1982-d Lincoln Cent, what a disturbing auction to me.

LincolnsRule

Link.

Heritage: The coin is clearly a zinc variety. Anyone who's searched many rolls of each variety can easily tell, even from their scan.

Pcgs: That's how overgraded most of the low pop ms68 Lincolns are. On the other hand, these days, this is what happens... I had 30 ms67rd 1982-d's from a bulk submission done about 1.5 years ago. I saved the best 2 of those coins, coins that are very much arguably ms68 (probably nicer than nearly all of the ms68 pop). I resubmit them this summer and get back.... ms64!!!

Now... who's going to pay $500-$1000 for this coin with Heritage? Are people that ignorant to the inconsistency in grading? Or do they really only care about registry points? Also check out the so called ms68 90 and 97-d, with large spots on them.

wondercoin

So, in summary, PCGS is grading your coins too tight and everyone else' coins too loose? That's my problem too!!

Wondercoin

Stooge

Lincolnsrule,

I can't believe that this coin was given a 68 grade. The entire reverse around the rim is weakly struck. I would give this coin a 64/65 at best. Like I said before, I do not know or collect Lincolns, but if this was a dime, I would not have sent it in for grading.

I bought this coin 1962 MS67 NGC and it graded a MS64FB. Am I to assume that NGC got it wrong by 3 full grades?

Later, Paul.

zkcoins

While I would agree that its not a 68, I am having a very hard time with that picture. I can't seem to figure out the detail on that coin due to the lighting. Very poor job on the photo.

perfectstrike

Significant cancer on the lower right steps of the obverse. MS65 on a great day.

David

Datentype

Jaime, i feel your pain and understand your situation very, very well. It is just plain old not the "old days' for moderns. i would suggest a new holder, so we can more easily differentiate the slabs for these eras. I would suggest that everyone with slabs from 1960-current that are more than 3 years old (roughly) send them back in for a refund from PCGS as they will not grade the same any longer.

I can honestly say i have slabbed a huge percentage of those Lincoln's sitting in 8 holders as well as many of the rarer 7's and 9's and they are not worth doing these days unless there is a chance for a pop top coin and since they are not giving them out, I might suggest those that have sets that are "stranded" with in-action, send them in for a re-grade for reimbursement or is it now more profitable to put the over-graded coins out for auction, since the supply has dried up. To me, that is the dilema here.

LincolnsRule

The simple truth is pcgs fixed its problem of once overgrading, by now undergrading.

I'm trying to build a set of the highest quality, where I have all the right coins in the right holders. I sometimes find the right coin but can't get the right holder for it, or I try to buy a right holder from an auction or dealer, and don't get the right coin. Pcgs has made it a seemingly impossible task to accomplish my goal, something I've worked on for 4-5 years now.

cointime

Jaime,

I really can't tell for sure if the picture lacks correct lighting or the coin has turned in the holder. The strike is not there for me, like Paul said I wouldn't have sent this coin in for grading. I still have a 1986-D I submitted raw (I made 2 in 2001 Pop went from 4-6) from an original roll I put back in '86. When I think of MS68 this is more like it. and it's price guide is $90.00

1986-D TrueView pic. MS68RD

DIMEMAN

Wow, I have to agree with Paul. I wish that the dimes Paul sent in for me would have been graded on the same bell curve as that 68-D!! I would be a very happy camper! But instead I got hosed!

Jon

ajia

Do my eyes deceive me....no steps on the Lincoln Memorial?
Must be the lighting, right?

WCQX

No steps, can't see lincoln between the pillars... someone must want the extra point to pay $500 + for that coin. Received three priority mail boxes full of cut-up lincoln cents from mint sets a few years back in trade from an e-bay dealer that sells cut up mint set coin pairs except for the lincoln cent that there was apparently no strong demand for hence he hoarded them. Just finishing up the sorting process now and have it down to around 100 coins in various dates in the 80's thru 2000's in MS67 or better but many of them are common like the 2003-P. Obviusly no 1982's in the group since no mint sets but this coin in the auction is not a coin I would even have considered to send in for grading. Maybe I should just hold off on any grading efforts to wait for PCGS to lighten up? Hard to compete when great coins go begging in low grade holders while weak material like this cent attract the collector seeking a point up. That 86-D pictured is my kind of coin and I have found 4-5 86-D so far like that. When I was collecting these memorials they were not worth slabbing and I still have a raw set of memorials in superlative condition I collected when I was putting togehter my gem red set of early dates. Probably just frustrate myself to try for grading just now... probably hold off. Thanks for the grading tips. dr

