Key Date grading - I don't understand it...
dsessom
Posts: 2,281 ✭✭✭✭✭
As many of you here know by now, my favorite series is Liberty nickels. I have been studying this series for about 3 years now. I buy books, and learn as much as I can about this series from this forum, other Internet sources and collector and dealer friends. You would think by now, that I could with some degree, grade this series with some accuracy. Well, in general the TPG and I agree pretty closely when it comes to grading the Liberty nickel series. HOWEVER...
When it comes to KEY dates (1885, 1886, 1912-S), it all goes out the window. Now, I am no way saying that the TGPs are inaccurate, especially our hosts who are in my opinion the best, most accurate and have the tightest quality. Otherwise, I'd be posting on "the other guys" forums.
Here is my issue, and I sincerely hope that a few current or ex-professional graders can chime in and help me here... Why, when it comes to key dates (at least in the Liberty nickel series) does the grading seem to be inconsistant, and pretty much all over the place? I have seen LOTS of PCGS graded Liberty nickels in the last 3 years, and common and semi-keys seem for the most part to be consistantly graded. I know that in grading, the following are considered: Strike, luster, wear, marks and dings, scarcity, and eye appeal (color/toning). I have also brought this subject up to a few collector and dealer freinds who have far more experience than I do, but they all pretty much agreed that the key dates in this series seem to be graded less consistantly than common and semi keys.
So, any insight into this "issue" would be greatly appreciated. I consider myself still a bit of a beginner in numismatics, and am only trying to learn.
To illustrate my point, I have a couple of images for comparison. Although there are definately subtle differences in these coins, I for the life of me cannot see a 15 point spread (and CAC?).
The 1885 is my coin. I do not own the 1886. I am only using the image for comparison purposes.
Edited for spelling blunders...
When it comes to KEY dates (1885, 1886, 1912-S), it all goes out the window. Now, I am no way saying that the TGPs are inaccurate, especially our hosts who are in my opinion the best, most accurate and have the tightest quality. Otherwise, I'd be posting on "the other guys" forums.
Here is my issue, and I sincerely hope that a few current or ex-professional graders can chime in and help me here... Why, when it comes to key dates (at least in the Liberty nickel series) does the grading seem to be inconsistant, and pretty much all over the place? I have seen LOTS of PCGS graded Liberty nickels in the last 3 years, and common and semi-keys seem for the most part to be consistantly graded. I know that in grading, the following are considered: Strike, luster, wear, marks and dings, scarcity, and eye appeal (color/toning). I have also brought this subject up to a few collector and dealer freinds who have far more experience than I do, but they all pretty much agreed that the key dates in this series seem to be graded less consistantly than common and semi keys.
So, any insight into this "issue" would be greatly appreciated. I consider myself still a bit of a beginner in numismatics, and am only trying to learn.
To illustrate my point, I have a couple of images for comparison. Although there are definately subtle differences in these coins, I for the life of me cannot see a 15 point spread (and CAC?).
The 1885 is my coin. I do not own the 1886. I am only using the image for comparison purposes.
Edited for spelling blunders...
Dwayne Sessom
0
Comments
That is a day-um fine VF25, undergraded clearly IMHO.
Empty Nest Collection
Matt’s Mattes
I often wonder if it is not because these key dates for one thing get more coins submitted giving them the chance for more mistakes, and the fact that many of them have been resubmitted to get then maxed out or even in some cases over graded.
I do not as you state think that there is a clear trend by the graders to do anything wrong it just so happens that we see more of these coins than is propionate to the other dates.
<< <i>I see a little of the same thing in the half dollars. My main coin would be the 1938-D Walker I have seen VF35's that look like F12's in other dates them you will see a VF25 that looks like that XF40 coin you saw in the other case.
I often wonder if it is not because these key dates for one thing get more coins submitted giving them the chance for more mistakes, and the fact that many of them have been resubmitted to get then maxed out or even in some cases over graded.
I do not as you state think that there is a clear trend by the graders to do anything wrong it just so happens that we see more of these coins than is propionate to the other dates. >>
I don't think the graders are doing anything wrong, and trust that they are the authority at what they do. I was really looking for an answer more along the lines of what you said about resubmissions.
Honestly, I'm at a loss for an easy explaination on this issue. You would think that with more expensive key dates, grading would be tighter instead of less so. I do appreciate the input.
The 1885 look like it's undergraded and the 1886 is overgraded. I think VF-35 for each is appropriate.
What do you think OP?
<< <i>Yours is a blatant example IMO, however grading "inconsistencies" are prevalent in every series and with both circ and MS coins. As far as Morgan dollars go, I have a few MS64's that easily rival or even exceed many low end MS66's IMO, and I'm sure others here could provide numerous other stories and examples. >>
Dragon,
Admittedly, the VF25 is a superior example for the grade and the XF40 is average. But this example still illustrates the point I'm making. Sure, there are many key date Liberty nickels that are graded spot on, but a large number seem to not be. I know I'm not imagining this either, since I have discussed it numerous times with other Liberty nickel collectors and dealers.
