Options
The results of my little Jefferson Nickel Project.
keets
Posts: 25,351 ✭✭✭✭✭
As the direct result of some dissappointing submission results and the growing frustration of what I've seen and heard concerning grading by the major services, including our host, I took it upon myself to attempt a little test with a small group of Jefferson Nickels. My concern wasn't about high grades or top-pop coins. Rather, I tried to select coins for specific reasons and dates which I felt I had an understanding of with regard to the strike quality and other subtle nuances about the series. Also, eight of the ten coins used for the Project were cracked from top tier holders for the submission so there was a certain idea about the quality/grade of most of the coins. I will add that I was careful to use coins with no problems and felt confident about each in terms of what grade should be assigned.
To begin I started a thread a few months ago asking for some members who might be intersted in helping out with the Project, members who felt they were proficient in grading the Proof issues of the series. While I already had a "short list" of candidates I thought it fair to invite participation from others I may have overlooked. In the end I settled on ten forum members, prepared the routing for the packaged coins and set things in motion. Each of the ten Proof Jefferson Nickels were placed inside of a KoinTain, a 2x2 SaFlip and then another 2.5x2.5 Saflip to prevent any possible damage. Each "Grader" only knew who they were sending the coins to and who had sent them the coins. I kept all information in an Excel file and simply averaged, that's the reason for ten coins and ten graders, it made things simple.
After the coins had made their way around the country I took some pictures and posted this thread to get some additional input from the forum membership albeit from pictures instead of the coins in-hand. Then it was off to PCGS. The coins returend on Friday, July 27th so I took some pictures of each one in the new holder and thought I'd post the results with some commentary.
Below are the coins in the order they were presented to the member graders and the PCGS graders. My highlighted assessment was sent via PM to another forum member, he can verify that if it's necessary. I have strived to keep the identities anonymous of the members who helped and won't be referring to any specific persons grades, only the averages from all ten.
#1. 1941, cracked from an NGC PF66 holder. I thought this coin was a solid PF66 when I bought it, with a nice "look" for a 1941 which is a very underrated date and one of my favorites. There are some scattered hairlines from the Mint packaging, but the strike is crisp with few marks overall, the mirrors are very reflective giving the coin a Cameo appearance and there's a blue-pink tone. The 1941 Proofs are plagued by die polish on Jefferson's shoulder near the rim; this coin shows very little. I feel it should grade PR66 and will at PCGS.
The ten members graded this coin PR64.
#2. 1953, cracked from a new ANACS PF67CAM holder. This coin was too cheap to pass!!! It had some haze so I rinsed it and the mirrors are amazingly deep, especially on the obverse. The coin has a great, great strike and moderate frost on both sides which should carry the designation, even at PCGS. I see it as correctly graded by ANACS as PR67CAM but feel it will no CAM at PCGS.
The ten members graded this coin PR67.
#3. 1954, cracked from an NGC PF68CAM holder submitted to PCGS and cracked from their PR67CAM holder. This one is a beautiful coin but 1954 is when Jefferson Proofs become "easy" for two years!! I originally cracked it out of the NGC holder because I thought it would grade Deep Cameo and was dissappointed that it actually went down a point. Aside from some typical die polish on the obverse portrait and an unstruck planchet flaw on the reverse(step six, pillar three) the coin is flawless, the frost is solid and the mirrors are deep....deep....deep. I have a 1954 DCAM and this coin compares favorably to that. I grade it PR67DCAM but think PCGS will hold it at CAM.
The ten members graded this coin PR66CAM.
#4. 1956, raw from a Capital Plastic Set. I selected this coin purely for its color, typical concentric blue/gold/brown/pink from time in the Capital holder but not really thick enough to haze up the fields. My experience in putting together a toned set tells me that PCGS doesn't appreciate toned Proofs and tends to draw the line at PR66. This coin is struck a bit weak, missing parts of step six but has no hairlines or other marks. I feel it should grade PR66 and figure it will at PCGS.
The ten members graded this coin PR66.
#5. 1959, cracked from a PCGS PR68CAM holder. This is another very tough date for CAM/DCAM in the series. Although packaging changed during 1955 which eliminated the hairline problem, the production had been steadily increasing and the Master Dies needed to be reworked prior to 1960. All dates from 1956-1959 are very scarce in Cameo grades and even scarcer to the point or ultra-rare in true Deep Cameo grades. This coin has moderate frost, a very good strike, no marks but the mirrors aren't watery. Despite some haze I still see it as a PR68CAM but think PCGS will grade it a point lower.
