Accuracy of attributions by the grading services
MrHalfDime
Posts: 3,440 ✭✭✭✭
There has been some discussion on the forum recently regarding the preponderance of inaccuracies in attributions by the various grading services, and the potential problems this may cause for sellers, buyers, and auction houses. Numerous examples have been presented, by myself, Barndog and others, demonstrating the somewhat deplorable record of many of the TPGs in attributing the early Federal coinage. These incorrectly attributed examples were presented not to show off our respective attribution skills, but rather, to call the attention of the collecting and buying public to this epidemic problem, and to sound the alarm: that all collectors should learn to attribute for themselves, and not rely on the TPGs attribution skills.
With this in mind, I was intrigued to see the following Capped Bust half dime listed on Teletrade for their upcoming auction #2443, on October 31, as lot #1298:
http://www.teletrade.com/coins/lot.asp?auction=2443&lot=1298&imagetype=j2
This is an 1830 half dime, in VF-25 grade. ICG (Independent Coin Grading) attributed this half dime as the LM-9.2 marriage using the numbering system from the Logan/McCloskey "Federal Half Dimes 1792-1837" (the former V5b under the Valentine numbering system), designating not only the marriage (LM-9), but also the remarriage (LM-9.2), and they even listed the die pair (Obverse die 5, and Reverse die L). I have never seen this degree of specificity by any TPG before, nor this amount of information spelled out on the insert. Now that is the way attributions should be done, right?
Well, only if you get it right. It turns out that the coin is actually the LM-13/V2! To be sure, both marriages share the same obverse die (OBV 5), but the reverse dies are quite different. For the supposed LM-9.2, a late die state, or second remarriage, the upper loops of both S in STATES would be filled, yet they are not on this coin. This reverse die plainly has the bases of MERI all touching, a diagnostoc for the Reverse M, but this was completely missed. There are several other differences spelled out in detail in the L/M book that any attributor of this coin should have identified, but they were completely missed.
I don't mean to nitpick, but if a TPG is going to stick their necks out and place an attribution on their holder, particularly with this degree of specificity, they should at least get it right. In this case, the incorrect attribution listed by ICG is an R4, and the correct attribution is an R3, so there was no substantial difference in value due to the rarity, but it points out once again that collectors should learn to attribute for themselves, and not rely on others for this important information. Look at the coin, and not the label.
With this in mind, I was intrigued to see the following Capped Bust half dime listed on Teletrade for their upcoming auction #2443, on October 31, as lot #1298:
http://www.teletrade.com/coins/lot.asp?auction=2443&lot=1298&imagetype=j2
This is an 1830 half dime, in VF-25 grade. ICG (Independent Coin Grading) attributed this half dime as the LM-9.2 marriage using the numbering system from the Logan/McCloskey "Federal Half Dimes 1792-1837" (the former V5b under the Valentine numbering system), designating not only the marriage (LM-9), but also the remarriage (LM-9.2), and they even listed the die pair (Obverse die 5, and Reverse die L). I have never seen this degree of specificity by any TPG before, nor this amount of information spelled out on the insert. Now that is the way attributions should be done, right?
Well, only if you get it right. It turns out that the coin is actually the LM-13/V2! To be sure, both marriages share the same obverse die (OBV 5), but the reverse dies are quite different. For the supposed LM-9.2, a late die state, or second remarriage, the upper loops of both S in STATES would be filled, yet they are not on this coin. This reverse die plainly has the bases of MERI all touching, a diagnostoc for the Reverse M, but this was completely missed. There are several other differences spelled out in detail in the L/M book that any attributor of this coin should have identified, but they were completely missed.
I don't mean to nitpick, but if a TPG is going to stick their necks out and place an attribution on their holder, particularly with this degree of specificity, they should at least get it right. In this case, the incorrect attribution listed by ICG is an R4, and the correct attribution is an R3, so there was no substantial difference in value due to the rarity, but it points out once again that collectors should learn to attribute for themselves, and not rely on others for this important information. Look at the coin, and not the label.
They that can give up essential Liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither Liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin
0
Comments
Well of course you do. And you should. As you so eloquently point out, it's very important to get attributions correct.
