NGC's Star is a great idea IMO.

coltgus · March 9, 2006 8:50AM

This has probably been discussed before but I wonder why PCGS doesn't do similar ?
Could it be NIH ( Not Invented Here ) ?

Russ · March 9, 2006 8:55AM

<< Could it be NIH ( Not Invented Here ) ? >>

That hasn't stopped them before. I think it's more likely that they simply don't need to do it.

Russ, NCNE

DeputyPud · March 9, 2006 9:03AM

My sentiments exactly. When you think about it, for the most part, a coin in a PCGS holder automatically has somewhat of a star on it. The proof is in the puddin (prices realized).
Unless PCGS strays away from their basic standards, they don't need a star on their holders.
For NGC, if that star says "HEY! Take a look at me. I've got choice surfaces and eye appeal for the assigned grade", then great. Its probably a good idea for them, and might be good for all of us too.
It'll be interesting to see how it goes.

drddm · March 9, 2006 9:08AM

Does that mean that NGC star coins would likely cross over into PCGS holders?

Just curious what everyone thinks?

robertpr · March 9, 2006 9:10AM

I like it. Not everybody is as great at coin photography, as many board members here are. eBay is a testament to that. If I see a crap picture on eBay, but the coin is graded with a star, I know it's just a crap picture.

Russ · March 9, 2006 9:12AM

<< Does that mean that NGC star coins would likely cross over into PCGS holders? >>

Not necessarily. The designation denotes eye appeal and isn't related to technical grade. However, since eye appeal is part of the grade it does improve the odds of a cross. For example, an NGC UCAM that gets the star designation is more likely to cross to a PCGS DCAM holder than a garden variety UCAM since the UCAM designation at NGC is slightly less stringent than the DCAM designation at PCGS.

Russ, NCNE

100proof1957 · March 9, 2006 9:23AM

My icon Roosie was an NGC 68 * Cam

it would not x @ 67 in holder

It did X @ 67 NO CAM on a crack out !

Russ · March 9, 2006 9:25AM

<< My icon Roosie was an NGC 68 * Cam

it would not x @ 67 in holder

It did X @ 67 NO CAM on a crack out ! >>

That's because the reverse was brilliant.

Russ, NCNE

Outhaul · March 9, 2006 9:33AM

I think that if the star truly stood for eye appeal and that part of the equation was left out of the grade it would be a step in the right direction. If you have a true MS-63 but it has tremendous eye appeal, it's STILL a 63. The technical grade is a 63, not a 64 or 65 because it has eye appeal. Let the grader put a star on it if he/she thinks it has eye-appeal.

Like I said, a step in the right direction. If I had my way there would only be a technical grade, no star, and let the market determine whether or not it has good eye appeal and pay accordingly. There's nothing worse than seeing a buggery ugly technically MS-63 in a 64 or 65 holder just because the guy grading it thinks it's pretty.

Just my eversohumble opinion.

Cheers,

Bob

Crazy4Coins · March 9, 2006 9:39AM

Do you have to ask for the STAR designation when submitting or is it automatically assigned to coins that deserve it? I sent a couple coins in that I was sure would get a star and they came back without it.

KoinDawg · March 9, 2006 9:41AM

But I thought the original ANACS did 100% technical grading and everyone complained. According to the PCGS book on Grading that I read yesterday, PCGS does include the market demand in its grading. Not measurable for sure, but the discussion was that nobody wants 100% technical grading as it fails to reflect market demand and rarity. That's why PCGS is so stringent in handing out 70 as a score because those should be exceedingly rare. NGC seems to grade many proofs PF70UCAM, so many, in fact, the price is of NGC coin at that grade is half of what a PR70DCAM goes for.

Russ · March 9, 2006 9:45AM

<< Do you have to ask for the STAR designation when submitting or is it automatically assigned to coins that deserve it? >>

Initial submission they make the determination. If you have already holdered coins that you think merit it, they can be submitted for review.

