take this to mean that there are no examples for those years which grade above 65. Worth more than 65 money??? Sure...but that doesn't mean that one should change the grading standards just to support a price. Pricing should be left to the buyer and seller.
Just because I'm old doesn't mean I don't love to look at a pretty bust.
<< <i>Since we've been throwing around the term "fully-struck", I would like a good definition of it. Is it a literal difinition, or just mean that it's above average or what? >>
Be careful, suggestions such as this might create a new strike designation for Walkers at TPG's.
I do not see anything wrong with the coin in question. The toning is original and there is no sign of wear.
Follow me on Twitter @wtcgroup Authorized dealer for PCGS, PCGS Currency, NGC, NCS, PMG, CAC. Member of the PNG, ANA. Member dealer of CoinPlex and CCE/FACTS as "CH5"
Coinguy1 said-----Like it or not, the major grading companies don't always grade to the ANA's published standards, and that doesn't necessarily make them wrong, either. .............and that's a pretty fair definition of market grading.
but, on to robertpr who would take me to task for an out of contaxt cut/paste with an omitted icon.
here's what i said-----i like the overall look of the coin but methinks mercurydimeguy has figured things out; to wit, market grading. there's always another option for those so inclined, crack it out and send it to NGC for an upgrade to MS67!!!! (the icon is "shocked" BTW)------i didn't say there's always another option for those so inclined, crack it out and send it to NGC for an upgrade to MS67!!!! with an inference that i thought it would grade MS67, i was being facetious and the icon "shocked" is there for a reason. also, i made a clear reference to the post directly above mine on page two by mercurydimeguy, perhaps you missed that.
Such potshots at NGC made without even seeing the subject coin in hand certainly must be appreciated by PCGS and I know they are widely tolerated, but really you must get off the cool-aid, man. How do you know they wouldn't grade it MS63? How do you know they wouldn't bodybag it? How do you know they haven't already processed this coin and done one of those things to it? I will say this, I've dealt with Darin and he's a good guy. And no offense to Darin, but his images suck. I will also say that anyone making any assumptions based on those images, have got their head screwed on backward.
again, robert, i was being facetious. you need to watch for the icons, they're there for a reason understood by most. as for my head, i'll screww it on however i want to.<-----please note the icon before you blast away!!!
Comments
Doesn't pcgs grade by their own standards, and not the standards of the ana?
<< <i>As per established ANA grading standards: In order to grade higher than 65 a coin must be fully struck. Nowhere does it say "struck as well as this particular year/mm/denomination comes". And the coin in question isn't even struck well for a Walker--let alone fully struck. >>
Jim, you seem to be speaking in absolute terms, and, with respect to ANA grading standards.
Like it or not, the major grading companies don't always grade to the ANA's published standards, and that doesn't necessarily make them wrong, either. I would also (amicably, of course) take issue your insistence, that in order to be worthy of an MS66, a given issue must exhibit a full strike compared to a theoretical full strike for that series. Allowances are often made for variances within a series and an MS66 of one date/issue can be noticeably sharper than an MS66 of another date/issue. You need not like it or go along with it, but that is the world of the present. Ditto for differences in luster within a given series or type.
Finally, no written standards (those of the ANA grading guide's included) allow for practical and objective applications in every instance. Much of the language used is ambiguous, and what might apply to or work for one coin and grade might not lend itself equally easily or objectively to another.
As for using one's own standards rather than readily estabished standards that was the problem everyone had with AGC. It wasn't that they couldn't grade--they did so quite well and were very consistant. It was that they used the owner's personally established grading standards which bore no resemblance to any other.
<< <i>Since we've been throwing around the term "fully-struck", I would like a good definition of it. Is it a literal difinition, or just mean that it's above average or what? >>
That is where the problem lies...
<< <i>Since we've been throwing around the term "fully-struck", I would like a good definition of it. Is it a literal difinition, or just mean that it's above average or what? >>
Be careful, suggestions such as this might create a new strike designation for Walkers at TPG's.
FST - Full Skirt and Thumb
This means - no flat spots in the midlle of the coin. Doesn't mean it has to be a STRONG strike, just a complete one.
Authorized dealer for PCGS, PCGS Currency, NGC, NCS, PMG, CAC. Member of the PNG, ANA. Member dealer of CoinPlex and CCE/FACTS as "CH5"
.............and that's a pretty fair definition of market grading.
but, on to robertpr who would take me to task for an out of contaxt cut/paste with an omitted icon.
here's what i said-----i like the overall look of the coin but methinks mercurydimeguy has figured things out; to wit, market grading. there's always another option for those so inclined, crack it out and send it to NGC for an upgrade to MS67!!!!
Such potshots at NGC made without even seeing the subject coin in hand certainly must be appreciated by PCGS and I know they are widely tolerated, but really you must get off the cool-aid, man. How do you know they wouldn't grade it MS63? How do you know they wouldn't bodybag it? How do you know they haven't already processed this coin and done one of those things to it?
I will say this, I've dealt with Darin and he's a good guy. And no offense to Darin, but his images suck. I will also say that anyone making any assumptions based on those images, have got their head screwed on backward.
again, robert, i was being facetious. you need to watch for the icons, they're there for a reason understood by most. as for my head, i'll screww it on however i want to.