PCGS MS62 CAC to MS64 CAC Seated Half
GoldenEyeNumismatics
Posts: 13,187 ✭✭✭
GoldenEyeNumismatics
Posts: 13,187 ✭✭✭
Comments
MS63
MS65
MS65
Lance.
<< <i>MS62 CAC
MS64 CAC >>
This really erodes confidence in CAC. Pretty much makes the gold bean meaningless, or shall one say, the lack thereof when it was submitted as a MS62. A fair question to ask is why would a coin deserve a green sticker at MS64 when it wasn't better than a green sticker at MS62?
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
Hoard the keys.
<< <i>
<< <i>MS62 CAC
MS64 CAC >>
This really erodes confidence in CAC. Pretty much makes the gold bean meaningless, or shall one say, the lack thereof when it was submitted as a MS62. A fair question to ask is why would a coin deserve a green sticker at MS64 when it wasn't better than a green sticker at MS62? >>
Rather than eroding confidence, I think it strongly shows the power of plastic. When a given coin resides in a PCGS
holder, most numismatists will give it the benefit of the doubt, as long as the coin does not look completely out of line
for the assigned grade. Most Mint State seated half dollars are kept out of higher grades due to hairlines, dull luster,
unattractive toning, and/or other mishandling problems, all of which are subjective, and all of which are much harder
to spot than the typical contact marks on a Morgan dollar.
Not that I am defending CAC, but even they are susceptible. Imagine the same Indian cent in two holders; first in an
AU-58+ holder, and the second an MS-65 holder. Show this coin to a number of knowledgeable collectors and dealers,
allowing them to see the assigned grade. Think anyone will consider the AU-58+ holder for MS-66, or the MS-65 holder
for AU-55? Some might say that the coin is "not for me" but I would imagine the grade ranges would be quite different.
Marketing can be a powerful thing.
1795 50c PCGS AU50 CAC
This was a coin I made as a PCGS XF45, sent to CAC, got a green sticker and sold it. Seemed like a pretty straightforward coin for the grade and didn't even think about upgrading it. A few months later I see it in this Heritage sale as a 50 CAC green. The consignor made $5K or so.
Although I was rather perturbed by the above scenario, I don't think these instances erode confidence in CAC at all. I think they show us the following:
1. Grading is still subjective and not even close to being a science.
2. CAC has always been more about determining market acceptability rather than policing the technical grades of coins.
3. What would erode confidence in CAC even more is them giving out gold stickers to coins that end up not upgrading. They only gold sticker coins that have a 90%, slam dunk kind of chance to upgrade. I don't think the MS 62 Seated Half was a slam dunk upgrade. Maybe CAC thought it had an 80% chance to upgrade (which is what it did) but that's still not enough to get a gold sticker. I don't think it's unreasonable to say an MS62 with an 80% chance of upgrading can still be solid for the grade as a 64. (Although I am a bit surprised they stickered the MS64 Seated Half in this case.)
<< <i>37-D 3 Leg MS63
MS63
MS65
MS65 >>
Holy @#$%!!!!
Now that`s a nice jump in value
<< <i>I'll add one...
1795 50c PCGS AU50 CAC
This was a coin I made as a PCGS XF45, sent to CAC, got a green sticker and sold it. Seemed like a pretty straightforward coin for the grade and didn't even think about upgrading it. A few months later I see it in this Heritage sale as a 50 CAC green. The consignor made $5K or so.
Although I was rather perturbed by the above scenario, I don't think these instances erode confidence in CAC at all. I think they show us the following:
1. Grading is still subjective and not even close to being a science.
2. CAC has always been more about determining market acceptability rather than policing the technical grades of coins.
3. What would erode confidence in CAC even more is them giving out gold stickers to coins that end up not upgrading. They only gold sticker coins that have a 90%, slam dunk kind of chance to upgrade. I don't think the MS 62 Seated Half was a slam dunk upgrade. Maybe CAC thought it had an 80% chance to upgrade (which is what it did) but that's still not enough to get a gold sticker. I don't think it's unreasonable to say an MS62 with an 80% chance of upgrading can still be solid for the grade as a 64. (Although I am a bit surprised they stickered the MS64 Seated Half in this case.) >>
