I'm certainly not an expert, I only collect IHCs in AU, but I wouldn't buy that OP example for 50% of book...I'd be afraid that if I went to sell it, most dealers and I would get into this exact conversation.
I agree with Don about the difficulties of trying to judge and grade coins from photos, but for argument's sake, let's just say that the photos accurately depict the coins being discussed. I agree with Rick about weakly struck coins not deserving a plus - and IMO in general I feel coins with a weak strike do not deserve a GEM/MS65 designation, that striking quality should definitely be a consideration in assigning a grade. And I understand Rick's concerns about CCE requiring site unseen bids on plus coins and that plus coins should be superior for the grade in all respects.
However, I also agree that the marks on the portrait of the 1892 should deter a plus grade for that particular coin. Yes that coin has beautiful color and a good strike, but I think an MS66 should have a more pristine-looking portrait. If those scuffs were in the field or even on the reverse, then it wouldn't be so detrimental to the grade.
And that 1857 is a stunner and does deserve a plus grade, again, IMO.
I saw this coin yesterday and in-hand the STATES is actually so weak it blends into the surrounding fields. It is graded MS65+RB. PCGS has promoted the Plus grades as premium quality. In fact bidders on CCE are required to buy them sign unseen.
If they are already starting to cheapen the plus service by letting coins like this in their holders, then it is already a dead service.
This is not a 65.7 coin, its a 63.0 at best, due to weak, weak strike. >>
From the Emerald City, "No way No how"
Brian Wagner Rare Coins, Specializing in PCGS graded, Shield, Liberty and Buffalo Nickels varieties.
<< <i>Tradedollarnut, while the ANA is still a little ambivalent, perhaps, on precisely how strike should figure into the market grade, the TPGs do seem to have resolved that question in favor of it warranting a strong impact, especially at the higher grades. At least, that appears to be their track record. And, that's why Rick has a valid point, IMHO. >>
The TPG's have been moving away from this for years now. Strike is becoming more of a net grade item than an absolute grade limiter.
As far as the coin in question goes, it appears to me that the TPG summed up all the positives and negatives and valued it at appx $2500. Whether you prefer that value as 64RD or 65+RB is simply a matter of opinion. Let's see the price realized.
I purchased this coin in an NGC66 holder and downgraded it to what I felt was the proper grade. It has 67 luster and surfaces, the only question is the strike.
Sooo - some here would say there's no way the coin deserves to be in a gem holder, and some would say it's appropriately net graded. I can say that one TPG was rather annoyed that I downgraded it because they felt that MS66 was indeed the proper grade.
Bottom line is that grading is an art and not a science and strike is no longer an absolute grade limiter...but rather one more attributefor which to be net graded.
A 64+ ... no way. It is the kind of coin that is going to cause grief for its owner(s) when it comes time to sell due to the weak strike. In my opinion, coins like this belong in "Genuine" holders. I am no fan of weakly struck coins.
The 1857 seated dollar faces the same problem - the head on our MS64 is almost flat with the field. But the great surfaces make the coin an MS64 all day.
That is the same way I feel about the coin in the OP - MS64
Want to buy an auction catalog for the William Hesslein Sale (December 2, 1926). Thanks to all those who have helped us obtain the others!!!
p.s. FWIW, I agree with TDN's perspective on strike being a basis for net grading rather than "grade limiting". He (and others) suggest it is a recent phenomenon. Frankly, in my eyes it always has been that way, but I've only been paying attention to slabbed coins for less than a decade.
Collector of Large Cents, US Type, and modern pocket change.
Does it seem to anyone else that the + designation is being perceived more like a * than a grade in the high upper half? I thought it simply meant top of the grade.
Lots of folks seem to feel a coin with a + must have certain desirable attributes, like a solid strike, free of spots, a certain color. Why? Doesn't an-otherwise-nice-66 that grades a conservative 64 due to an unfortunate flaw have a chance at 64+? Lance.
<< <i>The 1857 seated dollar faces the same problem - the head on our MS64 is almost flat with the field. But the great surfaces make the coin an MS64 all day.