WaterSport

I know it sounds childish, but I swear, they hate copper! I do not hear the issues raised with any other denomination on these boards, except some chatter regarding cam designations and Kennedy halves. As for me, I learned quickly to never go where you folks go in search of getting moderns graded. It is not worth it. I think the now gun shy problems all of us have had with grading problems contributes to ridiculous high prices for what are common cents. Jamie has heard me say before I refuse to pay $3-$400 for a memorial when that same money will buy a decent wheat. Those kinds of dollar values simply should not exist for modern MS 67 or MS 68 cents! The pop reports should have thousands of each. There should be plenty of MS 67-68 graded cents and a few 69’s thrown in for most years. There is no incentive for PCGS to change its grading standard when rolls are thrown at them and 99% are low graded. If only we could shut off the supply of modern cents to PCGS, I bet they would change then!

WS

RBinTex

Wow. Absolutely scandalous to call that a 68. And Heritage saying it is "presumably copper" is beyond negligent.

The absence of bubbles is a necessary but certainly not a sufficient determinant to declare it copper.

seanq

Maybe I'm just being dense here, but that looks like a small date. Weren't all of the 1982-D small dates struck in zinc? That's a pretty egregious mistake for an outfit the size of Heritage.


Sean Reynolds

WCQX

I pulled out my "superlative red memorial set" I had not looked at in several years and I had encased these in coin-tains so still nice and red with some tiny carbon flecking on many of the coins as expected for MS65-MS66 grades and there are no coins in there that will grade MS67 except when you get to the 80's. These 59-82 memorials appear to me to be very tough and well worth strong money for true MS67 coins. The raw wheat cents from 1932-1958 I put back in the whitman plastic are overall nicer and I think they were probably manufactured much better. I am going to leave my sets raw. Will stay out of the grading game on these as they are a nice set and no need to get myself jacked up pursuing slabbed MS67 examples, would be a lot more expensive to get a set of these than I want to pay. I do think Jamie is on the right track if other top collectors disrespect these tough memorials that may be an opportuinity to get a world class set of these rare MS67 memorials that may seem like a bargin in the future when more well heeled collecotrs try to find them. Truly very tough in my estimation. dr

clackamas

PCGS has been inconsistant with memorial Lincolns. As you all know I have the best 1968 set, I went through 1800 mint sets. Recently I took my two most utter PQ MS66RD 1968-P lincolns and cracked them to try for an upgrade. Now these were the top of the over 100 MS66RD 68-P's that I previously had graded. What do you suppose they came back as? You guessed it MS65RD.

cupronik

I think PCGS has some sort of unwritten rule NOT to grade circ strike modern coins (including Lincoln
Memorial Cents) very high (MS-66 and up) regardless how nice they are. By far, most of my returned
graded coins come back with grades not worth the fees paid for them.

What's going on here??????

I have to wonder if PCGS graders of modern circ strike issues understand the characteristics and
peculiarities of each issue?

I once asked HRH what do the PCGS graders look for in Lincoln Memorial Cents and he gave a generic
response to the effect of "strike, color, and marks." A very helpful response, don't you think?

Snapdragon

I recently informed an auction company of a listing error in which the coin in the holder was obviously not the same coin as listed on the slab. Perhaps this is the same kind of mistake...?

wondercoin

Guys - Bear in mind, it is NOT just your series of choice where PCGS grades tough, tough, tough. Consider the $100 Proof Platinum series (my playground at times)- PCGS has graded just -4- PR70DC coins out of close to 1,200 submitted over the past -10- years. These coins are worth around $1,600/coin. 1,200 coins cost around $2,000,000.00. So, it has taken $2,000,000.00 worth of these coins to slab -4- 70's thus far. Obviously, different dynamics than say Memorial cents and the investment needed to play on those - but, the same result.

Wondercoin

RBinTex

"As you all know I have the best 1968 set"

Doe that mean YOU have the 68-S in 68RD?

cupronik

There's a significant difference in trying to get a (1959-82) Lincoln Memorial Cent into a PCGS MS-66RD
holder as opposed to getting a 2007 platinum Proof $100 in a PCGS PR-70 (ultimate perfection) slab.
It shouldn't be anywhere near as difficult! There are 1000's & 1000's of these Lincoln Cents worthy of
MS-66RD and up holders but PCGS (for their own reasons?) won't slab them as such.

Then you have the Omaha Bank Hoard Jefferson Nickels and etc.

wondercoin

Or, either Washington quarter ever graded MS68? I am pretty proud of my 1968 coins as well, although I did not get hooked yet on creating all the different yearly mint sets - that would be dangerous for my pocket book!

