What do you think of the Doug Winter report on the grading services?
Longacre
Posts: 16,717 ✭✭✭
I attached a copy of the report below, as well as a link: Market report with a lot of piss and vinegar
Here are some of my comments:
(1) I agree with DW that the MS-61 grade (although I cannot really speak for the MS-62 grade) is commonly used for coins that show wear. I am certainly no expert, but I've seen a lot of MS-61 coins that have come clear wear on them. As he states below, shouldn't an MS coin be really mint state and not show evidence of circulation?
(2) Regarding originality, I literally weep in front of my computer monitor when I see some of the "before and after" pictures that people post here to illustrate dipping. If what Winter says is true, it's upsetting that the grading services almost encourage this behavior.
(3) I don't care about population reports. They are only useful for a particular category of collector, and the dealers who need to know pops of high level coins don't need to check with PCGS or NGC to confirm their own "in the trenches" analysis of true pops. So I cannot give any sympathy here.
(4) Regaring the suggestions for PCGS and NGC, I wonder if being a publically traded company (the parent) has anything to do with PCGS's lack of doing the niceties in numismatics, and as for NGC, I agree that their holder needs some work.
***************************
May 22, 2006
For the most part, the grading services do a decent job. Sure, they blow a few grades every now and then (after all, they’re only human…) and their lack of consistency can be infuriating. If I were the Commissioner of All Things Numismatic, what would be some of the things that I would make the services really improve on?
The line on AU55 and AU58 gold coins needs to be tighter. A coin in the higher AU grades needs to have a decent amount of natural mint luster present and not be riddled with marks. If a coin is very lustrous but very bagmarked, it shouldn’t be in an AU58 holder. If a coin has less than a third of its luster remaining, it certainly doesn’t deserve to be in a 58 holder.
The line on MS61 and MS62 coins should be tighter as well. Nearly every southern branch mint gold coin that I see in MS61 and MS62 holders has obvious wear. MS61 and MS62 used to be grades that meant a coin is free of wear. This needs to be the case once again.
Both services are maddingly inconsistent on their net grade policy. I have no problem with PCGS taking an AU58 coin that has been cleaned at one time and net grading it as an AU50. But this needs to be indicated on the holder. NGC has been a bit better with this but they tend to be inconsistent with this policy as well.
Both services need to reward submitters for keeping their coins original. The only way that people will be discouraged from cleaning or dipping nice original coins is if the services give such pieces high grades on their initial submission. I don’t know how many times I’ve had both services send me a subtle hint that the deeply toned, crusty coins I’ve just submitted could grade higher if they were lighter and more “commercial” in appearance. I’ve had to ruin some really nice coins because they wouldn’t work with this sort of original look.
The population reports are a disaster. Clean them up!! I don’t expect them to be perfect but I’d like them to be 75-85% accurate. Encourage submitters to redeem their grading inserts. Hire someone smart to go through submission reports and figure out which populations figures are greatly inflated by resubmissions. I contend that the grading services have been very lazy in this respect and that it would not take much effort for them to make their population figures far more accurate.
Stop encouraging submitters to destroy original Proof gold coins in order to get Ultra Cameo or Deep Cameo designations. We’ve gotten to the point where there are almost no original brilliant proof gold coins left. They’ve all been destroyed because the grading services have tacitly told submitters that their coins will be regarded as more valuable if they are bright and shiny and fully show contrast between the fields and the devices. By the time tastes revert back to originality, there will be no pieces left that haven’t been sent to NCS or dipped by submitters themselves.
If I had to address a complaint to each service on an individual basis, I would state the following:
To PCGS: Be more numismatic. With the exception of displaying Registry Sets at Long Beach shows, PCGS has done almost nothing to encourage numismatics. How about some original research? Or increasing the numbers of varieties recognized on holders?
To NGC: Change your holder. Let us be able to see the edges of the coins we own. Give the coins more room in their holders and make the background any color other than bright white which is hard to photo and not always easy on the eyes.