Russ, NCNE

Crazy4Coins · March 9, 2006 9:46AM

Thanks Russ...

100proof1957 · March 9, 2006 9:47AM

IT WAS NOT !

soft ? yes !

Typical of that die pair !

robertpr · March 9, 2006 9:58AM

<< Do you have to ask for the STAR designation when submitting or is it automatically assigned to coins that deserve it? I sent a couple coins in that I was sure would get a star and they came back without it. >>

According to what NGC has stated publically, when a coin goes through the grading process, if ONE grader does not grade the coin with a star designation, it will not get it. That would include the finalizer. So, it is not consensus graded like the actual numerical grade is, the decision to star a coin must be unanimous. Which means it is tough to get and many coins that people might believe should have one, do not.

majorbigtime · March 9, 2006 10:01AM

IMO the star designatiuon is stupid, and another TPG gimmick!

Russ · March 9, 2006 10:03AM

<< IMO the star designatiuon is stupid, and another TPH gimmick! >>

We'll notify you as soon as anybody give's a rat's ass about your opinion.

Russ, NCNE

MrEureka · March 9, 2006 10:04AM

I think it's more likely that they simply don't need to do it.

NGC didn't "need to do it" either. They just thought it was a good idea, for whatever reasons. Personally, I don't care for the idea, but it probably has been good for NGC's bottom line. Likewise, stars would probably benefit PCGS' bottom line.

robertpr · March 9, 2006 10:06AM

<< 

<< IMO the star designatiuon is stupid, and another TPH gimmick! >>

We'll notify you as soon as anybody give's a rat's ass about your opinion.

Russ, NCNE >>

That's pretty mean, Russ. Now he'll be expecting some kind of notification, and it's never going to come.

Bear · March 9, 2006 10:15AM

Most of the time, but not all the time,

the * star does denote a superior looking

coin. Many of them do stand a chance off crossing

at the same grade, but not most of them. PCGS has been asked

If they plan to do such a move but HRH has forcefully regected the idea.

majorbigtime · March 9, 2006 10:19AM

<< 

<< IMO the star designatiuon is stupid, and another TPG gimmick! >>

We'll notify you as soon as anybody give's a rat's ass about your opinion.

Russ, NCNE >>

This is a public forum,and I'm entitled to my opinion!

robertpr · March 9, 2006 10:22AM

PCGS has been asked

If they plan to do such a move but HRH has forcefully regected the idea.

Because he's too busy scheming up a way to make us all swallow a 100 point scale

DeputyPud · March 9, 2006 10:27AM

major...umm... Me thinks you were supposed to laugh at that one, and instead you fell for it 'bigtime'.

majorbigtime · March 9, 2006 11:00AM

<< major...umm... Me thinks you were supposed to laugh at that one, and instead you fell for it 'bigtime'. >>

This is a public forum,and I'm entitled to my opinion!

Some expert AH's think they own these boards, and the're full of poopiedoo IMO!

ColonialCoinUnion · March 9, 2006 11:08AM

I've never liked nor understood the idea.

How in the world can a measure of something as subjective as 'eye appeal' be consistently applied? And isn't 'eye appeal' by definition in the eye of the beholder?

Coxe · March 9, 2006 11:13AM

Although I really don't think we need the granularity we already have, the star is a convenient workaround to avoid migrating to the proposed assinine 100 point grading scale.

DeputyPud · March 9, 2006 11:21AM

I agree to some extent. Someone likes a certain toning, and another likes the blast white. I don't think a star designation should ever be used for an appeal that is very much in the eye of the beholder. But there are those pieces that just scream BAM!, right? (Like full cartwheel luster?, First strike depth of detail?) Those things that attract everyone's attention.