That is the same way I feel about the coin in the OP - MS64 >>
I think that there is an important difference between the two coins. There aren't lots of coins to choose from where the gem 1857 Seated dollar is concerned. The converse is true in the case of the Indian Head cent. I suspect that most 19th-century copper collectors (of which I am one) would take one look at that cent and pass.
Member: EAC, NBS, C4, CWTS, ANA
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
<< <i>1) Why should 64+ necessarily mean a PQ 64 instead of an "almost 65"? >>
My take on what happened here is this coin is a technical MS65 which the graders felt compelled to net down to a market MS64+ in order to remain consistent with their market grading standards which say they can't grade a coin a market MS65 unless it has a normal to better strike to it. There's no deception, here, having given this coin the "+," as the weak strike comes across very openly and obviously in the pictures.
In fact, IMHO, rather than condemn these graders, they should be given a raise for a tough job very well done...
<< <i>The 1857 seated dollar faces the same problem - the head on our MS64 is almost flat with the field. But the great surfaces make the coin an MS64 all day.
That is the same way I feel about the coin in the OP - MS64 >>
I think that there is an important difference between the two coins. There aren't lots of coins to choose from where the gem 1857 Seated dollar is concerned. The converse is true in the case of the Indian Head cent. I suspect that most 19th-century copper collectors (of which I am one) would take one look at that cent and pass. >>
That's too bad .... I'd love to create an MS64RB set where all the coins looked like that one.
Oh, Geeze. I can't believe I saw 65RB when it is actually a 64RB. Regardless, I don't think it warrants a "Plus" grade at all. a "Plus" should be a problem free coin, top of the grade. Not a weakly struck coin.
The coin sold for $1035, which is regular retail for a 64RB. This is what it is worth - MS64RB money without a "plus". A real 64+ should sell for $1500 (Coin Facts has it at $1,350), or half-way between the 64RB price ($1,000) and the 65RB price ($2,000). So now PCGS will list as $1,050 in their price guide as the "real" value of a MS64RB+. It has in effect lowered the market.
If PCGS's goal is to hurt the Indian cent market, they are starting to do it bit-by-bit by grading coins like this with a "plus".
This is the ONLY coin graded with a "Plus" for any 1864 With L in the RB color! Does this coin represent the best of the coins out there!
The coin is from an estate that was consigned to Goldbergs raw, it was in a Wayte Raymond holder. So it was recently submitted for the auction. Did that make a difference?
Pretty much the same results for the 1909-S Lincoln I posted earlier in this thread... it was a 65+RD that didn't look too nice and it sold for just under the PCGS Guide price for a 65RD.
The coin sold for $1265 ($1100 + BP)
PCGS MS65RD is $1350
PCGS MS65+RD is $1750
PCGS MS66RD is $3200
Apparently the bidders agreed that the coin wasn't deserving of the plus grade as a nice 65+RD should be going for $1500-$2000 easily. I've paid over $1500 for nice examples in regular 65RD holders. As always, buy the coin and not the holder, but it doesn't seem right to require dealers to buy the plus holders when the coins don't match up to the expectations.
Remember a "Plus" coin must be bid on "Sight-Unseen" on CCE. The 1864-L MS-64RB+ is a pop-1 coin and any sight unseen bid will get hit with this coin. This is the main reason why a sight unseen market is a fallacy. Any problem coin that gets into a "plus" holder will scare anyone from posting market-raising bids now, and forever in fear of getting hit with this coin.
<< <i> Here is a coin in the LB Heritage sale, lot 3074. It has weak feather tips and lots and lots of spots. >>
And fresh, full rolling red luster by the look of it.
What in the world are you expecting for a 64??? Everything is a trade off in coin grading. You're not giving much credit for the positives of these coins that you're posting. I wonder how you'd feel if you submitted the L and the 08-S cent raw and they came back in 63 holders??? I know how I'd feel!
Edited to add: IIRC, there was a thread on this forum where in the past you sold slightly impaired coins at the 63 level and stated something along the lines of "63's are problem coins". I tend to agree with that assessment, however it makes me feel that you are punishing these two coins wayyyy too harshly. Coins with full luster and mostly original surfaces deserve to be graded much higher than the gently cleaned stuff sold at 63 levels. You simply can't have it both ways.
