Post an ugly "+" coin
Peaceman
Posts: 5,098
In 64 or higher.... Do they exist? Obviously they are NOT going on looks.
0
Comments
<< <i>In 64 or higher.... Do they exist? Obviously they are NOT going on looks. >>
What makes you say that? The few + coins I have seen imaged have looked dynamite.
<< <i>The few + coins I have seen imaged have looked dynamite. >>
Lance.
<< <i>In 64 or higher.... Do they exist? Obviously they are NOT going on looks. >>
From everything I've seen they are... but it's looks combined with technical superiority.
I don't understand what you are trying to say Peaceman. Please explain.
So that basically means the eye appeal of a coin can get it a plus, if the eye appeal is substantial and bumps the grade up a little bit.
This theory is based on my limited knowledge of the system and PCGS. Please correct me if I'm wrong in any way.
<< <i>Since there are ugly 65 coins, one that just missed ugly 65 could be an ugly 64+. >>
<< <i>
<< <i>Since there are ugly 65 coins, one that just missed ugly 65 could be an ugly 64+. >>
I don't. PCGS has said specifically that they require both eye appeal and technical quality to give a coin a + designation. The ugly part of the 64 precludes it, even if it is nearly an ugly 65.
<< <i> I've just seen some posts here where collectors have posted some remarkable looking coins, only to miss out on a +. That would give me the impression that PCGS is going more on the "technical grade" rather than eye appeal. Eye appeal of course is subjective. So with your statement above, something that has a distracting stain, but is all there and then some on the technical side would never +.... why. I look forward to your response. >>
No, it absolutely doesn't. If PCGS is looking for BOTH, and BOTH are not there, then the fact that the coin has amazing eye appeal is moot.
Let's look at it with a non-coin example. For a bike to work, it needs a working front wheel and back wheel. If the front wheel is an astounding, top-of-the-line wheel, and the back wheel is missing, the bike won't go. It doesn't matter how amazing one wheel is, BOTH wheels need to work.
PCGS has been very clear, and I don't understand why people have so many problems with the standard they've said. Coins have to have great eye appeal and exceptional technical qualities to get the +. If either is missing, no +. Simple!
ZeroHedge makes debut at White House press corps briefing
To qualify for a (+) grade a coin must be superior for the grade in each of these grading catagories - wear (if circulated), strike, luster, (minimal) contact marks and eye appeal. None of these characteristics can be average or below.
It is not simply eye appeal, or what most would call PQ for the grade. A (+) coin must be superior in every regard. That is why so few will earn that distinction.
<< <i>PCGS has been very clear, and I don't understand why people have so many problems with the standard they've said. Coins have to have great eye appeal and exceptional technical qualities to get the +. If either is missing, no +. Simple! >>
From the pcgs secure plus faq.
http://www.pcgs.com/secureplusfaq.html
Q 39
"DW: We are grading on a 700-point scale. To receive a + designation a coin has to grade xx7, xx8 or xx9. We have taken this mathematical approach to minimize the emotional aspect (for example, eye appeal) and to ensure consistency. Eye appeal is a factor (see our announcement in Product Spotlight) but the technical grade is more important. I don't see this grade range expanding."
The eye appeal guidelines referred to above say's,
"Plus Grades
High end coins for the grade, i.e. "plus" grades, cannot have negative or below average eye appeal for the grade."
http://www.pcgs.com/eyeappeal.html
So average eye appeal would be ok for a plus coin according to what pcgs posted back in march.
First I have seen anyone from pcgs write that superior (above average) eye appeal is one of the requirements for a +.
I guess I must have missed it.
Thanks for clearing that up D.W.
I'm not on the fighting end of this... When I look at the whole thing, I come to these conclusions, some of which may not be shared:
- The above, more original coins will lose their originality due to dips
- If a coin gets into a normal PCGS secure slab, all you need to do is crack it, try to upgrade it at NGC and then try to cross it at a higher grade at PCGS. PCGS's lazer can't be used unless the coin is raw so it's like submitting a "new" coin. Let the crackouts continue....
<< <i>PCGS's goal is to reduce crackouts with the secure service. It would seem to me that if a collector had a great original coin but it had some "not so eye appealing surfaces" that a collector would need to crack and dip it to get the +. Original coins with original surfaces will continued to be ruined due to the "eye appeal" requirement for the + I would think.
I'm not on the fighting end of this... When I look at the whole thing, I come to these conclusions, some of which may not be shared:
- The above, more original coins will lose their originality due to dips
- If a coin gets into a normal PCGS secure slab, all you need to do is crack it, try to upgrade it at NGC and then try to cross it at a higher grade at PCGS. PCGS's lazer can't be used unless the coin is raw so it's like submitting a "new" coin. Let the crackouts continue.... >>
While I see noting in the new service to protect or promote original surface coins, I similarly see nothing to necessarily encourage dipping, either. Once again, like with the CAC, there was an opportunity to encourage maintaining original surface coins as such, but it was not pursued.
As for point #2 (Secure No Plus to Upgrade at NGC to crossover at the higher grade at PCGS), for me, over time, this will be a loser strategy.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Since there are ugly 65 coins, one that just missed ugly 65 could be an ugly 64+. >>
I don't. PCGS has said specifically that they require both eye appeal and technical quality to give a coin a + designation. The ugly part of the 64 precludes it, even if it is nearly an ugly 65.
<< <i> I've just seen some posts here where collectors have posted some remarkable looking coins, only to miss out on a +. That would give me the impression that PCGS is going more on the "technical grade" rather than eye appeal. Eye appeal of course is subjective. So with your statement above, something that has a distracting stain, but is all there and then some on the technical side would never +.... why. I look forward to your response. >>
No, it absolutely doesn't. If PCGS is looking for BOTH, and BOTH are not there, then the fact that the coin has amazing eye appeal is moot.
Let's look at it with a non-coin example. For a bike to work, it needs a working front wheel and back wheel. If the front wheel is an astounding, top-of-the-line wheel, and the back wheel is missing, the bike won't go. It doesn't matter how amazing one wheel is, BOTH wheels need to work.
PCGS has been very clear, and I don't understand why people have so many problems with the standard they've said. Coins have to have great eye appeal and exceptional technical qualities to get the +. If either is missing, no +. Simple! >>
Personally, I don't understand the above logic. Eye appeal is based on the 4 qualities we always scrutinize to come up with a grade, the strike, grade/condition, luster and toning. The level of eye appeal on a coin depends/is based on the combination of those qualities. If one of those qualities is less than what's expected, the overall eye appeal of the coin will be affected. One facet of the formula will always affect the other. A tire without air is useless. But if we pump/see all four of those qualities into that tire/coin, we're going places brother! Eye appeal cannot exist outside of those 4 qualities. And each of those qualities are seen in all kinds of extremes. From weak to EDS, damaged to markfree, dull to prooflike and black/dark to rainbow colors, all of those variant qualities affect the overall eye appeal of a coin!
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
www.brunkauctions.com