Wondercoin

wondercoin

"There are 1000's & 1000's of these Lincoln Cents worthy of
MS-66RD"

Let's hope it is not that easy or the coins would be worth less than the grading fees in any event (just as currently Presidential Dollars in low grade holders are selling for under grading fees).

Wondercoin

cupronik

Some people may opine that perhaps over a million might exist in MS-66RD/better considering the mintage
totals from 1959-82. I merely thought 1000's & 1000's.

One might wonder if PCGS has a "population control" program in operation. I know posting this thought
might rile some higher-ups at the service but when there seems to be no true open line of communication
between submitters and PCGS (not the graders). One can't help but try to reason out the state of things.
I will say this - "we veteran submitters KNOW how to recognize and grade outstanding examples of high-
grade coins." It's frustrating to continually fine tune the grading skills based on current returned shipments
of disappointing (and costly) results to no avail.

RBinTex

"One might wonder if PCGS has a "population control" program in operation"

You mean like China?

Of course they do.

zkcoins

<< <i>Or, either Washington quarter ever graded MS68? I am pretty proud of my 1968 coins as well, although I did not get hooked yet on creating all the different yearly mint sets - that would be dangerous for my pocket book!

Wondercoin >>



Mitch,

I would have to agree with you. Unfortunately I prefer to collect mint sets so I do them by date. This makes it fun to pick a year and then try to finish it rather than a denomination. Although I do collect memorials, I find mint sets to be a more fun challenge and reward. It doesn't take as long to finish a year set so the reward is there when you finish plus there are so many larger mint set categories to compete in (like 1968-present) that its nearly impossible to finish fast in that category and there is the challenge.

LincolnsRule

Maybe I'm completely wrong as I've never seen Clackamas's 1968 coins or the ms68 1968 quarters or S cent in hand, but based on the amount of time and effort Clackamas put into finding his coins, I would wager that his ms67's of those dates are nicer than the ms68's. From the low pop (pop < 5) coins I've seen, the story usually is that they are very low end for the grade or overgraded (if nice or high end ones existed, it wouldn't be a low pop coin). I know Datentype will back me up with that many of the ms69 Lincolns from 82-98 are overgraded, and the ms68 74-d Lincoln has clearly visible spots.

wondercoin

"I know Datentype will back me up with that many of the ms69 Lincolns from 82-98 are overgraded, and the ms68 74-d Lincoln has clearly visible spots."

I thought he slabbed many of them himself? I sincerely doubt he sold numerous coins to many different folks and will now state these coins were "overgraded" by PCGS. What I do believe he might say is that he has had other specimens equally deserving of the MS69 grade which didn't achieve that grade level and that has been disappointing to him. Heck, I am in the same boat with a host of different coins in misc. coin series that are IMHO worthy of a grade they have yet to achieve. And, I also know ownership is worth a point.

Finally, how naive and misguided to state that MS68 Washington quarters and Lincoln cent(s) which one has never even inspected are not as nice as random MS67's. Pure sour grapes best I can tell.

Wondercoin

LincolnsRule

At the time Datentype slabbed and sold the ms69 Lincolns, he and the buyers certainly would have thought them to be correctly graded. But things are different now, and Datentype said himself that many of those would be lucky to make ms68 today. (Sorry Mark if you don't wish me repeating what you said here, I assume you don't mind).

Mitch, as I said, maybe I'm completely wrong, but I do know Clackamas searched 1800 mint sets, and a run that was made up of first off the die coins, and also countless rolls. I think most of the ms67 1968 quarter pop comes from those sets too. I stick with my statement that it could be true that he owns the finest 1968 coins (they are not random ms67s!). Just because pcgs gave another quarter ms68 doesn't mean it's better. It could be but it could not be.

Datentype

<< <i>I know Datentype will back me up with that many of the ms69 Lincolns from 82-98 are overgraded, and the ms68 74-d Lincoln has clearly visible spots. >>



Actaully Jaime, the 1984-p Lincoln's in 9, I had slabbed were all solid 69's and truely "Wondercoins" I even did a re-submit crackout with Mitch and we made one, thus making it a pop 3/0. I understand the 88-d in 9 is horrible. The 85-d i made was PQ (cannot speak to the others). The 90-d i made was awesome and the other one in existence looks horrible. The 1993-p in 9 is awesome, all the 93-d's I made were very, very solid, as well as the 95-d. The 2 98-d's were 7's in my opinion. I also made some 1977 and 1979's in 8 that were very solid for the grade.