<< <i>Remember a "Plus" coin must be bid on "Sight-Unseen" on CCE. The 1864-L MS-64RB+ is a pop-1 coin and any sight unseen bid will get hit with this coin. This is the main reason why a sight unseen market is a fallacy. Any problem coin that gets into a "plus" holder will scare anyone from posting market-raising bids now, and forever in fear of getting hit with this coin. >>
Sight unseen doesn't work - never has, never will. That's what stickers are for.
Don't change the topic from "Plus" coins to "minus" coins. The fact is, spots on copper are a problem. Even if the 1908-S is original with great luster, why even grade it with tons of spots on it? PCGS should "Genuine" a coin with heavy spotting. Now it is also in the sight-unseen market.
<< <i>Remember a "Plus" coin must be bid on "Sight-Unseen" on CCE. The 1864-L MS-64RB+ is a pop-1 coin and any sight unseen bid will get hit with this coin. This is the main reason why a sight unseen market is a fallacy. Any problem coin that gets into a "plus" holder will scare anyone from posting market-raising bids now, and forever in fear of getting hit with this coin. >>
I remember being in a dealers store back in the early 90's as he opened an order that just came back from PCGS with a group of common date Morgans. He opened the first box and shook his head and handed me an 1882-S Morgan that was graded MS65 that looked like a decent 63 at best. It turns out that many coins in that submission appeared to be grossly overgraded and the dealer didn't look happy about it. I asked him what the problem was, and he told me that he has a few hundred of these in MS65 he wants to dump sight unseen over a several week period to the high bidder on the network, and if he see's these coins he'll drop or remove his bid and so will the next two guys in line.
<< <i>Don't change the topic from "Plus" coins to "minus" coins. The fact is, spots on copper are a problem. Even if the 1908-S is original with great luster, why even grade it with tons of spots on it? PCGS should "Genuine" a coin with heavy spotting. Now it is also in the sight-unseen market. >>
Wow - now you're REALLY losing me. You think that 08-S should be 'genuined'? But that it's ok to call lightly cleaned coins 63?
Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Yes, I've seen coins in + holders that I just didn't think were special, but I've never seen one that I thought should be 'genuined'. As far as sight unseen bids go, that's a fool's game.
<< <i>Don't change the topic from "Plus" coins to "minus" coins. The fact is, spots on copper are a problem. Even if the 1908-S is original with great luster, why even grade it with tons of spots on it? PCGS should "Genuine" a coin with heavy spotting. Now it is also in the sight-unseen market. >>
You, of all people, shouldn't be lecturing anyone about changing the topic. After all, you started this thread about a 64+ coin, talking and complaining about it being a 65+ And, on a more serious note, if you apologized to PCGS for that, I didn't see it.
I think Rick's point was made. Based upon the assigned grade (MS64+RB) the coin in question underperformed in the auction therefore driving down the price for future sales 64+ coins. Leading me to believe that the market has determined that coin was overgraded.
<< <i>Remember a "Plus" coin must be bid on "Sight-Unseen" on CCE. The 1864-L MS-64RB+ is a pop-1 coin and any sight unseen bid will get hit with this coin. This is the main reason why a sight unseen market is a fallacy. Any problem coin that gets into a "plus" holder will scare anyone from posting market-raising bids now, and forever in fear of getting hit with this coin. >>
I remember being in a dealers store back in the early 90's as he opened an order that just came back from PCGS with a group of common date Morgans. He opened the first box and shook his head and handed me an 1882-S Morgan that was graded MS65 that looked like a decent 63 at best. It turns out that many coins in that submission appeared to be grossly overgraded and the dealer didn't look happy about it. I asked him what the problem was, and he told me that he has a few hundred of these in MS65 he wants to dump sight unseen over a several week period to the high bidder on the network, and if he see's these coins he'll drop or remove his bid and so will the next two guys in line. >>
What would you do if this happened to you?
Think outside the box . Coin collector for 45 years
Comments
However, I also agree that the marks on the portrait of the 1892 should deter a plus grade for that particular coin. Yes that coin has beautiful color and a good strike, but I think an MS66 should have a more pristine-looking portrait. If those scuffs were in the field or even on the reverse, then it wouldn't be so detrimental to the grade.
And that 1857 is a stunner and does deserve a plus grade, again, IMO.