+1
Tom
<< <i>People grade coins. People make mistakes. >>
1. In the OP's examples, which ones were the "mistakes"?
2. Since grading and stickering are merely opinions, how can they be wrong in these cases?
Coin Rarities Online
<< <i>This will occur.... at least until computer grading is perfected and implemented. Cheers, RickO >>
I'm not exactly sure what "computer grading" is, but I can't imagine any program, no matter how sophisticated, being able to quantify everything that goes into grading a coin. Maybe it would work for a single type of coin, with certain generic characteristics (like frosty, white BU Morgans or modern coins), but I don't see it being useful overall.
And if it is possible, I hope it's never implemented - as a major part of the enjoyment of the hobby would be lost.
Then again, it would probably be easier to disagree with a computer's grade than a person's grade, putting us back to square 1 with even more confusion.
<< <i>
<< <i>37-D 3 Leg MS63
MS63
MS65
MS65 >>
Holy @#$%!!!!
Now that`s a nice jump in value
It had a gold sticker. I'm not surprised it came back a 65.
PCGS Registries
Box of 20
SeaEagleCoins: 11/14/54-4/5/12. Miss you Larry!
Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
<< <i>MS62 CAC
MS64 CAC >>
Shouldn't the first slab have gotten a gold sticker?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
<< <i>This really erodes confidence in CAC....... >>
Possibly extrapolating from too small a sample?
Why is CAC more culpable than PCGS? Note the coin brought "gold bean" money when it sold at Heritage. Note another '76 in 62CAC brought 15% more at FUN in January. I thought it was "too original"
"B" coin, wholesome, solid for the grade, not dramatically appealing. If it were flashier it would have been more noticeable. I have no idea why no gold bean, nor much care. I'm sure if I was there I might have made Matt Kleinstuber (very hard worker, world-class grader) pay another hundred bucks, but upside is limited without retail for this kind of coin. Truth is, at this point in my career (old, blind, lazy), I probably wouldn't have noticed the opportunity.
There was a very solid but not amazingly toned 1912 (?) 25c PCGS PR67 CAC that sold in a Stacks auction about 2 years ago for way over $20K (PR69 money?). The seller didn't get a gold bean nor, IMNSHO opinion, should it have. I discussed this specific coin with JA after it sold. His response "That's nuts! I wouldn't pay that much for a 68 A coin"
Expect anomalies. Trust your eyes. And remember that everyone doesn't see things the same.
<< <i>
<< <i>People grade coins. People make mistakes. >>
1. In the OP's examples, which ones were the "mistakes"?
2. Since grading and stickering are merely opinions, how can they be wrong in these cases? >>
John, it is my opinion that the best of the best when it comes to grading should not be two numerical grades apart when it comes to grading a particular uncirculated coin. I can see a one point difference and do not have an issue with that.
Ergo, and I might get flak for this, but if Tom Reynolds said a particular Half Cent was an MS 63 and a first world TPG said the particular coin was an MS 65, I'd say the grading service made a mistake.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
<< <i>
<< <i>This will occur.... at least until computer grading is perfected and implemented. Cheers, RickO >>
I'm not exactly sure what "computer grading" is, but I can't imagine any program, no matter how sophisticated, being able to quantify everything that goes into grading a coin. >>
I couldn't imagine texting, cell phones, e-mail, etc. 30 years ago!
<< <i>Re the image of the first Seated Half; I don't find it to be an attractive coin in either grade. >>
I find it more attractive as a 62.
<< <i>2. Since grading and stickering are merely opinions, how can they be wrong in these cases? >>
Well, gee, if someone says a coin is accurately graded as an MS62 and later says it's accurately
graded as an MS64, isn't one of the opinions "wrong" by definition?
<< <i>2. CAC has always been more about determining market acceptability rather than policing the technical grades of coins. >>
Wow, what universe are you from?
<< <i>
<< <i>2. CAC has always been more about determining market acceptability rather than policing the technical grades of coins. >>
Wow, what universe are you from?