And to be clear, Im not saying that TGPs are making "mistakes" either, I am simply trying to learn why key date Liberty nickel grades seem to be less consistant, compared to more common dates. I think it's an honest question, that probably has a logical answer.
The darker grey on the 86 looks more natural to me over the 85 which has to bright of a look for a vf.
That now said;
the 86 looks like a high end vf coin and because of that CAC stickered it because they are comfortable with it in a xf holder. If the 86 was resubmitted and got a grade of a vf30 and then resent to CAC- it WOULD NOT gold sticker. it would still green bean at vf. How can it green bean at both vf and xf? Its an overall nice original coin that has a solid look for an xf (40.50000001) and if it would get a 30, it would be a high end example of a vf coin but not with the look of "I 100% should be in a xf holder".
THe 85 in my opinion does not look as natural and while details wise should be a 30/35, the color might have been the cause for a downgrade. Still a vf coin and probably would sticker as well.
ps. in a recent submission to cac I had a pf65 walker that I thought was a gold sticker all day long. It greened. When asked about it, I was told slight friction kept the gold booger away. That said, I was told that if the coin was resubmitted and got a 66 grade, they would probably green sticker it still. My coin was REALLY nice for a 65 but because of the friction on the leg it was not a unonimous 66+ quality and could not get the gold
<< <i>Quite often I see people comparing their coin to another one in a slab, as you have. I do not recommend this. Instead, use PCGS PhotoGrade as the standard.
The 1885 look like it's undergraded and the 1886 is overgraded. I think VF-35 for each is appropriate.
What do you think OP? >>
I would agree, they are both probably closer to VF35. BUT, I had a thought that it also may have something to do with the fact that the "VF" grade has FOUR levels and is the toughest to differentiate?
Look at the grades in a line: PO-01, FR-02, AG-03, G-04/06, VG-08/10, F-12/15, VF-20/25/30/35, XF-40/45, AU-50/53/55/58, MS-60/61/62/63/64/65/66/67/68/69/70.
Among circulated grades, only VF and AU have four levels. Each grade has it's own markers. The lower grades up to F15 are quite easy to differentiate. XF markers are pretty clear. AU is a little tougher, but still pretty cut and dried. The MS grades are probably THE toughest level to grade consistantly because there are ELEVEN levels in that grade, even though the grade markers are still pretty rigid.
So this leaves the VF grade, which really has fewer clear markers than all other levels - which may account for many of the inconsistancies.
This is just a theory I thought of. I may be totally wrong, and my train may have just derailed but I thought I'd throw it out there anyway.
Based on the above alone, the difference between a VF-30 and a VF-35 is the same as an MS-60 and an MS-65.
You can put a VF-30 and a VF-35 coin in front of a group of collectors and there will be debate about which is which. Do the same with an MS-60 and an MS-65 will leave almost no debate. The difference is obvious when comparing an MS-60 coin and an MS-65 coin.
My hunch is that you are NOT correct in that key dates are inconsistently graded more often. What you are seeing is result of the frequency that key dates are resubmitted to get the grade that is desired. Since resubmission fees are a smaller percentage of what could happen to the value of a key date coin if it receives a higher grade, then it makes more sense to crack out and resubmit.
I welcome your thoughts!
Along this line of thinking... The first coin's surfaces appear to me to be suspect and wonder if a silent net grade on the first coin can't explain the similarity in detail but difference in grade between the two.
Also, the XF coin appears to have some hidden luster, and the VF coin does not appear to -- and this is what I would expect for coins in these grades.
Bottom line: Don't fall into the trap of "details only" grading. Luster and surfaces (and eye appeal) matter too.
<< <i>Also, the XF coin appears to have some hidden luster, and the VF coin does not appear to -- and this is what I would expect for coins in these grades. >>
The luster on the "XF" coin is sure "hiding" real good!
<< <i>TDN was the first person I recall saying this.... If you look at a coin and can't fathom why it graded lower than you think it should, you should ask yourself what you are missing (or WTTE).
Along this line of thinking... The first coin's surfaces appear to me to be suspect and wonder if a silent net grade on the first coin can't explain the similarity in detail but difference in grade between the two.
Also, the XF coin appears to have some hidden luster, and the VF coin does not appear to -- and this is what I would expect for coins in these grades.
Bottom line: Don't fall into the trap of "details only" grading. Luster and surfaces (and eye appeal) matter too. >>
The 1885's surfaces are perfect for a circulated coin. I can attest to that since I actually own it. The closest thing to a "problem" with it is the two tiny nicks in the reverse right above the "V". I cannot really comment on the 1886 other than what's in the photo since I do not own it.
I think the difference everyone is seeing in the images is simply a matter of lighting. I don't believe this case would be a matter of surface condition. The 1886 has rust spotting on both sides, or whatever that brown gunk is. To me, the 1885 surfaces look better and I'm not saying that simply because I own it. Even if I didn't, I'd still have the same opinion.