The Penny Lady®
<< <i>
I saw this coin yesterday and in-hand the STATES is actually so weak it blends into the surrounding fields. It is graded MS65+RB. PCGS has promoted the Plus grades as premium quality. In fact bidders on CCE are required to buy them sign unseen.
If they are already starting to cheapen the plus service by letting coins like this in their holders, then it is already a dead service.
This is not a 65.7 coin, its a 63.0 at best, due to weak, weak strike. >>
From the Emerald City, "No way No how"
<< <i>Tradedollarnut, while the ANA is still a little ambivalent, perhaps, on precisely how strike should figure into the market grade, the TPGs do seem to have resolved that question in favor of it warranting a strong impact, especially at the higher grades. At least, that appears to be their track record. And, that's why Rick has a valid point, IMHO. >>
The TPG's have been moving away from this for years now. Strike is becoming more of a net grade item than an absolute grade limiter.
As far as the coin in question goes, it appears to me that the TPG summed up all the positives and negatives and valued it at appx $2500. Whether you prefer that value as 64RD or 65+RB is simply a matter of opinion. Let's see the price realized.
For example:
<< <i>For example:
Ouch!
Like VOC Numismatics on facebook
<< <i>
Ouch! >>
I purchased this coin in an NGC66 holder and downgraded it to what I felt was the proper grade. It has 67 luster and surfaces, the only question is the strike.
Sooo - some here would say there's no way the coin deserves to be in a gem holder, and some would say it's appropriately net graded. I can say that one TPG was rather annoyed that I downgraded it because they felt that MS66 was indeed the proper grade.
Bottom line is that grading is an art and not a science and strike is no longer an absolute grade limiter...but rather one more attributefor which to be net graded.
<< <i>The TPG's have been moving away from this for years now. Strike is becoming more of a net grade item than an absolute grade limiter. >>
You ought to know that better than I. At any rate, that supports what I'm seeing, a technical MS-65 class coin.
<< <i>I realize that this is personal preference, but I would walk away from that coin in a 64 holder. JMHO Shag >>
So would I.
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
CJ: 'No one!' [Ain't no angels in the coin biz]
PCGS grading standards for a MS65+ coin.
MS/PR-65+ Very minor marks/hairlines though none in focal areas, above average strike and eye appeal
<< <i>PCGS grading standards for a MS65+ coin.
MS/PR-65+ Very minor marks/hairlines though none in focal areas, above average strike and eye appeal >>
Well, if that's current, it settles it, they're off their market grading standards on this one.
I guess we all make mistakes.
The coin was catalogued as "loaded with a majority of original mint red. Stored in an old Wayte Raymond album for over 50 years."
Sounds like a decent coin. It ended up selling for $900 or just under the PCGS price guide.
Much ado about nothing.
<< <i>According to the catalog and Goldberg's website the coin is grade MS64+ RB, not MS65+ RB as originally posted.
I guess we all make mistakes.
The coin was catalogued as "loaded with a majority of original mint red. Stored in an old Wayte Raymond album for over 50 years."
Sounds like a decent coin. It ended up selling for $900 or just under the PCGS price guide. >>
Don, you were an exceptionally good sport, all things considered
..........musta got the grade confused in his mind
<< <i>I would like to add they have it listed as a MS64+ not at the GEM level >>
funny how this post was ignored for a while until another said it.. like Mr Willis
did...
but then again Mr Snow said he had it in hand... so I kept reading ;-)
That is the same way I feel about the coin in the OP - MS64
Could it be incorrectly described in the Stack's catalog?
If not, one does wonder why it was laughed about in the lot viewing room.
<< <i>Hmmm.
Could it be incorrectly described in the Stack's catalog? >>
Goldberg, not Stack's.
<< <i>If not, one does wonder why it was laughed about in the lot viewing room. >>
The whole story seems pretty bizarre, at this point.
Lots of folks seem to feel a coin with a + must have certain desirable attributes, like a solid strike, free of spots, a certain color. Why? Doesn't an-otherwise-nice-66 that grades a conservative 64 due to an unfortunate flaw have a chance at 64+?
Lance.
<< <i>According to the catalog and Goldberg's website the coin is grade MS64+ RB, not MS65+ RB as originally posted. >>
Wow! That's a HUGE difference. Without seeing the coin in-hand, 64+ it very well could be.