In summary, I would not take any of those particular grades away as they were motly correctly graded back then - problem is, they are all going to grade at least one grade down if they were re-submitted now. Now, if we were to review coins i had slabbed that made 8 or 7 grades, those are the areas, i hold very suspect for their respective grades and many, many of those would be trash now days. I personally slabbed 100's of 68's from 82-98 and don't bother any longer as good product is hard to find and is generally a losing proposition after costs. Ebay, PCGS and the Post office all get their inflated portions and only top grades re-coup++

wondercoin

Jamie: Clackamas I am sure has a fabulous overall 1968 Mint set... you get no argument out of me. I only take exception to suggesting an MS68 Washington quarter which I own in my set is not as nice as someone else's MS67 coin when you have never even seen my coin. Fair enough?

Regarding Datentype - you can see that nearly all of his top slabbed Lincolns he absoutely loved for the grade (just as I suspected). I recall that pop 3 1984(p) Lincoln and even that crack out/resubmit coin was awesome quality and deserving of the MS69RD grade. I couldn't believe the coin when I saw it in the MS68RD holder.

I, too, am disappointed when myriad MS modern coins have not worked for me either of late. I even posted that I recently submitted 140 screened business strike state quarters selected from tens and tens of thousands of coins (over a 3+ month time period of hard work)- I ended up with close to 100 MS67's and -0- MS68 coins from that batch. But, I really do believe we (posters to this board) are all "in the same boat" - series after series, it has become very, very tough to produce those crown jewel top pops.

Wondercoin

LincolnsRule

Fair enough, I'm sorry Mitch. I should have used Clackamas's 1968 dimes as an example instead of the quarters, as he owns both a pop 3 P and pop 4 D dime, but says ones from his mint sets are nicer but didn't grade as high. I'm just trying to illustrate that most of the time, a very low pop coin is not a superior coin to all those graded lower, but one similar or not even nice, but just got lucky upon its submission.

So Datentype agrees that no matter how nice an ms69 Lincoln is, it wouldn't grade the same today (and that several of the ms69's are indeed junk). It seems we all agree that pcgs's standards have changed. Some I guess don't mind as long as it's the same for all submitters, but I see it as an extremely big frustrating problem that somewhat ruins the hobby I love. I just want consistent grading, that's all.

cupronik

Would HRH care to respond????

wondercoin

LR - For the most part though don't you see consistent grading these days with respect to MS moderns? Consistently tough however. My MS liner coins are generally not working, just as yours are not.

Do you know what I find interesting though. The MS modern submitters / modern retailers are having the very opposite problem as the classic submitters/retailers. Consider that the stickering service will soon be here for classic coins as a consequence (so I have read) of a high % of classics being graded too loosely over the past few years and tons of dogs being on the market as a result. Yet, in the case of the MS moderns, the consensus view is that the coins have been graded way too tightly over the past couple years creating virtually no retail product available. So which is worse?

Wondercoin

LincolnsRule

1982-d Lincoln cents going from ms67 to ms64 in a year and a half is pretty inconsistent. And bulk submissions of coins from the same exact batch of rolls go from 85% making min grade to 9% making min is pretty inconsistent (and I was even more careful/picky about the coins submitted on the later submission). I haven't submitted enough since 2007 to say if they've been consistent just this year. It seems people (Clackamas, RegistryNut, myself) have all recently submitted ms66 Lincolns looking for ms67, and had them go ms65. It's not a matter of being half a point tighter, more like 1.5+ pts.

Maybe I'm wrong, but my understanding of the talk of "a high % of classics being graded too loosely over the past few years and tons of dogs being on the market as a result." refers to the coins graded from about 5-7 years ago until 2 or 3 years ago, not the coins graded strictly in the last two years. I believe the classic situation is parallel to the modern one. (ie. the 1982-d Lincoln and others in the Heritage auction, all probably were graded about 5 years ago).

What is the "stickering service" you refer to?

wondercoin

LR - Coins are not generally being graded 3 points different today as opposed to 5 or so years ago - I believe the tendency is for liner coins in this area to not work these days - that has been my experience. But, you have your single example and someone else might have their example(s). But, those examples are on coins cracked out of holders and, as you know, anything can happen to a coin once it is cracked out (including the natural elements creating a spot or haze on copper coins).

The casual reader of your comments might conclude that you would like PCGS to "ease up" their grading 2-3 points to revert back to some standard you suggest they were using in past years. If my wish list were fulfilled, I would have PCGS easing up 1/5 of 1 point on these coins - even 1/10 of a point across the board would be fine.