Doug Winter
5/22/06
Here are some of my comments:
(1) I agree with DW that the MS-61 grade (although I cannot really speak for the MS-62 grade) is commonly used for coins that show wear. I am certainly no expert, but I've seen a lot of MS-61 coins that have come clear wear on them. As he states below, shouldn't an MS coin be really mint state and not show evidence of circulation?
(2) Regarding originality, I literally weep in front of my computer monitor when I see some of the "before and after" pictures that people post here to illustrate dipping. If what Winter says is true, it's upsetting that the grading services almost encourage this behavior.
(3) I don't care about population reports. They are only useful for a particular category of collector, and the dealers who need to know pops of high level coins don't need to check with PCGS or NGC to confirm their own "in the trenches" analysis of true pops. So I cannot give any sympathy here.
(4) Regaring the suggestions for PCGS and NGC, I wonder if being a publically traded company (the parent) has anything to do with PCGS's lack of doing the niceties in numismatics, and as for NGC, I agree that their holder needs some work.
***************************
May 22, 2006
For the most part, the grading services do a decent job. Sure, they blow a few grades every now and then (after all, they’re only human…) and their lack of consistency can be infuriating. If I were the Commissioner of All Things Numismatic, what would be some of the things that I would make the services really improve on?
The line on AU55 and AU58 gold coins needs to be tighter. A coin in the higher AU grades needs to have a decent amount of natural mint luster present and not be riddled with marks. If a coin is very lustrous but very bagmarked, it shouldn’t be in an AU58 holder. If a coin has less than a third of its luster remaining, it certainly doesn’t deserve to be in a 58 holder.
The line on MS61 and MS62 coins should be tighter as well. Nearly every southern branch mint gold coin that I see in MS61 and MS62 holders has obvious wear. MS61 and MS62 used to be grades that meant a coin is free of wear. This needs to be the case once again.
Both services are maddingly inconsistent on their net grade policy. I have no problem with PCGS taking an AU58 coin that has been cleaned at one time and net grading it as an AU50. But this needs to be indicated on the holder. NGC has been a bit better with this but they tend to be inconsistent with this policy as well.
Both services need to reward submitters for keeping their coins original. The only way that people will be discouraged from cleaning or dipping nice original coins is if the services give such pieces high grades on their initial submission. I don’t know how many times I’ve had both services send me a subtle hint that the deeply toned, crusty coins I’ve just submitted could grade higher if they were lighter and more “commercial” in appearance. I’ve had to ruin some really nice coins because they wouldn’t work with this sort of original look.
The population reports are a disaster. Clean them up!! I don’t expect them to be perfect but I’d like them to be 75-85% accurate. Encourage submitters to redeem their grading inserts. Hire someone smart to go through submission reports and figure out which populations figures are greatly inflated by resubmissions. I contend that the grading services have been very lazy in this respect and that it would not take much effort for them to make their population figures far more accurate.
Stop encouraging submitters to destroy original Proof gold coins in order to get Ultra Cameo or Deep Cameo designations. We’ve gotten to the point where there are almost no original brilliant proof gold coins left. They’ve all been destroyed because the grading services have tacitly told submitters that their coins will be regarded as more valuable if they are bright and shiny and fully show contrast between the fields and the devices. By the time tastes revert back to originality, there will be no pieces left that haven’t been sent to NCS or dipped by submitters themselves.
If I had to address a complaint to each service on an individual basis, I would state the following:
To PCGS: Be more numismatic. With the exception of displaying Registry Sets at Long Beach shows, PCGS has done almost nothing to encourage numismatics. How about some original research? Or increasing the numbers of varieties recognized on holders?
To NGC: Change your holder. Let us be able to see the edges of the coins we own. Give the coins more room in their holders and make the background any color other than bright white which is hard to photo and not always easy on the eyes.