The ten forum members graded this coin PR67.
#6. 1963, cracked from an NGC PF69UCAM holder. Not much to say about this coin, it's a Gem. If I'm really critical the sixth step is a bit weak and I can look real hard and find a couple hairlines scattered in the reverse lettering, but the deep, deep obverse frost and only slightly weaker reverse frost coupled with the watery mirrors more than make up for that. I grade it as PR69DCAM but feel PCGS may balk a point lower due to the difference in frost.
The ten forum members graded this coin PR67CAM.
#7. 1968, submitted raw and cracked from a PCGS PR67DCAM holder. This coin is what could be called a "Moose" compared to perhaps any date in the series!!!! No hairlines, no haze, no contacts, a super strike, watery mirrors and deeeeeeeeeeep frost!!!! I'm not sure if you can make it out in the pictures, but what looks like spots above and below the Monticello is actually frost. What the graders saw the first time through is a mystery to me. I grade it PR69DCAM but I really don't expect the grade, probably a point lower.
The ten forum members graded this coin PR67DCAM.
#8. 1970, submitted raw and cracked from a PCGS PR67DCAM holder. I thought it would be good for the graders to look at this coin along with next same date in the same submission. This one is a no doubt DCAM with thick frost but the mirrors are a bit cloudy at the rims and there are some hairlines, an apparent problem that seems to have developed during this year after being a "non-issue" for a decade. I felt this was a PR68DCAM the first time and still do, but I don't expect the graders to agree.
The ten members graded this coin PR67CAM.
#9. 1970, submitted raw and cracked from an NGC PF68UCAM holder. Well, heavier frost, watery clear mirrors and a hairline in front of the nose.....................I see this as a PR69DCAM market graded at a point lower by PCGS, and I will stop there(the coin glows)!!
The ten members graded this coin PR67CAM.
#10. 1971, raw from an intact Proof Set. This is another very difficult date that begs for perfection to get the top grade. It's a no-doubt Deep Cameo coin but the reverse mirrors show some flowlines, there's a few hairlines and what appears to be a die gouge in the Monticello. The adds up to PR68DCAM to me but PCGS seems to like 67DCAM so that's what I expect.
The ten members graded this coin PR67DCAM.
I'm a little disturbed by the fact that PCGS tended to not only disagree with the grade assessments of NGC and ANACS on these coins, but in all but one instance they couldn't even agree with themselves!!! As a group, though, I would say that we've sort of come to expect that and write it off as the "subjective nature" of coin grading. The strange twist here is that the lone 1968 coin that PCGS graded the same was first graded about 4-5 months ago, so perhaps it's all about time and the changing standards of grading. For myself, I have about grown tired to the point of becoming a non-submitter. I have looked at enough coins that I feel confident about what quality is and this tiresome "game" of market grading and value assigning is starting to wear away at my enjoyment of the hobby.
Below are my conclusions and opinions borne not out of just this Project but from the past 5-7 years of trying to submit to PCGS the best Proof Jefferson Nickels I can find, both raw and in competitors holders.
1. There seems to be a definite "look" that PCGS requires with Jefferson Nickels. If a coin lacks this "look" its grade will suffer.
2. For whatever reason, PCGS tends to grade toned Jefferson Nickels no higher than PR66.
3. There seems to be little confusion about the Cameo and Deep Cameo requirements although PCGS remains very strict in assigning Deep Cameo to any date prior to 1960.
4. Certain characteristics which are date specific seem to be overlooked.
5. Some dates would appear to have the "line drawn in the sand" regrading what the best coins submitted may receive. My thought is that this is market grading where the values are assigned instead of just grading the coins.
6. Among collectors, there seems to be even less agreement about grade than with the graders!!! I was surprised at the range of grades assigned by the ten members who helped out and especially by the confusion that seemed clearly apparent when considering whether a coin was Cameo or Deep Cameo.
Al H.