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
I can understand your position, and perhaps empathise with your apparent inability to understand some of the finer details of the L/M book. But given your self-professed "newbie" status, you would not likely apply for a job with one of the TPGs as an attributor. My only point is that someone is filling that job description at each or most of the grading services, and they are doing a deplorable job. If they cannot get it right, they should not be rendering attributions .... period.
Now as to your specific problems in understanding the structure and format of the Logan/McCloskey attribution system, I feel that, with time and more experience, you will be attributing half dimes like the best of them.
I am troubled by a few of your comments, however, in which you say things like:
"I have read the Logan book numerous times, {but} I still do not inderstand ... when one {would} use the follwoing term "second use of reverse DD, what is DD ?
Comments like this strongly suggest that you have not fully read the book, at least not thoroughly and for understanding. Read once again the information starting on page 57, paying particular attention to pages 57, 60, and 65, and see if it does not become clearer to you.
Incidentally, "DD" refers to a specific reverse die, designated as "Reverse Die DD". The obverse dies are numbered, and the reverse dies are lettered in order to differentiate them. The numbering of obverse dies (1,2,3, etc.) begins anew for each year, as the dies are dated, and thus an 1829 Obverse Die 3 cannot be confused with an 1832 Obverse Die 3. For the reverse dies, there is no date, so the lettering sequence runs from 1829 through 1837; when we ran out of letters, we simply used two letters to designate an individual die.
Professionals (people at TPGs who get paid to properly attribute coins) should be right all the time. If they have doubt, they should consult an expert. If ICG or NGC or any other TPG says a certain half dime is an LM-X, collectors should be able to take it as fact. Grading is subjective, but attributing capped bust half dimes is not.
<< <i>then why are TPG graders considered experts if they make mistakes
like this so often? >>
perhaps they are "expert graders" and not expert at attribution?
As Barndog suggests, the answer to your question lay right before your eyes, and in your own words. They may be expert graders, but they are decidedly not expert attributors.
If a TPG elects to provide "expert" attributions for their submitters, they should hire an expert attributor to do those attributions. This person should have a solid background in early Federal coinage, and should demonstrate expertise in properly attributing coins to their respective reference books. Most TPGs already charge an additional fee for this service to help defray the additional cost. Perhaps they should even have 'finalizers', who would confirm the attributions before they went out.
Of course, this all seems a bit silly to me. Anyone who seriously collects any early series for which die marriages can be attributed, they typically want to do their own attributions themselves, anyway. I do not know even one serious collector of early copper, silver or gold who relies on a third party to do their attributions. Perhaps this is a service more appropriate for dealers, who either can't or won't do their own attributions, yet live in fear of being cherrypicked. And for them I offer the very same advice - learn to attribute for yourselves.
ICG charges $5
ANACS charges $5-$10 (if they verify what you claim, it's five bucks; if they have to do more research because you were wrong or didn't know, they add another five bucks to the charge)
NGC charges $7
PCGS charges $15
I've not yet seen an attribution error on a PCGS-encapsulated capped bust half dime. I've also not yet seen a PCGS-encapsulated bust half dime with a die marriage or remarriage attribution on the label.
<< <i>ANACS charges $5-$10 (if they verify what you claim, it's five bucks; if they have to do more research because you were wrong or didn't know, they add another five bucks to the charge) >>
I know it says this on the ANACs form but they never do it that way. If I pay the $5 for verification and am not correct they either do not list any variety or the list something general like DDO but I've never had them charge the extra $5 and tell me what variety it was. Maybe the do it differently if you used a credit card. I've also had many where they list something general and say on the form "we could not verify that variety".
Do they let the submitter make a suggestion/guess as to the attribution and then they simply "approve" that or do they actually have someone go through the attribution guide?
<< <i>I have often wondered how TPGs come to their attribution determination.
Do they let the submitter make a suggestion/guess as to the attribution and then they simply "approve" that or do they actually have someone go through the attribution guide? >>
or does someone throw a dart?
<< <i>there you go getting a decent thread poofed
My thoughts exactly. The countdown has begun.
but you may want to read the title of this thread and wonder why
it is alright to be critical of one aspect of a tpg and not another.