Doug Winter
5/22/06
Always took candy from strangers
Didn't wanna get me no trade
Never want to be like papa
Working for the boss every night and day
--"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
Didn't wanna get me no trade
Never want to be like papa
Working for the boss every night and day
--"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
0
Comments
I was shocked to see that
"I’ve had to ruin some really nice coins because they wouldn’t work with this sort of original look."
Aren't you complaining about people doing this?
Also surprised that no mention was made of other services.....
I also hate NGC and there white holders....,
<< <i>I don’t know how many times I’ve had both services send me a subtle hint that the deeply toned, crusty coins I’ve just submitted could grade higher if they were lighter and more “commercial” in appearance. I’ve had to ruin some really nice coins because they wouldn’t work with this sort of original look. >>
"Had to"? He doesn't like cleaned, dipped-out, unoriginal coins but "had to" ruin them to get the grade he wanted? Sounds pretty hypocritical to me. Many well-respected dealers out there don't and don't have to play that game.
My icon IS my coin. It is a gem 1949 FBL Franklin.
As for your specific ones:
(1) I agree with DW that the MS-61 grade (although I cannot really speak for the MS-62 grade) is commonly used for coins that show wear. I am certainly no expert, but I've seen a lot of MS-61 coins that have come clear wear on them. As he states below, shouldn't an MS coin be really mint state and not show evidence of circulation?
From what I have seen here and elsewhere, AU-62 is oft-awarded for supersliders in many series, not just rare gold. I think that it is probably here to stay.
(2) Regarding originality, I literally weep in front of my computer monitor when I see some of the "before and after" pictures that people post here to illustrate dipping. If what Winter says is true, it's upsetting that the grading services almost encourage this behavior.
Of course, I like an original coin nearly as much as anyone, and I am annoyed that the grading services tacitly encourage processed coins. Hopefully, over time, there will be disconnect between the grading services do and how knowledgeable specialty collectors judge their coins (ie. how the EACers grade coins).
(3) I don't care about population reports. They are only useful for a particular category of collector, and the dealers who need to know pops of high level coins don't need to check with PCGS or NGC to confirm their own "in the trenches" analysis of true pops. So I cannot give any sympathy here.
I disagree with you here. I think that population reports could be a useful tool for collectors, buyers, and sellers IF they were accurate. However, they are not, and there is probably nothing the grading services can do about it at this point.
(4) Regaring the suggestions for PCGS and NGC, I wonder if being a publically traded company (the parent) has anything to do with PCGS's lack of doing the niceties in numismatics, and as for NGC, I agree that their holder needs some work.
I disagree with DW regarding PCGS not doing things numismatiques. PCGS World Series of Coin Grading and Coin Trading, the Registry, the forum, etc. are all non- revenue generating (or not directly so) that PCGS does to encourage interest in coins. I do agree that the NGC holder sucks, especially for small coins. If they today offered a clear plastic insert that was less bulky than the current one, all of my NGC-graded coins would be on their way today for a short Florida vacation.
As for DW's comments regarding the proof gold, I think that this is primarily an NGC issue. Frankly, if I ever were to purchase a proof gold coin again, I would make it a point to buy a brilliant proof, in the same way that I would make it a point to buy a crusty AU circulation strike coin.
BUT bright is in, and we are only voices in the wilderness.
It seems the message is, make your coin bright, get a higher grade.
<< <i> Commissioner of All Things Numismatic, what would be some of the things that I would make the services really improve on? >>
How bout Commissioner of All Numismatic Things or CAN'T
<< <i>I literally weep in front of my computer monitor when I see some of the "before and after" pictures that people post here to illustrate dipping. >>
In case you needed something to cry about.
Russ, NCNE
<< <i> I’ve had to ruin some really nice coins because they wouldn’t work with this sort of original look. >>
Sorta like "If she'd let me kiss her, I wouldn't have had to rape her..."