ColonialCoinUnion · March 9, 2006 11:26AM

<< But there are those pieces that just scream BAM!, right? (Like full cartwheel luster?, First strike depth of detail?) Those things that attract everyone's attention. >>

OK, then the Star Designation should be defineable, right? "Any coin with 'booming luster' will heretofore be given the Star Designation". Or whatever other criteria you want. But that is simply goofy. Aren't those the same criteria that could or should influence the numerical grade? If not, why not?

To me its a marketing gimmick which has probably succeeded in garnering additional submissions at NGC. When that slows down, the next logical step would be the 'double star' designation for coins with slightly more eye appeal than your average eye-appealing coin.

airplanenut · March 9, 2006 11:37AM

<< 

<< Do you have to ask for the STAR designation when submitting or is it automatically assigned to coins that deserve it? I sent a couple coins in that I was sure would get a star and they came back without it. >>

According to what NGC has stated publically, when a coin goes through the grading process, if ONE grader does not grade the coin with a star designation, it will not get it. That would include the finalizer. So, it is not consensus graded like the actual numerical grade is, the decision to star a coin must be unanimous. Which means it is tough to get and many coins that people might believe should have one, do not. >>

If the finalizer wants a coin to have a star, as I've heard, the coin gets a star simply with his vote.

<< 
I like it. Not everybody is as great at coin photography, as many board members here are. eBay is a testament to that. If I see a crap picture on eBay, but the coin is graded with a star, I know it's just a crap picture. >>

That used to be the case. Now there are so many coins that have a sliver of color, or simply unimpressive color at best (see many of the Battle Creek coins) that the star can't be counted on anymore, IMO

DeputyPud · March 9, 2006 11:43AM

I love colonials, and I know you do. Let's take one of the Vermont landscapes as an example. All desireable. All collectable. Most not so great looking. But once in a while...BAM! There's a well defined F12 with no corrosion on a nice hard, smooth flan. We don't need a star to tell us what it is (and would rather have it raw anyways), but nonetheless, that star says "We can't assign this coin a higher grade because of the wear, but we consider it to be extremely choice for the grade and/or series." To the collector who is doesn't know Vermont pieces, but is trying to put together a decent set of U.S. coinage, the star will let him or her know that this particular piece is superior for the grade.

I haven't made up my mind whether I like the idea of it, but I think that for NGC, it will probably turn out to be a good business move (as you've already said). But for cryin out loud, don't give em the idea of double stars yet!

RYK · March 9, 2006 11:46AM

I've never liked nor understood the idea.

How in the world can a measure of something as subjective as 'eye appeal' be consistently applied? And isn't 'eye appeal' by definition in the eye of the beholder?

I agree. Hey, maybe next time they need a new marketing gimmick there will be a new modifier (ie. star equivalent) for originality. Perhaps, a "Big O".

lava · March 9, 2006 11:51AM

<< I've never liked nor understood the idea.

How in the world can a measure of something as subjective as 'eye appeal' be consistently applied? And isn't 'eye appeal' by definition in the eye of the beholder?

I agree. Hey, maybe next time they need a new marketing gimmick there will be a new modifier (ie. star equivalent) for originality. Perhaps, a "Big O". >>

I agree. It is about marketing their business, not providing any adding service. Do we really need a tpg to tell us what is pq for the grade?

Outhaul · March 9, 2006 12:12PM

<< How in the world can a measure of something as subjective as 'eye appeal' be consistently applied? >>

It can't. Don't let anyone bullshlt you. The star designation is nothing but crap.

Myqqy · March 9, 2006 2:44PM

I've always thought the star is a really terrible idea- all it does is make sellers try to charge an extra unnecessary premium- collectors can decide for themselves what has excellent eye appeal......

Myqqy · March 9, 2006 2:46PM

Some expert AH's think they own these boards, and the're full of poopiedoo IMO!

"poopiedoo"???

Ok, how much have you been drinking?