Well, not that my opinion means so much, but......... here it is anyway:
1) Why should 64+ necessarily mean a PQ 64 instead of an "almost 65"?
2) It's fairly silly to buy collector coins sight-unseen based on an assigned grade, sticker, etc.
<< <i>
<< <i>Hmmm.
Could it be incorrectly described in the Stack's catalog? >>
Goldberg, not Stack's.
<< <i>If not, one does wonder why it was laughed about in the lot viewing room. >>
The whole story seems pretty bizarre, at this point. >>
Thank you for the correction, and I agree...something doesn't quite add up.
Take care, John, I hope you and yours are well....Mike
I find it quite odd that several high profile dealers and collectors are constanly bad mouthing our host, and getting away with it. What gives?
<< <i>The 1857 seated dollar faces the same problem - the head on our MS64 is almost flat with the field. But the great surfaces make the coin an MS64 all day.
That is the same way I feel about the coin in the OP - MS64 >>
I think that there is an important difference between the two coins. There aren't lots of coins to choose from where the gem 1857 Seated dollar is concerned. The converse is true in the case of the Indian Head cent.
I suspect that most 19th-century copper collectors (of which I am one) would take one look at that cent and pass.
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
CJ: 'No one!' [Ain't no angels in the coin biz]
<< <i>1) Why should 64+ necessarily mean a PQ 64 instead of an "almost 65"? >>
My take on what happened here is this coin is a technical MS65 which the graders felt compelled to net down to a market MS64+ in order to remain consistent with their market grading standards which say they can't grade a coin a market MS65 unless it has a normal to better strike to it. There's no deception, here, having given this coin the "+," as the weak strike comes across very openly and obviously in the pictures.
In fact, IMHO, rather than condemn these graders, they should be given a raise for a tough job very well done...
<< <i>
<< <i>The 1857 seated dollar faces the same problem - the head on our MS64 is almost flat with the field. But the great surfaces make the coin an MS64 all day.
That is the same way I feel about the coin in the OP - MS64 >>
I think that there is an important difference between the two coins. There aren't lots of coins to choose from where the gem 1857 Seated dollar is concerned. The converse is true in the case of the Indian Head cent.
I suspect that most 19th-century copper collectors (of which I am one) would take one look at that cent and pass. >>
That's too bad .... I'd love to create an MS64RB set where all the coins looked like that one.
The coin sold for $1035, which is regular retail for a 64RB. This is what it is worth - MS64RB money without a "plus". A real 64+ should sell for $1500 (Coin Facts has it at $1,350), or half-way between the 64RB price ($1,000) and the 65RB price ($2,000). So now PCGS will list as $1,050 in their price guide as the "real" value of a MS64RB+. It has in effect lowered the market.
If PCGS's goal is to hurt the Indian cent market, they are starting to do it bit-by-bit by grading coins like this with a "plus".
The coin is from an estate that was consigned to Goldbergs raw, it was in a Wayte Raymond holder. So it was recently submitted for the auction. Did that make a difference?
The coin sold for $1265 ($1100 + BP)
PCGS MS65RD is $1350
PCGS MS65+RD is $1750
PCGS MS66RD is $3200
Apparently the bidders agreed that the coin wasn't deserving of the plus grade as a nice 65+RD should be going for $1500-$2000 easily. I've paid over $1500 for nice examples in regular 65RD holders. As always, buy the coin and not the holder, but it doesn't seem right to require dealers to buy the plus holders when the coins don't match up to the expectations.
Michael Kittle Rare Coins --- 1908-S Indian Head Cent Grading Set --- No. 1 1909 Mint Set --- Kittlecoins on Facebook --- Long Beach Table 448
Here is a coin in the LB Heritage sale, lot 3074. It has weak feather tips and lots and lots of spots.
<< <i>
Here is a coin in the LB Heritage sale, lot 3074. It has weak feather tips and lots and lots of spots. >>
And fresh, full rolling red luster by the look of it.
What in the world are you expecting for a 64??? Everything is a trade off in coin grading. You're not giving much credit for the positives of these coins that you're posting. I wonder how you'd feel if you submitted the L and the 08-S cent raw and they came back in 63 holders??? I know how I'd feel!