To begin I started a thread a few months ago asking for some members who might be intersted in helping out with the Project, members who felt they were proficient in grading the Proof issues of the series. While I already had a "short list" of candidates I thought it fair to invite participation from others I may have overlooked. In the end I settled on ten forum members, prepared the routing for the packaged coins and set things in motion. Each of the ten Proof Jefferson Nickels were placed inside of a KoinTain, a 2x2 SaFlip and then another 2.5x2.5 Saflip to prevent any possible damage. Each "Grader" only knew who they were sending the coins to and who had sent them the coins. I kept all information in an Excel file and simply averaged, that's the reason for ten coins and ten graders, it made things simple.
After the coins had made their way around the country I took some pictures and posted this thread to get some additional input from the forum membership albeit from pictures instead of the coins in-hand. Then it was off to PCGS. The coins returend on Friday, July 27th so I took some pictures of each one in the new holder and thought I'd post the results with some commentary.
Below are the coins in the order they were presented to the member graders and the PCGS graders. My highlighted assessment was sent via PM to another forum member, he can verify that if it's necessary. I have strived to keep the identities anonymous of the members who helped and won't be referring to any specific persons grades, only the averages from all ten.
#1. 1941, cracked from an NGC PF66 holder. I thought this coin was a solid PF66 when I bought it, with a nice "look" for a 1941 which is a very underrated date and one of my favorites. There are some scattered hairlines from the Mint packaging, but the strike is crisp with few marks overall, the mirrors are very reflective giving the coin a Cameo appearance and there's a blue-pink tone. The 1941 Proofs are plagued by die polish on Jefferson's shoulder near the rim; this coin shows very little. I feel it should grade PR66 and will at PCGS.
The ten members graded this coin PR64.
#2. 1953, cracked from a new ANACS PF67CAM holder. This coin was too cheap to pass!!! It had some haze so I rinsed it and the mirrors are amazingly deep, especially on the obverse. The coin has a great, great strike and moderate frost on both sides which should carry the designation, even at PCGS. I see it as correctly graded by ANACS as PR67CAM but feel it will no CAM at PCGS.
The ten members graded this coin PR67.
#3. 1954, cracked from an NGC PF68CAM holder submitted to PCGS and cracked from their PR67CAM holder. This one is a beautiful coin but 1954 is when Jefferson Proofs become "easy" for two years!! I originally cracked it out of the NGC holder because I thought it would grade Deep Cameo and was dissappointed that it actually went down a point. Aside from some typical die polish on the obverse portrait and an unstruck planchet flaw on the reverse(step six, pillar three) the coin is flawless, the frost is solid and the mirrors are deep....deep....deep. I have a 1954 DCAM and this coin compares favorably to that. I grade it PR67DCAM but think PCGS will hold it at CAM.
The ten members graded this coin PR66CAM.
#4. 1956, raw from a Capital Plastic Set. I selected this coin purely for its color, typical concentric blue/gold/brown/pink from time in the Capital holder but not really thick enough to haze up the fields. My experience in putting together a toned set tells me that PCGS doesn't appreciate toned Proofs and tends to draw the line at PR66. This coin is struck a bit weak, missing parts of step six but has no hairlines or other marks. I feel it should grade PR66 and figure it will at PCGS.
The ten members graded this coin PR66.
#5. 1959, cracked from a PCGS PR68CAM holder. This is another very tough date for CAM/DCAM in the series. Although packaging changed during 1955 which eliminated the hairline problem, the production had been steadily increasing and the Master Dies needed to be reworked prior to 1960. All dates from 1956-1959 are very scarce in Cameo grades and even scarcer to the point or ultra-rare in true Deep Cameo grades. This coin has moderate frost, a very good strike, no marks but the mirrors aren't watery. Despite some haze I still see it as a PR68CAM but think PCGS will grade it a point lower.
The ten forum members graded this coin PR67.
#6. 1963, cracked from an NGC PF69UCAM holder. Not much to say about this coin, it's a Gem. If I'm really critical the sixth step is a bit weak and I can look real hard and find a couple hairlines scattered in the reverse lettering, but the deep, deep obverse frost and only slightly weaker reverse frost coupled with the watery mirrors more than make up for that. I grade it as PR69DCAM but feel PCGS may balk a point lower due to the difference in frost.
The ten forum members graded this coin PR67CAM.