<< <i>The population reports are a disaster. Clean them up!! I don’t expect them to be perfect but I’d like them to be 75-85% accurate. Encourage submitters to redeem their grading inserts. Hire someone smart to go through submission reports and figure out which populations figures are greatly inflated by resubmissions. I contend that the grading services have been very lazy in this respect and that it would not take much effort for them to make their population figures far more accurate. >>
Gosh, that sounds like what I posted about the other day.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
You beat me to the punch on this one, John. I agree 100%.
i think it may be relevant to (southern)gold coinage, but past that it's not very representative and for certain areas of the hobby it's meaningless.
<< <i>"Had to"? He doesn't like cleaned, dipped-out, unoriginal coins but "had to" ruin them to get the grade he wanted? Sounds pretty hypocritical to me.
You beat me to the punch on this one, John. I agree 100%. >>
Yeah, and I'm pretty amazed at the number of Forumites who have responded to this thread who don't seem bothered by it.
<< <i>(2) Regarding originality, I literally weep in front of my computer monitor when I see some of the "before and after" pictures that people post here to illustrate dipping. If what Winter says is true, it's upsetting that the grading services almost encourage this behavior. >>
I mean, heck...I read this quote and all I can think is that it's upsetting that Winter admits to doing that which makes this poster weep, yet not a word of condemnation.
My icon IS my coin. It is a gem 1949 FBL Franklin.
<< <i>I mean, heck...I read this quote and all I can think is that it's upsetting that Winter admits to doing that which makes this poster weep, yet not a word of condemnation. >>
I haven't yet composed myself enough to respond. I will soon, though.
Didn't wanna get me no trade
Never want to be like papa
Working for the boss every night and day
--"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
<< <i>
<< <i>I mean, heck...I read this quote and all I can think is that it's upsetting that Winter admits to doing that which makes this poster weep, yet not a word of condemnation. >>
I haven't yet composed myself enough to respond. I will soon, though. >>
That's the one that got me too. Very Hypocritical.
Though the point regarding MS61/62 gold was valid.
--
<< <i>I don’t know how many times I’ve had both services send me a subtle hint that the deeply toned, crusty coins I’ve just submitted could grade higher if they were lighter and more “commercial” in appearance. I’ve had to ruin some really nice coins because they wouldn’t work with this sort of original look. >>
--
I believe he has lost some credibility as a caretaker of numismatic treasures. Still, I have to grudgingly give at least some recognition to his honesty.
I agree that the term "MS" doesn't mean what it used to mean, and I don't like it, but I see no way that the reigning TPGs can revert to the old standards.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>MS61 and MS62 used to be grades that meant a coin is free of wear. This needs to be the case once again.
I agree that the term "MS" doesn't mean what it used to mean, and I don't like it, but I see no way that the reigning TPGs can revert to the old standards. >>
Ditto for the pumped grades that go to cleaned coins too, Andy. I used to think that when I had a bit more money to spend that would be able to round out my early gold type set with hand picked original AU coins, if I was willing to pay the big premiums. Now, I don't think that's possible. The stuff I see at the bourse tables these days is disgusting. Every coin I see these days has had it's skin stripped with the ugly, shiny "underwear" showing.
Such coins can't be true AUs because all of the mint surface has been scrubbed off.
<< <i>MS61 and MS62 used to be grades that meant a coin is free of wear. This needs to be the case once again.
I agree that the term "MS" doesn't mean what it used to mean, and I don't like it, but I see no way that the reigning TPGs can revert to the old standards. >>
It doesn't bother me at all. All they gotta do is lump MS55-64 together and not worry about whether there's wear or not. Some unc coins are worth AU55 money and some AU coins are worth MS64 money. Price ...er ... grade 'em accordingly!
<< <i>I agree that the term "MS" doesn't mean what it used to mean, and I don't like it, but I see no way that the reigning TPGs can revert to the old standards. >>
If they did, they might need to introduce grades like AU-61, AU-62 and perhaps AU-63. This way, they can still "market grade" (as in "this coin is a technical choice AU but worth MS-62 money") and yet not bastidize the meaning of *mint state*.