Edited to add: IIRC, there was a thread on this forum where in the past you sold slightly impaired coins at the 63 level and stated something along the lines of "63's are problem coins". I tend to agree with that assessment, however it makes me feel that you are punishing these two coins wayyyy too harshly. Coins with full luster and mostly original surfaces deserve to be graded much higher than the gently cleaned stuff sold at 63 levels. You simply can't have it both ways.
<< <i>Remember a "Plus" coin must be bid on "Sight-Unseen" on CCE. The 1864-L MS-64RB+ is a pop-1 coin and any sight unseen bid will get hit with this coin. This is the main reason why a sight unseen market is a fallacy. Any problem coin that gets into a "plus" holder will scare anyone from posting market-raising bids now, and forever in fear of getting hit with this coin. >>
Sight unseen doesn't work - never has, never will. That's what stickers are for.
<< <i>Remember a "Plus" coin must be bid on "Sight-Unseen" on CCE. The 1864-L MS-64RB+ is a pop-1 coin and any sight unseen bid will get hit with this coin. This is the main reason why a sight unseen market is a fallacy. Any problem coin that gets into a "plus" holder will scare anyone from posting market-raising bids now, and forever in fear of getting hit with this coin. >>
I remember being in a dealers store back in the early 90's as he opened an order that just came back from PCGS with a group of common date Morgans. He opened the first box and shook his head and handed me an 1882-S Morgan that was graded MS65 that looked like a decent 63 at best. It turns out that many coins in that submission appeared to be grossly overgraded and the dealer didn't look happy about it. I asked him what the problem was, and he told me that he has a few hundred of these in MS65 he wants to dump sight unseen over a several week period to the high bidder on the network, and if he see's these coins he'll drop or remove his bid and so will the next two guys in line.
<< <i>Don't change the topic from "Plus" coins to "minus" coins. The fact is, spots on copper are a problem. Even if the 1908-S is original with great luster, why even grade it with tons of spots on it? PCGS should "Genuine" a coin with heavy spotting. Now it is also in the sight-unseen market. >>
Wow - now you're REALLY losing me. You think that 08-S should be 'genuined'? But that it's ok to call lightly cleaned coins 63?
Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Yes, I've seen coins in + holders that I just didn't think were special, but I've never seen one that I thought should be 'genuined'. As far as sight unseen bids go, that's a fool's game.
<< <i>Everything is a trade off in coin grading. >>
I agree with you, again.
<< <i>As far as sight unseen bids go, that's a fool's game. >>
And, again.
PS: Hell, this could turn into a bad habit.
<< <i>Don't change the topic from "Plus" coins to "minus" coins. The fact is, spots on copper are a problem. Even if the 1908-S is original with great luster, why even grade it with tons of spots on it? PCGS should "Genuine" a coin with heavy spotting. Now it is also in the sight-unseen market. >>
You, of all people, shouldn't be lecturing anyone about changing the topic. After all, you started this thread about a 64+ coin, talking and complaining about it being a 65+
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
CJ: 'No one!' [Ain't no angels in the coin biz]
<< <i>Eh, apologies in font size 2 are tough to read. >>
Sorry if it was posted and I missed it. But I looked again, and don't see it.
<< <i>
<< <i>Remember a "Plus" coin must be bid on "Sight-Unseen" on CCE. The 1864-L MS-64RB+ is a pop-1 coin and any sight unseen bid will get hit with this coin. This is the main reason why a sight unseen market is a fallacy. Any problem coin that gets into a "plus" holder will scare anyone from posting market-raising bids now, and forever in fear of getting hit with this coin. >>
I remember being in a dealers store back in the early 90's as he opened an order that just came back from PCGS with a group of common date Morgans. He opened the first box and shook his head and handed me an 1882-S Morgan that was graded MS65 that looked like a decent 63 at best. It turns out that many coins in that submission appeared to be grossly overgraded and the dealer didn't look happy about it. I asked him what the problem was, and he told me that he has a few hundred of these in MS65 he wants to dump sight unseen over a several week period to the high bidder on the network, and if he see's these coins he'll drop or remove his bid and so will the next two guys in line. >>
What would you do if this happened to you?