"but there is some comfort in knowing my opinion is shared by others who know more about grading than I do." What does the Star have to do with the grade?
<< <i>"but there is some comfort in knowing my opinion is shared by others who know more about grading than I do." What does the Star have to do with the grade? >>
<< <i>It is true that the NGC star designation is subjective in nature. However, based on the many examples I have seen, far more times than not, they tend to be above average in terms of eye-appeal. Thus, given the choice of a star coin or a non-star coin on a sight-unseen basis, I would certainly much prefer the former. >>
"I confess - I don't always agree with or understand the awarding of star designations for superior eye-appeal.
I have seen a good number of star coins that did not look especially appealing and others, which I thought were great looking, failed to garner stars. It seems that the star designation is much like the rest of this hobby - subjective. " circa 2003
"but there is some comfort in knowing my opinion is shared by others who know more about grading than I do." What does the Star have to do with the grade?
It has nothing to do with the numical grade. It has something to do with where that coin ranks within its numerical grade. Similar to the CAC concept. CAC has nothing to do with the numerical grade, only where the coin ranks within that grade.
The comfort I was speaking of, pertained to those occasions when I have paid a premium for a starred coin. IMO the premium was justified because the coin was PQ for the grade. On some occasions the 'star' gave me a little extra comfort in paying that premium due to the fact that a superior grader had reviewed the coin and also concluded that it was PQ for the grade.
This is not a subtle point, but it will be lost on anyone who believes all coins of the same numerical grade should trade for the same price.
<< <i>"but there is some comfort in knowing my opinion is shared by others who know more about grading than I do." What does the Star have to do with the grade?
It has nothing to do with the numical grade. It has something to do with where that coin ranks within its numerical grade. Similar to the CAC concept. CAC has nothing to do with the numerical grade, only where the coin ranks within that grade.
The comfort I was speaking of, pertained to those occasions when I have paid a premium for a starred coin. IMO the premium was justified because the coin was PQ for the grade. On some occasions the 'star' gave me a little extra comfort in paying that premium due to the fact that a superior grader had reviewed the coin and also concluded that it was PQ for the grade.
This is not a subtle point, but it will be lost on anyone who believes all coins of the same numerical grade should trade for the same price. >>
Greg, do you equate superior eye-appeal (as represented by the NGC star) with "PQ"? I think a lot of people do, but I have always taken the "PQ" concept literally, so as to mean premium quality, or high end for the assigned grade.
<< <i> "but there is some comfort in knowing my opinion is shared by others who know more about grading than I do." What does the Star have to do with the grade? >>
<< <i>It has nothing to do with the numical grade. It has something to do with where that coin ranks within its numerical grade. Similar to the CAC concept. CAC has nothing to do with the numerical grade, only where the coin ranks within that grade. >>
It's long been understood the CAC was the alternate choice to a 100 point grading system. Jamming thousands of mint state coins into 10 numerical grades was the ultimate killer of the seller's market. Since the majority of collectors and dealers can't grade coins like those who provide a GG, most have always followed their own instincts, right or wrong.
<< <i>The comfort I was speaking of, pertained to those occasions when I have paid a premium for a starred coin. IMO the premium was justified because the coin was PQ for the grade. On some occasions the 'star' gave me a little extra comfort in paying that premium due to the fact that a superior grader had reviewed the coin and also concluded that it was PQ for the grade.
This is not a subtle point, but it will be lost on anyone who believes all coins of the same numerical grade should trade for the same price. >>
A point that was lost to the so-called professionals for over 20 years! But they still have a ways to go if they ever decide to try to close that gap between the sophisicated collector and the shareholders pocket. The CAC, for the most part, they will ultimately narrow that gap to, say 20% but only for those who don't have the time to view a coin for themselves. How anyone, sight-seen w/CAC sticker, could make a market for themselves is beyond me. The coin w/CAC is going to sell for 20% more anyway, is the coin marked up another 10% to justify sight-seen trading? I don't think so unless they're selling to an idiot.