I don't object to the TPGs legitimizing the market reality that some of the very nicest technical AU-58s are worth as much as (or more than) some lower mint-state coins. I just object to them being slabbed as "mint state."
<< <i>The line on MS61 and MS62 coins should be tighter as well. Nearly every southern branch mint gold coin that I see in MS61 and MS62 holders has obvious wear. MS61 and MS62 used to be grades that meant a coin is free of wear. This needs to be the case once again. >>
The market wants coins priced, not graded. That's why high-end circ coins are in MS holders. If they services hadn't done that, you would have AU58 coins being worth more than MS60 and MS61 coins, and that is too confusing for the mass market. So if a coin that grades AU58 based on wear will sell for MS62 money because of how it looks, it gets the MS62 grade. Especially with gold, where so many MS coins are very heavily marked.
I think it's ridiculous, but I understand why it is done.
I wonder how many home-run potential upgrades are sitting out there in AU58 holders from 15+ years ago.
New collectors, please educate yourself before spending money on coins; there are people who believe that using numismatic knowledge to rip the naïve is what this hobby is all about.
<< <i>I wonder how many home-run potential upgrades are sitting out there in AU58 holders from 15+ years ago. >>
Most of these -- at least the ones that haven't already been cracked out into MS plastic -- sell for perhaps MS-62 money anyway, so a crackout to get it into a 62 grade wouldn't be worth too much.
<< <i>I wonder how many home-run potential upgrades are sitting out there in AU58 holders from 15+ years ago. >>
Fewer everyday.
Once again, concisely and elegantly expressed.
However, too many people are hung up on the stupid, arbitrary line between "uncirculated" and "not" that is inherent in the AU/MS terminology..... witness how many people have commented about it in this thread.
the grade from 1-70 should represent a composite evaluation of the coin's attributes... and be a starting point on negotiating it's value. Not the final word
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
<< <i>
However, too many people are hung up on the stupid, arbitrary line between "uncirculated" and "not" that is inherent in the AU/MS terminology..... witness how many people have commented about it in this thread.
the grade from 1-70 should represent a composite evaluation of the coin's attributes... and be a starting point on negotiating it's value. Not the final word >>
Although I don't like to see sliders in MSxx slabs, I do understand that it's basically a pricing attempt by the TPGs. I am slowly coming around to the way of thinking quoted above, but wonder what will happen in a slower/down coin market. I believe a lot of those "super sliders" in MSxx slabs will be scoffed at by dealers when the time comes to sell.
My icon IS my coin. It is a gem 1949 FBL Franklin.
<< <i>
<< <i>MS61 and MS62 used to be grades that meant a coin is free of wear. This needs to be the case once again.
I agree that the term "MS" doesn't mean what it used to mean, and I don't like it, but I see no way that the reigning TPGs can revert to the old standards. >>
It doesn't bother me at all. All they gotta do is lump MS55-64 together and not worry about whether there's wear or not. Some unc coins are worth AU55 money and some AU coins are worth MS64 money. Price ...er ... grade 'em accordingly! >>
-------------
-------------
It appears TDN has changed his mind. The problem with this market grade stance is there are so many MS63 coins graded up to MS65 but then they bring PQ MS66 money at auction!! You can't buy anything attractive these days!! I support Winters one point bump idea for orginality and eye-appeal, but really----Isn't the point of Auctions to establish market value, and TPGs to get the overall grade correct consistently???????
<< <i><< "Had to"? He doesn't like cleaned, dipped-out, unoriginal coins but "had to" ruin them to get the grade he wanted? Sounds pretty hypocritical to me. >>
Oh yeah guys , I agree. What a self serving hypocrite. Whatever happened to the idea that dealers should exist as non-profits to "SERVE" the hobby.