#7. 1968, submitted raw and cracked from a PCGS PR67DCAM holder. This coin is what could be called a "Moose" compared to perhaps any date in the series!!!! No hairlines, no haze, no contacts, a super strike, watery mirrors and deeeeeeeeeeep frost!!!! I'm not sure if you can make it out in the pictures, but what looks like spots above and below the Monticello is actually frost. What the graders saw the first time through is a mystery to me. I grade it PR69DCAM but I really don't expect the grade, probably a point lower.
The ten forum members graded this coin PR67DCAM.
#8. 1970, submitted raw and cracked from a PCGS PR67DCAM holder. I thought it would be good for the graders to look at this coin along with next same date in the same submission. This one is a no doubt DCAM with thick frost but the mirrors are a bit cloudy at the rims and there are some hairlines, an apparent problem that seems to have developed during this year after being a "non-issue" for a decade. I felt this was a PR68DCAM the first time and still do, but I don't expect the graders to agree.
The ten members graded this coin PR67CAM.
#9. 1970, submitted raw and cracked from an NGC PF68UCAM holder. Well, heavier frost, watery clear mirrors and a hairline in front of the nose.....................I see this as a PR69DCAM market graded at a point lower by PCGS, and I will stop there(the coin glows)!!
The ten members graded this coin PR67CAM.
#10. 1971, raw from an intact Proof Set. This is another very difficult date that begs for perfection to get the top grade. It's a no-doubt Deep Cameo coin but the reverse mirrors show some flowlines, there's a few hairlines and what appears to be a die gouge in the Monticello. The adds up to PR68DCAM to me but PCGS seems to like 67DCAM so that's what I expect.
The ten members graded this coin PR67DCAM.
I'm a little disturbed by the fact that PCGS tended to not only disagree with the grade assessments of NGC and ANACS on these coins, but in all but one instance they couldn't even agree with themselves!!! As a group, though, I would say that we've sort of come to expect that and write it off as the "subjective nature" of coin grading. The strange twist here is that the lone 1968 coin that PCGS graded the same was first graded about 4-5 months ago, so perhaps it's all about time and the changing standards of grading. For myself, I have about grown tired to the point of becoming a non-submitter. I have looked at enough coins that I feel confident about what quality is and this tiresome "game" of market grading and value assigning is starting to wear away at my enjoyment of the hobby.
Below are my conclusions and opinions borne not out of just this Project but from the past 5-7 years of trying to submit to PCGS the best Proof Jefferson Nickels I can find, both raw and in competitors holders.
1. There seems to be a definite "look" that PCGS requires with Jefferson Nickels. If a coin lacks this "look" its grade will suffer.
2. For whatever reason, PCGS tends to grade toned Jefferson Nickels no higher than PR66.
3. There seems to be little confusion about the Cameo and Deep Cameo requirements although PCGS remains very strict in assigning Deep Cameo to any date prior to 1960.
4. Certain characteristics which are date specific seem to be overlooked.
5. Some dates would appear to have the "line drawn in the sand" regrading what the best coins submitted may receive. My thought is that this is market grading where the values are assigned instead of just grading the coins.
6. Among collectors, there seems to be even less agreement about grade than with the graders!!! I was surprised at the range of grades assigned by the ten members who helped out and especially by the confusion that seemed clearly apparent when considering whether a coin was Cameo or Deep Cameo.
Al H.
0
Comments
I don't know the series and so have little to nothing to add, except during the years I collected and assembled a Top 5 Registry Set of Proof Franklins, many of the issues and grading inconsistencies raised here, were also present in the Franklin series.
Great job!
Greg Hansen, Melbourne, FL Click here for any current EBAY auctions Multiple "Circle of Trust" transactions over 14 years on forum
well, the same as on a larger coin. Cameo is generally assigned when the frost covers the entire design elements and lettering with the fields being reflective/mirror-like. there may be weak spots in the frost where it's begun to wear from the dies or the mirrored fields may be somewhat cloudy, but the "Cameo" effect should be obvious. Deep Cameo is just a matter of intensity with no weakness in either the frost or the fields and usually the appearance is black-and-white with watery mirrors.
Nickel and Copper coins can sometimes be difficult to assess because of the color associated with those metals.
And what is this UCAM thing that NGC uses?
Ultra Cameo is simply the NGC counterpart to the PCGS Deep Cameo.