As for the NGc star, I have one NGC graded coin with a star but it had to be for the proof-like fields. Nothing else stands out on the coin and they graded it a lowly MS64 with a star. Why not grade it as a MS65 or add a PL designation. But they don't have a PL designation. Instead, they have a star. Makes alot of sense, doesn't it? I had another coin that was one of my highest eye appealing coins in my almost 20 year collection that I sent it in to get the star but it failed. This coin is one of the most vibrant, colorful coins in my collection, a result from nearly 20 years of searching and it didn't receive a star? Breaks my heart!
The only purpose for the Ngc star is to get folks to resubmit coins who want the star. Yes, it's arbitrary, a shareholders designation, nothing more.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
<< <i>Greg, do you equate superior eye-appeal (as represented by the NGC star) with "PQ"? I think a lot of people do, but I have always taken the "PQ" concept literally, so as to mean premium quality, or high end for the assigned grade. >>
All else being equal (and maybe it isn't), a coin with superior eye-appeal IS high end for the grade. I think the star makes sense, because that way a TPG won't be tempted to bump the technical/numerical grade for eye appeal.
Greg, do you equate superior eye-appeal (as represented by the NGC star) with "PQ"? I think a lot of people do, but I have always taken the "PQ" concept literally, so as to mean premium quality, or high end for the assigned grade.
Of the various factors affecting mint state grades (strike, surface marks/size & location, luster, etc.) 'eye appeal' is the 400 pound gorilla in the room IMO. When I first look at a coin it only takes me a couple of seconds to say 'whoa' if it is a really attention grabbing coin for the grade. I've been stopped in my tracks by MS63's as well as 66 & 67's. When I find myself picking up a coin to figure out why it only graded 63, 64 or whatever, I know that is a coin I might be interested in. When a coin has great eye appeal and you have to put it under a loupe to find out what caused it to have a limiting grade, I think your on the right trail to finding a coin that is PQ for the grade.
I'm not sure I could ever consider a coin PQ without superior eye appeal, but I would agree that a coin with superior eye appeal would not necessarily, by that attribution alone, be considered PQ.
<< <i>Greg, do you equate superior eye-appeal (as represented by the NGC star) with "PQ"? I think a lot of people do, but I have always taken the "PQ" concept literally, so as to mean premium quality, or high end for the assigned grade. >>
All else being equal (and maybe it isn't), a coin with superior eye-appeal IS high end for the grade. I think the star makes sense, because that way a TPG won't be tempted to bump the technical/numerical grade for eye appeal. >>
All else being equal, sure. But I have seen many coins which appear to have been bumped a point or even two points, due to their great color. So, while I think they deserve a star for extra eye-appeal, to me, at the same time, they are far removed from "PQ".
<< <i>Greg, do you equate superior eye-appeal (as represented by the NGC star) with "PQ"? I think a lot of people do, but I have always taken the "PQ" concept literally, so as to mean premium quality, or high end for the assigned grade.
Of the various factors affecting mint state grades (strike, surface marks/size & location, luster, etc.) 'eye appeal' is the 400 pound gorilla in the room IMO. When I first look at a coin it only takes me a couple of seconds to say 'whoa' if it is a really attention grabbing coin for the grade. I've been stopped in my tracks by MS63's as well as 66 & 67's. When I find myself picking up a coin to figure out why it only graded 63, 64 or whatever, I know that is a coin I might be interested in. When a coin has great eye appeal and you have to put it under a loupe to find out what caused it to have a limiting grade, I think your on the right trail to finding a coin that is PQ for the grade.
I'm not sure I could ever consider a coin PQ without superior eye appeal, but I would agree that a coin with superior eye appeal would not necessarily, by that attribution alone, be considered PQ. >>
PQ is to me is solid for the grade with amazing eye appeal or technically superior within the grade. All things being equal I will take the former rather then the latter.
NGC stars that I like fall into the proper grade with superior eye appeal. Can be at the lower range of the grade.