He should be glad to sell a coin with an original look for 2,000 and make a $2-300 profit. The idea of dipping an original looking coin just so he can get a grade higher and sell it for twice as much is appalling. It's the dealers RESPONSIBILITY to cater to those who prefer blemished original looking coins and not to his family that counts on the money he earns.
Please guys, the next time you have an "original" coin to sell that you think could upgrade with a dip , give me a call. I'll be glad to pay the lower grade money so you can feel you are not a "hypocrite." (Why do I think I won't hear from anyone)
Peter's TPG Principle #1... All coins will eventually reside in the holder with the highest numeric grade, no matter what it takes to get them there.
From what and when? Two things have never bothered me much - slight weakness in strike and slight wear or friction. I believe that I've always had the opinion that each of these should be considered in assessing the coin for an overall grade, but should not in any way serve as a limit to the grade. Thus the concept of MS55 or AU64 doesn't bother me at all.
<< <i>but should not in any way serve as a limit to the grade. >>
So as I'm concerned a weak strike takes a coin out of making anything higher than MS-65, and it's got to be one heck of coin with no marks and decent luster from me to call a weakly struck coin MS-65. Usually it's lower. Just look at the "O mint" dollars for the 1890s. It's virtually impossible to find one that is struck decently.
I will take TPG's market grading standardization over the "old days" of coin shops selling burnished POCs as "Gem BU" any day of the week. 'Tis not a perfect system by any means, but new and/or young collectors may not understand the frame of reference IMO, except possibly by observing that the raw coins sold on Ebay approach the norm practised years ago by many coin shop owners.
Check out my current listings: https://ebay.com/sch/khunt/m.html?_ipg=200&_sop=12&_rdc=1
<< <i>So as I'm concerned a weak strike takes a coin out of making anything higher than MS-65, and it's got to be one heck of coin with no marks and decent luster from me to call a weakly struck coin MS-65. Usually it's lower. Just look at the "O mint" dollars for the 1890s. It's virtually impossible to find one that is struck decently. >>
And even then, because they're worth so much in higher mint state grades, they tend to be graded too conservatively when they *do* have a good strike.
I used to own an 1892-O Morgan. That issue is just about the worst struck coin in the Morgan series, but this coin was very well struck. Maybe not truly "hammered" like the typical '81-S, but a good strike for any issue, let alone a '92-O. It was in an old green-label PCI slab as MS-63 and designated "premium strike". I crossed it to NGC and I was disappointed to get an MS-62 grade back. Still, when I sold it on eBay I pretty much got 63 money for it anyway, because of the strike (I know this through correspondence with the buyer; he was being aggressive on this coin because he'd never seen such a well-struck '92-O). Anyway, that coin certainly didn't benefit from a good strike where the TPG was concerned -- but the buyer still recognized it for what it was and bid accordingly.
You can find a job that doesn't require you to go against your values.
Oh I forgot, this is the coin business and there are no values except make every penny you can, any way you can.
You can have it.
This coin is slightly soft in the head, foot and stars [and eagle's wing on the reverse]. Otherwise, it is a superb gem ... the finest quality in existance of any date seated dollar. If fully struck, it would easily grade MS68. In my mind, it's much more appropriate to knock off a grade to MS67 for the slightly weak strike than to arbitrarily state it maxes out at MS65.
If you want to look for problems, the shiny spots on Ms. Liberty's boobs and thighs might be what's holder her back.
At any rate, going by the picture, which might not be telling the whole story, I’d say that this coin would a crack-out candidate if it were not for the fact that nothing has been graded higher, according to TDN. “None graded higher is a reason for PCGS to get conservative.
<< <i>It appears TDN has changed his mind.