Variety attribution is hard...and can take a lot of time. We have two main guys...Mike Farone, who pretty much can do it all, and he specializes in VAMs. And Gordon Wrubel, who a long time (40 years now) early copper expert.
We do our best and back up our mistakes with cash.
hrh
We do our best and back up our mistakes with cash."
And without looking to be kissing up to our host, it would appear that PCGS gets it right significantly more often than their competition. Frankly, the majority of the missed attributions that I have seen have been with ANACS, ICG, SEGS and NGC, in that order.
<< <i>Variety attribution is hard...and can take a lot of time. We have two main guys...Mike Farone, who pretty much can do it all, and he specializes in VAMs. And Gordon Wrubel, who a long time (40 years now) early copper expert.
We do our best and back up our mistakes with cash.
hrh >>
which is better than NGC, who backs up their mistakes with unreturned phone calls.
This is one reason that I am generally hesitant to bother certifying world (specifically GB Bronze & Copper) coins..... I have seen too many errors, to place much faith in their listed attribution without seeing the coin for myself.....
ANACS has gotten a lot worse lately IMO. For example, I sent in an 1847/6 half and an 1849 Dramatically Doubled Date half, both already attributed. They came back attributed as "1847 RPD" and "1849 RPD". Not what I was looking for, obviously.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
http://www.shieldnickels.net
Hoard the keys.
Alan
<< <i>Variety attribution is hard...and can take a lot of time. We have two main guys...Mike Farone, who pretty much can do it all, and he specializes in VAMs. And Gordon Wrubel, who a long time (40 years now) early copper expert.
We do our best and back up our mistakes with cash.
hrh >>
I'll vouch for Mike Faraone being good at attributing VAMs, going back to when he was with ANACS. Attributing VAMs for PCGS is probably easier, since they've chosen only varieties with extensive research to back them up. John Roberts at ANACS and Larry Briggs at SEGS can also be trusted with VAM attributions. Brian Raines, who is doing the "signature series" attributions for PCI is also good, but I don't know how much volume he has. As for NGC, well, at the Milwaukee ANA show Larry Briggs showed me an 1878-S Morgan (one of his specialties) with a reverse of '79. It was a circulated counterfeit with correct weight and specific gravity. I offered to run it over to the NGC table for an opinion. All the VAM guys within earshot knew exactly what I meant, as none of us trust their attributions.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
Great thread.
Here is an example of this....
IF I asked 3 forum members (Mr. HD, Barndog, and Cladiator) who have a excellent knowledge of capped bust half dimes to GRADE the following coin; I would likely get answers that were within a narrow range but likely different. If I asked the same group to ATTRIBUTE the following coin... they would all 3 attribute it exactly the same.
<< <i>Nice half dime richardshipp. Without having my reference materials with me at work the best I do is hazard a guess. Sure looks like an 1830 LM9.1 to me. >>
I'll call it an F15.
<< <i>Hey BD and Mr.HD shall we further prove richardshipps statment by going for the grade now?
I'll call it an F15. >>
MrH10C is old school, I'm guessing he nets it to VG
<< <i>Variety attribution is hard...and can take a lot of time. We have two main guys...Mike Farone, who pretty much can do it all, and he specializes in VAMs. And Gordon Wrubel, who a long time (40 years now) early copper expert.
We do our best and back up our mistakes with cash.
hrh >>
I'm going to be sending in 6 NGC graded Capped Bust Halves to PCGS for crossover.
Is it a good idea to spend the extra $15 for the variety attribution grade??
Wow, even Mr. Hall says this is a difficult service.
Opinions will be most welcomed.
<< <i>
I'm going to be sending in 6 NGC graded Capped Bust Halves to PCGS for crossover.
Is it a good idea to spend the extra $15 for the variety attribution grade??
Wow, even Mr. Hall says this is a difficult service.
Opinions will be most welcomed. >>
not worth it imo but, it also depends on what variety.
and if you spend more than 10 seconds glancing at a coin before slabbing, most seasoned collectors who specialize in a particular series can nail a variety pretty quick.
maybe someone should start sticking slabs if the attribution is correct and ''solid.''
attributiflation really sucks the donkey.