However, there are lot's of coins out there that are bumped a point or two for amazing color. These often times sneak into star holders as well as PCGS holders . These are the wild cards and I'll admit I bite from time to time...................MJ
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Comments
<< <i>"but there is some comfort in knowing my opinion is shared by others who know more about grading than I do." What does the Star have to do with the grade?
it doesnt
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
<< <i>It is true that the NGC star designation is subjective in nature. However, based on the many examples I have seen, far more times than not, they tend to be above average in terms of eye-appeal. Thus, given the choice of a star coin or a non-star coin on a sight-unseen basis, I would certainly much prefer the former. >>
"I confess - I don't always agree with or understand the awarding of star designations for superior eye-appeal.
I have seen a good number of star coins that did not look especially appealing and others, which I thought were great looking, failed to garner stars. It seems that the star designation is much like the rest of this hobby - subjective. " circa 2003
It has nothing to do with the numical grade. It has something to do with where that coin ranks within its numerical grade. Similar to the CAC concept. CAC has nothing to do with the numerical grade, only where the coin ranks within that grade.
The comfort I was speaking of, pertained to those occasions when I have paid a premium for a starred coin. IMO the premium was justified because the coin was PQ for the grade. On some occasions the 'star' gave me a little extra comfort in paying that premium due to the fact that a superior grader had reviewed the coin and also concluded that it was PQ for the grade.
This is not a subtle point, but it will be lost on anyone who believes all coins of the same numerical grade should trade for the same price.
Greg Hansen, Melbourne, FL Click here for any current EBAY auctions Multiple "Circle of Trust" transactions over 14 years on forum
<< <i>"but there is some comfort in knowing my opinion is shared by others who know more about grading than I do." What does the Star have to do with the grade?
It has nothing to do with the numical grade. It has something to do with where that coin ranks within its numerical grade. Similar to the CAC concept. CAC has nothing to do with the numerical grade, only where the coin ranks within that grade.
The comfort I was speaking of, pertained to those occasions when I have paid a premium for a starred coin. IMO the premium was justified because the coin was PQ for the grade. On some occasions the 'star' gave me a little extra comfort in paying that premium due to the fact that a superior grader had reviewed the coin and also concluded that it was PQ for the grade.
This is not a subtle point, but it will be lost on anyone who believes all coins of the same numerical grade should trade for the same price. >>
Greg, do you equate superior eye-appeal (as represented by the NGC star) with "PQ"? I think a lot of people do, but I have always taken the "PQ" concept literally, so as to mean premium quality, or high end for the assigned grade.
<< <i> "but there is some comfort in knowing my opinion is shared by others who know more about grading than I do." What does the Star have to do with the grade? >>
<< <i>It has nothing to do with the numical grade. It has something to do with where that coin ranks within its numerical grade. Similar to the CAC concept. CAC has nothing to do with the numerical grade, only where the coin ranks within that grade. >>
It's long been understood the CAC was the alternate choice to a 100 point grading system. Jamming thousands of mint state coins into 10 numerical grades was the ultimate killer of the seller's market. Since the majority of collectors and dealers can't grade coins like those who provide a GG, most have always followed their own instincts, right or wrong.
<< <i>The comfort I was speaking of, pertained to those occasions when I have paid a premium for a starred coin. IMO the premium was justified because the coin was PQ for the grade. On some occasions the 'star' gave me a little extra comfort in paying that premium due to the fact that a superior grader had reviewed the coin and also concluded that it was PQ for the grade.
This is not a subtle point, but it will be lost on anyone who believes all coins of the same numerical grade should trade for the same price. >>
A point that was lost to the so-called professionals for over 20 years! But they still have a ways to go if they ever decide to try to close that gap between the sophisicated collector and the shareholders pocket. The CAC, for the most part, they will ultimately narrow that gap to, say 20% but only for those who don't have the time to view a coin for themselves.
How anyone, sight-seen w/CAC sticker, could make a market for themselves is beyond me. The coin w/CAC is going to sell for 20% more anyway, is the coin marked up another 10% to justify sight-seen trading? I don't think so unless they're selling to an idiot.