No, the first sentence has some merit. There have been so many coins net graded for so many reasons, this concept has morphed into "market acceptable for the grade." CAC doesn't grade coins; they provide an opinion re the degree of acceptability for a coin slabbed in a particular grade.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
<< <i> This really erodes confidence in CAC. Pretty much makes the gold bean meaningless, or shall one say, the lack thereof when it was submitted as a MS62. A fair question to ask is why would a coin deserve a green sticker at MS64 when it wasn't better than a green sticker at MS62? >>
+1
<< <i> 3. What would erode confidence in CAC even more is them giving out gold stickers to coins that end up not upgrading. >>
Who would know except the submittor and they may discount it as their own oversight.
It would take a whole lot of gold beans getting denied on an upgrde (cracked or not) before there would even be a hint of lost confidence in CAC IMO.
It was something obviously CAC and PCGS missed.
That being said, he said that CAC is sometimes hesitant with giving Gold stickers unless they are 100% certain the coin is at least 1 and 1/2 grades higher than what is listed. Otherwise it puts a great deal of pressure on them as people will expect upgrades.
Ankur
PCGS Registries
Box of 20
SeaEagleCoins: 11/14/54-4/5/12. Miss you Larry!
It was something obviously CAC and PCGS missed.
That being said, he said that CAC is sometimes hesitant with giving Gold stickers unless they are 100% certain the coin is at least 1 and 1/2 grades higher than what is listed. Otherwise it puts a great deal of pressure on them as people will expect upgrades.
The first comments is an acknowledgement of the mistake. The second seems to suggests the error was due to unwarranted caution based on customer expectation rather than actual grade. In this case the coin moved 2 grades, and CAC agreed with both.
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
<< <i>Seeing as the first coin is from NFC, all I can say is that Matt has a tremendous eye and gets a lot of upgrades. >>
Good eye?
What about the graders?
Or has 2 points really been added to "market grading" since the first time through the mill?
My Spidey Senses are tingling.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>
<< <i>2. CAC has always been more about determining market acceptability rather than policing the technical grades of coins. >>
Wow, what universe are you from?
What universe are YOU from?
CAC beans coins it will buy. It supports a market of its own pre-graded coins. Understandably many will make the inference that others besides CAC will find any coin with a bean "market-acceptable".
Many hearts (wallets?) are broken when beaned NGC coins don't cross
<< <i>Seeing as the first coin is from NFC, all I can say is that Matt has a tremendous eye and gets a lot of upgrades. >>
Why do you assume NFC made the upgrade? It could have just as easily been bought by Heritage, upgraded by them, and then bought by NFC out of a following sale. Heritage does buy coins out of their sales and making upgrades would seem to be part of the routine. They have more options than any of us do when it comes to maneuvering coins for the best outcome and quick resale. I sold them an AU58 bust half dime a few years back. 3 months later the same coin was in one of their sales as a MS62. It happens. If I had to pick between NFC or Heritage making this upgrade, I'd vote for Heritage. From what I've seen NFC ends up with a lot of product...and moves a lot of product. But would agree that buying a MS62 seated half has little downside. It looks out of place in either a 63 or 64 holder imo. And if it were worthy of a 64 CAC sticker, there's no way it should have avoided a gold bean the first time around. A 64 seated half sitting in a 62 holder is about as obvious as it gets. I don't think I've ever seen such a thing in hand though. 1 pt swings is about as lucky as I've gotten with PCGS seated half crackouts/regrades. This would all suggest the coin was more a 63 coin that was undergraded due to weak to negative eye appeal the first time through. I can definitely see PCGS not liking this coin at some point and 62ing it. The 2nd time through someone focused more on marks than eye appeal. The surfaces/luster look kinda dead to me. A 64 seated half should walk and talk luster and excite you. I'm not seeing it. But it looks just like the coins I'd expect to see in a "competitor's" 64 holder.
The gold bean 3 legged rattler buffalo is not in the same class as the seated half above. A lot of gem coins by today's standards found themselves in 63/64 holders in 1987-1990. A very high end MS63 back then is quite believable as a 65 today. Someone had the good sense not to crack this one out for the easy 1 pt upgrade years ago. They got the gold bean and basically "earned" a 2 pt upgrade.