From what and when? Two things have never bothered me much - slight weakness in strike and slight wear or friction. I believe that I've always had the opinion that each of these should be considered in assessing the coin for an overall grade, but should not in any way serve as a limit to the grade. Thus the concept of MS55 or AU64 doesn't bother me at all. >>
---------------
---------------
TDN--I was refering to a previous post I vaguely remeber the gist of which was a concern with market grading in general--whereby super eye-appealing coins were bumped up several grades. Among other things, less than sophisticated buyers-sellers subsequently added more points, mistakenly believing the coin's current grade was solely technical.
---------
---------
Now the concept of MS55 through AU64 makes plenty of sense to me. Especially for gold or bust halves, where the MS-AU line is almost meaningless today. Some people might be confused, but it would be better than being mislead if you are buying Type, and don't know a serie's characteristics.
I agree with you there ... but have always had personal disregard for the line between MS and AU. IMO, it's a fallacy that a beautiful coin with a trace of rub should be graded less than a beat to death dog with no rub. It just shouldn't be. The trace of rub should be net graded on the coin - knock it down a point or two or three - whatever is appropriate - but give the coin its due.
<< <i>Oh yeah guys , I agree. What a self serving hypocrite. Whatever happened to the idea that dealers should exist as non-profits to "SERVE" the hobby. >>
Personally, I don't have a problem with "improving" a coins appearance as long as it's done in a way that's undetectable. Some "original" coins look anything but. After all, how many coins have left the Mint looking like they've been dipped in
My beef was the apparent hypocrisy of whining about dipping (or whatever) coins, while admitting doing just that.
My icon IS my coin. It is a gem 1949 FBL Franklin.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
<< <i>the line between MS and AU >>
The problem here lies with old attempt to integrated the old XF/AU/MS sytem with a modern 45/55/65 system. Essentially each coin gets 2 grades. In a majority of cases the 2 grades are compatible but sometimes they are not.
A coin should have one grade or the other, not both. This is what limits a GEM coin with rub from being an 63 because it's not MS. The MS requirement limits it to a 58. Same with a dog thats less than 60 but still Mint State. It's limited to only 60 on the downside.
I see the same mistake now on currency grading. A slight old corner bend can drop an otherwise superb gem to an AU58 note. It's amazing that after 20 years the coin grading companies still didn't learn a thing from this mistake and carried it right over to currency.
I am very surprised that DW included that controversial sentence in his article. It makes it sound as if he regularly dips coin to max them out, but I know for a fact that this is not true and certainly not his M.O. I have purchased numerous coins from DW that we both have freely acknowledged would probably be in a higher grade holder if the coin were dipped. DW is a coin snob (in the good way); he destests conserved, cleaned, and ugly coins. I would not be surprised if much of this dipping activity is client-driven, not that it makes it any more acceptable.
Numismatics, what's that? Aren't the grading services in business to set market value; what's this silly talk about numismatics?
Collector: "What do you think this coin grades?"
Dealer (pulling out the gray sheet): "$500."
Numerical grades from the services are just an index to make pricing a coin easier.
ie: the author side vs. the dealer side. Other than books and papers, the web site newletter is DW's outlet for writing. I often read the articles as more of a reference material; and sometimes as a dealer's newsletter, if that makes any sense. No doubt about the validity of DW as a well respected author. I'm sure it's as hard for him to mix the researcher/author aspect with the dealer aspect, as it is for some clients to deal with.
I think just asking about the known history of a prospective purchase is all a client would need to do for an answer about any issue.
To NGC: Change your holder. Let us be able to see the edges of the coins we own. Give the coins more room in their holders and make the background any color other than bright white which is hard to photo and not always easy on the eyes.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Numismatics, what's that? Aren't the grading services in business to set market value; what's this silly talk about numismatics?
Collector: "What do you think this coin grades?"
Dealer (pulling out the gray sheet): "$500."
Numerical grades from the services are just an index to make pricing a coin easier.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the last three years, more often than not, the MS 61/63/62 type coins I've seen were flashy AUs
oh I agree with that so much. it is almost like that mint mark
has a magical way of making an VF coin XF, an AU coin MS.
siliconvalleycoins.com