-Randy Newman
<< <i>That was quite a project, Keets, and very well done. I am not familiar with the series, but the results you have shown are a real eye-opener. Thanks for taking the time and effort to both conduct the "experiment" and share your findings. Extremely interesting and informative post. >>
I agree!! Extremely well done, Keets, and what an eye-opener!! Once again it points up the subjectivity of grading, and makes me feel very insecure about ever being able to "properly" grade, to the extent that I would not lose my shirt in grading fees and reduced value -- a very disappointing state. Thanks for the time (and expense) you and the other forum members went through.
My Registry Sets
This is great info for someone like myself who just began submitting this year.
Makes me think twice.
commoncents123, JrGMan2004, Coll3ctor (2), Dabigkahuna, BAJJERFAN, Boom, GRANDAM, newsman, cohodk, kklambo, seateddime, ajia, mirabela, Weather11am, keepdachange, gsa1fan, cone10
-------------------------
I conclude that you can guess, but not grade, from photos. (duh!)
Grading is subjective and therefore inconsistent. Grades from one service vary for a given coin. Grades vary even more when comparing different services. (duh!)
Stickers are silly. Is one company's 67 with a beenie equal to another's with a beenie? Without? A grade higher/lower? It is hard to form consensus on a single grade, forget about splitting grades, it can't be done consistently.
Do you feel that the nuances in quality that characterize the differences between grades 66-67 and say 67-68 are quite subtle though? How does one weigh varying factors?
Mark
One thought, "...so perhaps it's all about time and the changing standards of grading;" I think the change over time is in the actual graders.
<< <i>Thanks! I enjoyed getting to see those coins in hand. I only got one exactly the same as PCGS's current grades, but two others matched an earlier PCGS grade. I was off on that 1953 giving it a 68 plain. I missed the rest by exactly 1 point.
I conclude that you can guess, but not grade, from photos. (duh!)
Grading is subjective and therefore inconsistent. Grades from one service vary for a given coin. Grades vary even more when comparing different services. (duh!)
Stickers are silly. Is one company's 67 with a beenie equal to another's with a beenie? Without? A grade higher/lower? It is hard to form consensus on a single grade, forget about splitting grades, it can't be done consistently. >>
Same here. I got three spot on and I undergraded Pcgs on all the others.
I enjoyed grading the lot. Having viewed the coins in hand, I agree with PCGS +/- a point on all but the 53, which I liked as a 68. I stand by my assessment of the cameo designations. A grader once told me "if it's a $30 coin either way and you know what the submitter is shooting for, why not make a happy customer". Both 70's have weak reverses, and were gifted the designation, IMO. The 59 lacked mirror depth, and I'd be disappointed by the designation as a buyer sight unseen. The 71 has a light obverse, which is NEVER the weak side on a 71.
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
I remember in the late 80's and early 90's how most collectors and dealers I knew discussed the 11 point Unc/PR system, and many (most) of us felt that 1 point grading wouldn't work (or at least work consistantly). There were discussions from the more astute about how the pricing between grades would become an issue.
In many ways I think we were wrong, as the market and most participants have adapted to assigning that single point grade, and some can even do it with notable accuracy most of the time. More noteably, I think we have all tried to learn how to price that 1-point grade as well ... unless we walk blindly.
But I think in many ways we were right. This thread helps show that. Although the serious Jefferson collectors, as a group seemed to be in consensus on many of the coins, I am sure there are 1-point (or more) descrepancies in all of them from reasonably skilled graders. Obviously, there are discrepancies, this time, on these coins, between the services. And the pricing for 1-point changes in certain coins at certain levels can be amazing.
Once a coin is holdered with a grade from what we percieve as a reputable source, most tend to grade the coin with that bias. It is the reason a bean doesn't mean anything to me. The bean guys are "justifying" the grade as acceptable or not ... not regrading it blindly and then comparing notes. Many of us do much the same. It is very difficult not to unless the coin is raw with no known reputable grade attached.
Anyway, I'm rambling. Thanks again for all the work and sharing the results of your experiment!
