Unattractive toning - should it be taken into consideration by the grading companies?

ANACONDA

I think it should (but they don't seem to) and it's one of the biggest mistakes I think they make. My prediction is that someday it will be taken into consideration when assigning grades, probably if and when PCGS and NGC get a real competitor, if that ever happens.

DHeath

I don't, JMO. The TPG's get paid based on submissions, and can get by with grading an ugly coin based on its technical merits. It isn't overgraded, but it is the maximum grade the submitter could expect. That keeps the stockholders happy.

291fifth

Coins with unattractive (ugly) toning should be body-bagged. Their presence in slabs hurts the reputation of the grading service that slabbed them.

ziggy29

I would prefer that they stick to strictly technical factors on the coin and leave the subjective like-or-don't-like factors up to the potential buyer.

CTcollector

Maybe they should work on getting the artificial toning thing down first...

MikeKing

considering attractive toning is a mark down for certain grading companies I won't mention here, I don't see why unattractive toning shouldn't be.

stev32k

Ugly or unattractive toning is very subjective. I've seen several coins posted that I think are ugly, but others thought they looked good. It they downgraded or body bagged coins for "ugly" they would be setting themselves up as art critics. however, in one sense they already take appearance into account it's called eye appeal. NGC even gives a star for exceptional "eye-appeal". I think it's much easier for people to agree on looks good vs what looks bad.

coinguy1

<<Unattractive toning - should it be taken into consideration by the grading companies?>>

I think it IS taken into consideration, at least in many cases. There are numerous dark and/or unattractively toned coins which likely would have received higher grades, if not for their "unattractive" appearance. I believe that is at least part of the reason that so many coins are dipped/conserved.

ANACONDA

ANACONDA

You would know, Mark, having been a grader for NGC, but I have seen so many incredibly ugly coins in very high grades. I guess what you are saying is that if they hadn't been so ugly, they might have received even higher grades.

I guess they're not 'downgraded' enough for me.

jmj3esq

Coins with unattractive (ugly) toning should be body-bagged. Their presence in slabs hurts the reputation of the grading service that slabbed them.

Are we supposed to let the TPGs decided what is considered "ugly" toning? That is a real bad idea. Toning should not be taken into consideration when grading. People have different tastes.

Barry

<< <i>I would prefer that they stick to strictly technical factors on the coin and leave the subjective like-or-don't-like factors up to the potential buyer. >>


I agree. They shouldn't succumb to temporary fads such as toning. One of these days white coins will again be more desireable and toning will again be called tarnish. Does that mean all the coins will need to be regraded?

jayboxx

I would prefer that they stick to strictly technical factors on the coin and leave the subjective like-or-don't-like factors up to the potential buyer.

stev32k

I think the market does a pretty good job of determining what's ugly and what's not. A badly toned coin does not bring nearly the price of an attractive one in the same grade. Here is a good example. This coin should bring quite a bit more than the starting bid, but it looks bad in the photograph. This is the second time it's been listed and no one has bid anywhere close to what an MS63 Trade Dollar should bring (that might change since I've given it some exposure). I've been watching it the whole time and just cannot get past the bad appearance.

I agree with other comments that the grading services should stick to the technical side of grading and let the market decide what's ugly and what's not.

dizzyfoxx

I think in theory, it's a logical idea. The problem I see is the subjectivity of "unattractive" or better yet, "eye-appeal". Although a universally attractive coin can be bumped up a grade, a coin where some may feel is lacking eye-appeal, may be eye-appealing to others. My biggest argument in numismatics is the importance of original surfaces. Even if a coin's original surfaces have toned to the point where it may be considered unattractive, I feel it should not be downgraded for it. The coin has survived the test of time and has managed to escape the dipping process throughout the years, and therefore is a special coin regardless of whether or not some may not like the toning. Those coins should be graded on technical characteristics alone. A beautifully toned coin should always be a candidate for a grade point bump, which is what the TPG's are doing now I believe.

mirabela

Let's put it this way -- based on (total lack of) marks and (excellent) underlying luster, if my icon NGC 64 Vermont could be dipped without stripping it, I don't think there are many people who would not call it a gem. I think in this case at least, the crusty toning worked against it.

I am thankful that it did, as I would not have been able to afford the coin at the time in a better holder.

lkenefic

<< <i>I would prefer that they stick to strictly technical factors on the coin and leave the subjective like-or-don't-like factors up to the potential buyer. >>

MikeKing

I thinks it's common knowledge how dipped silver and nickle is so avidly graded well by certain tpg's which truly show their ignorance with toned nickle. The more I learn, the more I come to understand tpg weaknesses, sadly enough.
edited to add: and heavily toned silver.

GoldenEyeNumismatics

Grading services should really be grading coin techinically even though this doesn't happenw ith attractively toned pieces. I can't imagine that services would actually take off for unattractive toning though, although I'm sure they would be less generous