There is not enough emphasis on the monumental importance of eye-appeal...

dizzyfoxx

RKKay

I agree. Eye appeal is paramount, and this is the concept behind buying the coin rather than the holder.

michael

I agree. Eye appeal is paramount be it ag3 or vf30 or choice to gem unc or proof

EYE APPEAL

dizzyfoxx

<< <i>I agree. Eye appeal is paramount, and this is the concept behind buying the coin rather than the holder. >>

cladking

Is it monumentally important so we should teach people how to spot it not to buy coins that look pretty.

dizzyfoxx

<< <i>Is it monumentally important so we should teach people how to spot it not to buy coins that look pretty. >>



I always believe in whatever 'floats' one's boat.

cladking

<< <i>

<< <i>Is it monumentally important so we should teach people how to spot it not to buy coins that look pretty. >>



I always believe in whatever 'floats' one's boat. >>



Sure. I agree completely.

The problem, as I see it, is that beginners are wire brushing coins because they look prettier. More
advanced collectors are buying AT because they are pretty. Not that there's anything wrong with AT
but people are getting all bent out of shape, losing money, and supporting a whole industry of coin
doctors because of it.

I'm not suggesting that people buy ugly or unattractive coins just that the term "eye appeal" is down
graded and replaced with terms people can understand. This is a very subtle change but might have
significant implications.

dorkkarl

<< <i>There is not enough emphasis on the monumental importance of eye-appeal... >>

by whom?

K S

IGWT

Do you agree with what Jim Halperin says about eye appeal?

stman

I dunno Dizzy. If it is a higher grade coin, and the services give it a bump in grade for eye-appeal. Then the dealer in turn takes this inflated grade and bumps the price a notch or 50 for a PQ/inflated grade, then we have what is called the "double bump." But, I'm sure the dealers love you.

Myself, on those higher grade coins with exceptional toning, I first grade it and don't let the color influence me. I then take into account for the color. So, considering the "double bump" theory, I'd say at times there is too much emphasis placed on eye-appeal which equals prices too high. JMWO

dizzyfoxx

<Myself, on those higher grade coins with exceptional toning, I first grade it and don't let the color influence me. I then take into account for the color. So, considering the "double bump" theory, I'd say at times there is too much emphasis placed on eye-appeal which equals prices too high. JMWO >

Steve, I'm not sure, but if the 'W" in JMWO stands for worthless, may I be the first to say that there's nothing 'worthless' about your opinions.

stman

<< <i>I'm not sure, but if the 'W" in JMWO stands for worthless, may I be the first to say that there's nothing 'worthless' about your opinions. >>



Thanks for being the first, and probably the last. Heh I forgot to mention that some of the dealers selling the "double bump" coins.....
when selling to them, they all of a sudden become technical graders, and out comes the big loupe.

dizzyfoxx

<< <i>

<< <i>I'm not sure, but if the 'W" in JMWO stands for worthless, may I be the first to say that there's nothing 'worthless' about your opinions. >>



Thanks for being the first, and probably the last. Heh I forgot to mention that some of the dealers selling the "double bump" coins.....
when selling to them, they all of a sudden become technical graders, and out comes the big loupe. >>



Yep!

mozeppa

FatMan

Since stman jumped on me a few weeks back for using his trademarked double bump™...I now use the term double hump™

CalGold

Nonsense. Why do you think so many original coins are being dipped. The shiny coin gets the higher grade and commands the higher price. The original coin with luster subdued by original patination languishes in the dealer's case, and it only gets into that case at a still discount from bid.

CG

stman

<< <i>Since stman jumped on me a few weeks back for using his trademarked double bump™...I now use the term double hump™ >>



That works too, but not on me though. stman don't play that "double bump" or double hump." Somehow "Double hump" sounds worse.

dizzyfoxx

<Double hump" sounds worse>

That all depends on who is saying it.

Dog97

Some of you wouldn't know eye appeal even if it jumped out of the slab and smacked you upside your pointy heads.

Barndog

this thread I can agree with!

Connecticoin

<< <i>

<< <i>I'm not sure, but if the 'W" in JMWO stands for worthless, may I be the first to say that there's nothing 'worthless' about your opinions. >>



Thanks for being the first, and probably the last. Heh I forgot to mention that some of the dealers selling the "double bump" coins.....
when selling to them, they all of a sudden become technical graders, and out comes the big loupe. >>



That's a good way of putting it -- which is how I would describe that "monster" toned Peace Dollar that Bear used to own. Without the color, the technical grade was 64 at best.

If I were to spend four figures or more on a toned common date silver dollar, the technical grade needs to be there as well, which is the approach Sunnywood takes.

Prethen

Eye appeal is EVERYTHING. If it doesn't look nice, why bother? Of course, a little bit of knowledge about what "good nice" and "bad nice" ain't bad. As an extreme example, gold plated State Quarters are a "bad nice".

Sunnywood

Hell yeah !!!!

rec78

What else is there?

TwoSides2aCoin

IT IS THE SUBJECTIVE part of grading that proves to YOU (the submitter) what is acceptable... NOT IN YOUR EYES, but theirs (the graders)... So I disagree with the thread title even though I like games of chance, I need better odds when playing them


I'll stick with the technical merit. (luster, strike detail, reflectivity or finish)
because what looks great to some only has to be questionable to someone else and your money is down the toilet.

and you can flush that to the bank.

dizzyfoxx

Couldn't let this one fade away...