“We are only their care-takers,” he posed, “if we take good care of them, then centuries from now they may still be here … ”
Todd - BHNC #242
well, Don, the above statement isn't true......................period.
i have the coins before me as i type and i can say that without a doubt both of the 1970's are solid with one being "more solid" than the other!!
as for the 1959, that is a very difficult date which is the primary reason i chose it for the group. coins from 1956-1959 just don't have the degree of frost as those before and after them even though the mirrors tend to be better. what makes the dates in that range hard for me to judge is the Mint Cello they come in, but i'm getting better at it. i can agree in part about your mirror depth assessment, but only in two isolated spots-----just to the left of the dome and at the extreme right end of the building, both on the reverse. the obverse is very, very clear and deep.
the 1971 doesn't seem to me any different than the two 1970's, having a solid DCAM obverse and reverse. the grade i can only assume was lowered due to a few die scratches and some polish throughout the hair. i guess we each see different thing, though.
Having been on the boards for awhile, paying attention to many of the coin posts, and having sent in a handful of coins myself, I know there is often a difference in the 2.....
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
Your PCGS numeric grades seem to be lower than expected all around. Why? Does PCGS have a corporate culture of extremely strict grading, then? There is a reason why PCGS coins in any particular numeric grade will sell for more than other TPGs. Could the perception of extremely strict grading, then, be that reason? It's sort of interesting that current grading practices might have an influence on the price of coins slabbed years ago. I assume that grading practices change over time.
It really sounds like a great deal of effort and cost on your part! Heck of a giveaway! Thanks! Everyone wins!
Michael Kittle Rare Coins --- 1908-S Indian Head Cent Grading Set --- No. 1 1909 Mint Set --- Kittlecoins on Facebook --- Long Beach Table 448
You also made a good point, one of the coins that matched it's old holder was only graded a few months ago. Being subjective is it not possible there is a different batch of graders? Seems like the border between a grade and the border between CAM/DCAM would change slightly with new graders.
Great research and commentary. Bravo!
It would appear from your results that PCGS tends to pretty consistently grade proof Jeffersons 1 point lower than NGC and ANACS do. In your opinion, does this indicate that PCGS is looking for something more, for something different, or that they are weighting some characteristics more heavily than the other services are? Do you have any thoughts about what these might be, beyond "the look" that a coin has?
As to the designations I agree with both Keets and Don. My notes here say I felt the '63 and the first '70 might miss due to weakly frosted reverses but I gave them both DCAM. Since Don liked the '53 as a 68 like I did I might give him the edge.
New collectors, please educate yourself before spending money on coins; there are people who believe that using numismatic knowledge to rip the naïve is what this hobby is all about.
Should be interesting and very informative with the Jefferson nickel series.
Thanks for your time and effort.
~Woody~
"Keep your malarkey filter in good operating order" -Walter Breen
1953, agree with ANACS PF67CAM but no cam- P66Cam O 100
1954, from a PCGS PR67CAM to a NGC PF68CAM, I grade it PR67DCAM-P66Cam O 65
1956 should grade PR66-P66 25
1959, solid PCGS PR68CAM-P67Cam O 75
1963, Solid NGC PF69UCAM-P67Dcam O 50
1968, submitted raw to a PCGS PR67DCAM –P67Dcam 27
1970, submitted raw and to a PCGS PR67DCAM- P68Dcam 50
1970, submitted raw to a NGC PF68UCAM holder, I see as a PR69DCAM-P66Dcam O 22
1971, raw from Set. thinking PR68DCAM, expecting 67DCAM-P66Dcam O 20
Summary 7 optimistic, 2 even and one upgrade. Total value: 575
Wow! I was almost "right on" with every one of them except the 1970 P68Dcam when I said they all looked the same without regards to the frost.
What's interesting is that the other judges were less optimistic then you. But I also believe that a submitter to PCGS must shoot for the stars with extreme examples to get any reasonable results.
And that's why I don't play much with plastic much. Because I've realized long ago that my finances and travels, my opportunities are far less then those who have the greater advantage in both parks.
But the strike with proofs plays just as an important role as it does with business strikes when determining it's eye appeal. It's not all about condition, frost and deep mirrors. I bet none of your constituents had thought of that aspect when grading proofs.
Leo
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
i assume the others were just assigning the grade they thought was accurate. that was what i was doing. in my highlighted comments i stated where i thought a coin should grade and only added what i thought PCGS would grade them based on past experience as a sarcastic afterthought in my PM. in reality, though, you make a valid point and i think sometimes when i submit coins i get to wandering what the grade will be instead of just knowing what i think it grades and submitting.