Russ · March 10, 2006 1:25AM

I have a question for those who don't like the Star designation. Which is the better approach? Leaving the technical grade the same and adding the eye appeal designation as NGC does, or bumping the grade a point for eye appeal as PCGS does?

Russ, NCNE

ms70 · March 10, 2006 1:34AM

The grade should be the grade. I don't need a TPG to tell me if a coins looks good or not. I think I can figure that out myself.

mdwoods · March 10, 2006 2:09AM

For sight unseen transactions, the * designation would give me more confidence that I was receiving an attractive coin. Even with decent photos you don't get a realistic view of the coin, only one facet.

tradedollarnut · March 10, 2006 2:38AM

It can't. Don't let anyone bullshlt you. The star designation is nothing but crap.

I have a question for those who don't like the Star designation. Which is the better approach? Leaving the technical grade the same and adding the eye appeal designation as NGC does, or bumping the grade a point for eye appeal as PCGS does?

Russ has it right. IMO, the star designation is great - it certainly slowed down grade inflation across the street.

Regulated · March 10, 2006 2:48AM

I've always felt that the Star designation really meant "grade-limiting flaw." If you closely examine 20 or 30 of these pieces, I thinkyou will feel the same way.

mgoodm3 · March 10, 2006 2:54AM

Been a good thing for sellers and NGC. Not as good for buyers in that you'll probably end up paying more and not get a rip.

Myqqy · March 10, 2006 2:55AM

Which is the better approach? Leaving the technical grade the same and adding the eye appeal designation as NGC does, or bumping the grade a point for eye appeal as PCGS does?

Interesting question. My unrealistic thought is that eye appeal is part of the overall grade, and then exceptional eye appeal will likely make a liner coin go up to the next grade- so then you don't need a star. It seems like everyone sells their coins as pq for the grade, and they try to sell as if it's really the next grade up anyway. And then you add some extra juice because there is a star attached as well..... I guess it feels like a ploy to extract more money from collectors...

PhillyJoe · March 10, 2006 2:57AM

There are many collectors who love the * and pay good money for it. Remember the $200 NGC PR68 U/C 1964 Kennedy that had a * on TT Monday that closed at $2,050.

That seller thinks it's a GREAT idea.

The previous special ngc designation was a "w" which did very little for the coin's appeal.

Joe

Colorfulcoins · March 10, 2006 3:26AM

History clearly supports that sellers, as a whole, will pay more money for a coin with a star. I think it also benefits NGC financially. And, as a collector, if spending $10 on star designation review can turn a $50 coin into a $150 coin, why not do it - its a great value proposition. And, I think that NGC is doing the right think by rewarding both toned and white coins with a star (though I don't like white coins, there are those that do).

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. It works for NGC and it works for buyers.......coin collecting is fundamentally a business and the star makes good business sense. Here's a 57P NGC MS67* I have..........deserving of a star in my opinion.

RYK · March 10, 2006 3:30AM

There are many collectors who love the * and pay good money for it. Remember the $200 NGC PR68 U/C 1964 Kennedy that had a * on TT Monday that closed at $2,050.

That seller thinks it's a GREAT idea.

So, is it all about the seller squeezing the buyer for more money?

Actually, the AU-53 grade rarely comes with a star, so I do not think I will personally have to worry about it.

PhillyJoe · March 10, 2006 3:40AM

<< There are many collectors who love the * and pay good money for it. Remember the $200 NGC PR68 U/C 1964 Kennedy that had a * on TT Monday that closed at $2,050.

That seller thinks it's a GREAT idea.

So, is it all about the seller squeezing the buyer for more money?

Actually, the AU-53 grade rarely comes with a star, so I do not think I will personally have to worry about it. >>

Not so much the squeeze, but a couple of willing, out-of-control bidders that wanted the only graded 68* U/C '64 Kennedy and money was not the issue. Neat thing about TT, you get to stay anonymous.

Joe

NGC's Star is a great idea IMO.

Comments

Leave a Comment