As for the NGc star, I have one NGC graded coin with a star but it had to be for the proof-like fields. Nothing else stands out on the coin and they graded it a lowly MS64 with a star. Why not grade it as a MS65 or add a PL designation. But they don't have a PL designation. Instead, they have a star. Makes alot of sense, doesn't it?
I had another coin that was one of my highest eye appealing coins in my almost 20 year collection that I sent it in to get the star but it failed. This coin is one of the most vibrant, colorful coins in my collection, a result from nearly 20 years of searching and it didn't receive a star? Breaks my heart!
The only purpose for the Ngc star is to get folks to resubmit coins who want the star. Yes, it's arbitrary, a shareholders designation, nothing more.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
<< <i>Greg, do you equate superior eye-appeal (as represented by the NGC star) with "PQ"? I think a lot of people do, but I have always taken the "PQ" concept literally, so as to mean premium quality, or high end for the assigned grade. >>
All else being equal (and maybe it isn't), a coin with superior eye-appeal IS high end for the grade. I think the
star makes sense, because that way a TPG won't be tempted to bump the technical/numerical grade for eye appeal.
Of the various factors affecting mint state grades (strike, surface marks/size & location, luster, etc.) 'eye appeal' is the 400 pound gorilla in the room IMO. When I first look at a coin it only takes me a couple of seconds to say 'whoa' if it is a really attention grabbing coin for the grade. I've been stopped in my tracks by MS63's as well as 66 & 67's. When I find myself picking up a coin to figure out why it only graded 63, 64 or whatever, I know that is a coin I might be interested in. When a coin has great eye appeal and you have to put it under a loupe to find out what caused it to have a limiting grade, I think your on the right trail to finding a coin that is PQ for the grade.
I'm not sure I could ever consider a coin PQ without superior eye appeal, but I would agree that a coin with superior eye appeal would not necessarily, by that attribution alone, be considered PQ.
Greg Hansen, Melbourne, FL Click here for any current EBAY auctions Multiple "Circle of Trust" transactions over 14 years on forum
<< <i>
<< <i>Greg, do you equate superior eye-appeal (as represented by the NGC star) with "PQ"? I think a lot of people do, but I have always taken the "PQ" concept literally, so as to mean premium quality, or high end for the assigned grade. >>
All else being equal (and maybe it isn't), a coin with superior eye-appeal IS high end for the grade. I think the
star makes sense, because that way a TPG won't be tempted to bump the technical/numerical grade for eye appeal. >>
All else being equal, sure. But I have seen many coins which appear to have been bumped a point or even two points, due to their great color. So, while I think they deserve a star for extra eye-appeal, to me, at the same time, they are far removed from "PQ".
<< <i>Greg, do you equate superior eye-appeal (as represented by the NGC star) with "PQ"? I think a lot of people do, but I have always taken the "PQ" concept literally, so as to mean premium quality, or high end for the assigned grade.
Of the various factors affecting mint state grades (strike, surface marks/size & location, luster, etc.) 'eye appeal' is the 400 pound gorilla in the room IMO. When I first look at a coin it only takes me a couple of seconds to say 'whoa' if it is a really attention grabbing coin for the grade. I've been stopped in my tracks by MS63's as well as 66 & 67's. When I find myself picking up a coin to figure out why it only graded 63, 64 or whatever, I know that is a coin I might be interested in. When a coin has great eye appeal and you have to put it under a loupe to find out what caused it to have a limiting grade, I think your on the right trail to finding a coin that is PQ for the grade.
I'm not sure I could ever consider a coin PQ without superior eye appeal, but I would agree that a coin with superior eye appeal would not necessarily, by that attribution alone, be considered PQ. >>
Thanks Greg - I like that answer.
All things being equal I will take the former rather then the latter.
NGC stars that I like fall into the proper grade with superior eye appeal. Can be at the lower range of the grade.
However, there are lot's of coins out there that are bumped a point or two for amazing color. These often times sneak into star holders as well as PCGS holders . These are the wild cards and I'll admit I bite from time to time...................MJ
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......