<< <i>Thanks! I enjoyed getting to see those coins in hand. I only got one exactly the same as PCGS's current grades, but two others matched an earlier PCGS grade. I was off on that 1953 giving it a 68 plain. I missed the rest by exactly 1 point.
I conclude that you can guess, but not grade, from photos. (duh!)
Grading is subjective and therefore inconsistent. Grades from one service vary for a given coin. Grades vary even more when comparing different services. (duh!)
Stickers are silly. Is one company's 67 with a beenie equal to another's with a beenie? Without? A grade higher/lower? It is hard to form consensus on a single grade, forget about splitting grades, it can't be done consistently. >>
I also enjoyed the opportunity to "grade" these coins and participate in the project. Its hard to remember these from when I last viewed them in March so thanks for posting the pictures as a reminder.
I think I did pretty well - nailed two and most of the others were within a point. I had some caveats on some of them as to how PCGS would react to spots, hairlines, etc. I also remember "grading" these in unfamiliar light without the benefit of any holdered coins for reference (I was on an extended vacation at the time).
One thing I learned is that I tended to be a bit more harsh than PCGS - so you all better hope I don't become a grader! Another thing I learned is that I was tougher on the dcam designation for the 1970's nickels. I guess I will revisit my box of raw pieces for more '70's dcams! But I will stand by my assessments of the cam and dcam designations. One question comes to mind - do the same graders grade all these coins? Or is there a different set of graders for the 1965 and later dates? I was much closer on the earlier dates.
It was a fun project and it helped me understand better where the lines for the cameo and deep cameo designations are currently at.
Hats off to you Al for organizing this.
“In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock." - Thomas Jefferson
My digital cameo album 1950-64 Cameos - take a look!
I was a point across the board higher than PCGS gave the coins on 7 out of 10; I was exact on the 41, 68S, and 1st 70S.... I had the CAM/DCAMs on 9 of the 10 coins, except for the 63, which I thought was a heavy Cameo, but a little too light for the DCAM grade.
I still don't understand why one of the 70S's graded 66DCAM when both looked exactly the same to me. I had both graded 68DCAM.
I'm a buyer of the 59 Keets! Let me know if you ever want to sell it.
I also learned alot about PCGS on this exercise. This exercise verified what I already believed. PCGS has been very strict on these over the last few years.
Steve
In memory of the USAF Security Forces lost: A1C Elizabeth N. Jacobson, 9/28/05; SSgt Brian McElroy, 1/22/06; TSgt Jason Norton, 1/22/06; A1C Lee Chavis, 10/14/06; SSgt John Self, 5/14/07; A1C Jason Nathan, 6/23/07; SSgt Travis Griffin, 4/3/08; 1Lt Joseph Helton, 9/8/09; SrA Nicholas J. Alden, 3/3/2011. God Bless them and all those who have lost loved ones in this war. I will never forget their loss.
it's important to consider that with a larger pool of graders it's possible for the average to be misleading. the grades for the 1956 are a case in point. they were as follows:
64
67
67
67
65
66
67
67
67
AT!!
that means that almost everyone overgraded compared to PCGS and were fooled by the fact that PCGS frowns on most toned Proof Jeffersons and tends to penalize the technical grade. at least that's what the past several years have told me. ironically, while some members thought certain other coins had a weak strike, they didn't seem to be bothered by the fact that this coin is missing almost the entire sixth step.
for me, the most surprising assessment from the group was the 1953; only one of the ten members thought the coin was Cameo!!! in the end i would have liked to have a larger pool of members involved, but the time constraint was a factor.
Jeff
Thanks for taking the time and effort to do and share the results
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
The Fireman...
Thanks for letting me participate....it was a lot of fun.
On your statement #5 about 'market grading', and drawing the line in the sand -- I tend to agree.
& more interesting would be to crack out and resubmit all back to PCGS BEFORE sending to NGC.
Thanks for your hard work and posting -- very interesting.
Moon`
Michael Kittle Rare Coins --- 1908-S Indian Head Cent Grading Set --- No. 1 1909 Mint Set --- Kittlecoins on Facebook --- Long Beach Table 448
I'd like to see the independent evidence of the above comments....unless, of course, the writer was being sarcastic.