Why are so many problematic key-date coin in TPG holders? (answer inside)

GoldenEyeNumismatics

I've heard people ask "how come coin xyz got holdered, even though its obviously been cleaned, and coin abc got badybagged just for a small patch of hairlines?" Let's set the record straight.

I think everyone can agree that key-date coins (such as the 16-D merc, 01-S Barber quarter, 93-S and 89-CC Morgan) attract much more attention than the more common stuff. And what will people shopping for a key date see? The holder that the key-date coin is in. Among other things, it's free advertising. It's like saying "we're so good that everyone wants to send their really valuable stuff to us."

Because of this, grading companies naturally want to get key date coins into THEIR holders. And in order to do that, they sometimes have to bend the rules of grading a little bit.

At this point in time, really the only rules being "bent" really only pertain to cleaning and overdipping (the companies will be MUCH, MUCH more loose about cleaning and diping while grading keys). Holed/plugged, whizzed, AT, etc still won't go through.

thanks

intocoins

I'd think it would be the other way around. TPG sees a cleaned key date coin and says this coin is going to be looked at more so than a common date coin so lets make sure we get it right. However , If you only slabbed problem free non-cleaned coins many late 18th century and early 19th century coins would be raw until tpg xyz slabbed them creating a buzz for themselves. I don't see what the big deal is in putting on the label lightly cleaned , harsly cleaned , etc...

Zoins

<< <i>Holed/plugged, whizzed, AT, etc still won't go through. >>

At least one of those is often debated, sometimes hotly.

Zoins

<< <i>I don't see what the big deal is in putting on the label lightly cleaned , harsly cleaned , etc... >>

It's a huge deal because the person getting it slabbed wants to sell it and having that text will alert people to the problems. One of the reasons to net grade a problem coin is that when it comes to sell, the highest bidders may not be aware of the problem(s). Sellers want this because it will generally generate more returns for them.

MidLifeCrisis

This is an interesting debate and I agree with most of what GoldenEyeNumismatics said...but there's another point that should be made.

Key date coins such as the 16-D merc, 01-S Barber quarter, 93-S and 89-CC Morgan are key dates within their respective series. But problem free examples of these key dates are readily available in the marketplace.

However, with super rarities - coins with only a few examples known, say 20 or less - I think bending the rules of grading is justified. Grading is just a matter of opinion after all. And what you're really doing is comparing one example of a super rarity to the other known examples.

GoldenEyeNumismatics

<< <i>

However, with super rarities - coins with only a few examples known, say 20 or less - I think bending the rules of grading is justified. Grading is just a matter of opinion after all. And what you're really doing is comparing one example of a super rarity to the other known examples. >>



I agree with you. Keys are on thing, legendary coins are another. For example, if someone wanted to get the 70-S $3 gold in a holder, I'm sure PCGS would slab it . It's just a matter of getting the coin in THEIR holder.

DUIGUY

once vf, now ?




once au, now?

Doogy

<< <i>I've heard people ask "how come coin xyz got holdered, even though its obviously been cleaned, and coin abc got badybagged just for a small patch of hairlines?" Let's set the record straight.

I think everyone can agree that key-date coins (such as the 16-D merc, 01-S Barber quarter, 93-S and 89-CC Morgan) attract much more attention than the more common stuff. And what will people shopping for a key date see? The holder that the key-date coin is in. Among other things, it's free advertising. It's like saying "we're so good that everyone wants to send their really valuable stuff to us."

Because of this, grading companies naturally want to get key date coins into THEIR holders. And in order to do that, they sometimes have to bend the rules of grading a little bit.

At this point in time, really the only rules being "bent" really only pertain to cleaning and overdipping (the companies will be MUCH, MUCH more loose about cleaning and diping while grading keys). Holed/plugged, whizzed, AT, etc still won't go through.

thanks >>



the "free advertising" you speak of really says to the market: "hey, send us your moderns, "widgets" and other common stuff and we'll be strict as heck with it....but you deep pocketed collectors, send us your rare key dates and we'll bend over backwards to ensure you're happy!" they indeed know what will be talked about; not the average collector with the handful of nice looking, but problem free and strictly graded MS65 Morgans, but the rare coin with obvious problems that were overlooked to beef up pop reports and make news in the coin publications.

I'd also add AT to the list of things that they will overlook in the effort to coin the coin in their holders.

Joflax

Look at another thread on the 1909 s vdb ms67, If I had submitted that coin it would have been BBed for cleaning.

PerryHall

Key dates should not get special treatment. All coins within a series should be graded using the same criteria. To do otherwise is dishonest.

Doogy

<< <i>Key dates should not get special treatment. All coins within a series should be graded using the same criteria. To do otherwise is dishonest. >>




I agree

ricko

<< Key dates should not get special treatment. All coins within a series should be graded using the same criteria. To do otherwise is dishonest. >>

I agree... Cheers, RickO

Newcomp103

<< <i><< Key dates should not get special treatment. All coins within a series should be graded using the same criteria. To do otherwise is dishonest. >>

I agree... Cheers, RickO >>




both!

STONE

Though I used to think that way for several years, it wasn't until I sent in a bunch of key dates that had at best very minor problems (i.e. ex. light cleaning (supposedly), or tiny rim ding) and they came back bagged. The 4 examples you listed, I had sent in, along with several others, and about 1/3 came back in bags, despite the fact that the highest graded coin would only grade F/VF. The 4 you listed, that I sent in, came back in bags.

Therefore, I can't agree with this assessment.

Zoins

TPGs may want rare coins in their holders even if they exhibit problems for promotion purposes.

This often works because many of those end up on these boards for discussion, generating promotion.

Mowgli

This is why I use ANACS when submitting a rare coin that might have problems. A lot of rare coins have been messed with but knowing it is genuine is more important than caring about a "cleaned" label. In some series knowing it is business strike rather than a proof is more important than an "AT or cleaned" label. I wish PCGS and NGC would label rare coins and note their problems. For every collector out there who has to have a no-problem coin, I'm sure that there are others willing to compromise if they know what they are buying and the price takes the problems into account. That being said, I do not think there should ever be anything called "market grading". All coin need to be graded the same. No one is going to turn down an 1838-O because it has hairlines.

Zoins

<< <i>That being said, I do not think there should ever be anything called "market grading". All coin need to be graded the same. >>

I don't normally associate market grading with net graded problem coins but I guess it could be an issue there as well. The issue of problem coins is generally "market acceptability" and net grading (vs. details grading) issue. If they arrive at a net grade and then adjust the grade based on what the market would price it at then it would be net graded and market graded.

I'd prefer PCGS use details grading instead of net grading for problem coins. I also prefer technical grading over marketing grading.

Doogy

<< <i> . If they arrive at a net grade and then adjust the grade based on what the market would price it at then it would be net graded and market graded.

. I also prefer technical grading over marketing grading. >>




this is where the slippery slope of a publicly traded grading company began.........they shouldn't be assessing what a coin would bring at auction, and deciding a net grade based upon that; it is really none of their business what our coins are worth. They are being paid to produce a grade, not "make" the market. the coins grade and any problems are clear enough to the grader; grade the coin for what it deserves, not matter the rare (or common) nature of it, and whether or not the respective TPG would like to have it in their holder. having a whole host of rare coins in one's holders is good for publicity, but having 20% (just throwing a number out there for an example) of these with mild or moderate problems, only cheapens their credibility for the long term. I say grade these coins in a strict technical sense, and if is a true US or world rarity and it has a small problem, not the net grade and the problem on the slab; there will still be PLENTY of collectors that would love to have these coins.