You can do a search on the US Coin Forum and read all about the new stickering service coming out for classic coins.

Wondercoin

docg

Jaime,
I agree with the current grading standards! You and I both know that on a recent bulk submission there were 10+ solid MS67 Washington clads that didn't make the minimum MS66 grade. It is tempting to buy up all of the recently graded PCGS MS65's, hold them for a couple of years and resubmit hoping PCGS gets some sanity!

LincolnsRule

I don't want pcgs to revert back to giving common coins undeserved high grades, but would like them to give truly rare deserving coins, the grades they deserve. If I find the nicest known example of such and such date coin, I would like it to be graded as such, and not given 2 grades under the highest grade for the date (like the ms65's I, Clackamas, and RegistryNut, Docg are all getting back).

By the way Wondercoin, you mention what is the single biggest problem resulting from pcgs's inconsistency, is that when the coins have to be cracked out or resubmitted, and graded again, they are exposed to air again and have to be handled, and very much could be ruined. This has actually happened to me a few times, I had both 88-d and 97-p cents that were the best I had ever seen, nicer than the other ms68's I got graded, but came back from pcgs with spots on them. I really wish I could get the coins holdered just once and so they'd never have to be handled again.

Good idea Docg, but a lot of experienced submitters won't sell their undergraded ms65's as they'll only get a few dollars for them.

perfectstrike

I wish spots were the worst problem I've had with my copper submissions. I wear a mask, cap and gloves so that I know the problems aren't from my end. I now neutralize the surface of every coin, then let them sit in a sealed enclosure for a month before I send them to PCGS. The worst is that the problems sometimes take a year or more before they become real apparent.

I've still got a few of datentype's MS68RD's and one MS69RD. Almost none of these have spotted over the years. I made about 20 MS69RD's and 100 MS68RD's in 2003/2004 and about 1/3 of the ones I have left are spotted or fingerprinted. Maybe another 1/3 are toning in the holders. I'm not parting with any of the 2007 slabs until I know they are stable.

David

wondercoin

Just curious - why do you think almost none of Datentype's coins have spotted but 1/3 of your coins did? And, how are you neutralizing the surface of the coins before you are submitting them? Wondercoin

perfectstrike

I'm not sure about the spotting cause wondercoin. I've got some theories, though. I certainly wasn't using a mask back in 2003/2004, so I'm not ruling out myself as a cause. It causes me enough concern that I'm now doing everything in my power to prevent it. If I believe a grading company needs to be approached about the issue, I'm going to have to convince them it's not me. That's a hard sell under the best of circumsances.

David

roadrunner

PCGS has been inconsistant with memorial Lincolns. As you all know I have the best 1968 set, I went through 1800 mint sets. Recently I took my two most utter PQ MS66RD 1968-P lincolns and cracked them to try for an upgrade. Now these were the top of the over 100 MS66RD 68-P's that I previously had graded. What do you suppose they came back as? You guessed it MS65RD.

They can't be consistent enough if shot 68 coins come back 65.
What is part of the problem is that eyes need to be calibrated as submissions change. It's one thing for the TPG to look at 100 identical type of coins and pull out the best for high grades. The large group calibrates their eyes. This is why I say there is some benefit to sending in set-up coins of the same type to help calibrate the graders for the nicer coins to follow. If you have a single coin submission of a great coin what do you compare it to? Hence the MS65 grade rather than a 67/68 example.

PCGS has always been tough on copper. In the late 1980's dealers had a field day taking PQ MS PCGS copper and getting it upgraded at NGC. I did quite well with PCGS MS64 large cents and 2 cent pieces and then sending them off to NGC and getting 65's. It was widely known that PCGS was much tougher on copper, esp on larger coins.

Ownership of a coin is indeed worth a point of plastic but not because you or I own it and think it's nicer. That point shows up when big submitters or auction houses send in coins to be graded. That extra prestige "pull" is often worth an extra grading point.
It's not just because they send in more coins that they seem to get more gifts. Their percentages run higher due to better skills but also better pull.

At one time I was split 50-50 with a major crack out dealer on a PCGS MS64++ seated half. I didn't have all the cash to buy the coin at the time so I split it. And having a 2nd opinion wasn't a bad thing either. It was cracked out and submitted to NGC. Upon getting a 64 he complained in person and then received an MS65. Considering that raised the value of the coin by about $6K, I was quite happy with this result. That was 19 years ago though. Things might be different today. Alll I know is that I as a minor submittor didn't have the mojo then or now, to get a grade reversed.

roadrunner