Nothing far fetched about anything I have said. The simple reality is PCGS may (or may not) have been looking at a slightly different coin when they graded it MS67FBL as compared to the times they rejected your submissions for upgrade to even MS66+. If you find that assertion to be "fantastical" in nature, then, with all due respect, we probably don't have much more to talk about. Wondercoin.
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
I would challenge your assertation about gradeflation on Ikes. Point to the specific increase in pop reports over the last 3 years outside of a few increase in top pop Ikes that are bound to occur, just like they occurred the previous 25 years. I clearly stated that the early "P" mints have grown, but out side of that pop growth has been limited. Of the top pop clads, I think we've seen maybe 10 coins made in the last 3 years for the entire series (again discounting the early "P" mints). The only documented coin that I know that jumped grades was my 74-D that went from a Green Label MS67 CAC to a 67+ CAC. When I sold the coin I told my customer that if a MS68 Clad was going to be made this would be it. The only other 67+ was submitted by me for a client and that coin IMHO should have grade 68. It was a virtually flawless 76-D Type II.
The proofs have grown immensely, just like I said they would about 5 years ago. Prices have dropped precipitously just as predicted. At the time, you said that my comments were all wet.
This is a series that I follow closely and understand as well as anyone in the country.
Going off the top of my head here with pops in the last 3 years
Ronyahski. With respect to Washington quarters, the ability to slab MS67+ specimens has increased significantly over the past few years. As such, there is now a wide range of quality between low end and high end MS67+ coins. Yet, PCGS has generally held the line on what it takes to slab an MS68 Washington quarter. Of course, there has been a coin or two in MS68 that might have slipped through, but, overall, this is a grade that is not flowing like fine wine with Washington quarters (but compare Roosies where plenty of MS68s have been graded over the past few years). You understand this is, at its heart, a "ratings game" and when, and if, quarters start getting produced with more frequency in MS68, I probably have a dozen or more MS67+ coins that should fairly easily upgrade to MS68 or even MS68 to MS68+ in a few cases.
As always, just my two cents. Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
Segoja. Challenge accepted. Set up a three way call with me, you and Charles Morgan from CoinWeek (who understands Ikes quite well) anytime you wish. This way, he can even write another article on the subject. It should be fun.
Wondercoin.
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
James. I don't care about the publicity. You have a new company to promote. I can simply write here freely with no agenda at all. And, I am not suggesting you have an agenda. But, if you want to "challenge" me on my comment that gradeflation has indeed hit Mint State Ikes, then set up the three way call. Otherwise, let's just move on. Wondercoin.
Edited to add... I now see you edited your previous post to include some MS67 data. But, MS66 and MS66+ coins are huge in the Mint State Ike dollar series as well. Many dates are top pop in MS66 and MS66+
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
Delta. I have never worked there. And, I would caution anyone to be careful with going too far with an assertion that anyone that does work there might get better treatment (especially here). Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
<< <i>Nothing far fetched about anything I have said. The simple reality is PCGS may (or may not) have been looking at a slightly different coin when they graded it MS67FBL as compared to the times they rejected your submissions for upgrade to even MS66+. If you find that assertion to be "fantastical" in nature, then, with all due respect, we probably don't have much more to talk about. Wondercoin. >>
Typical of your posts WC.
You make frankly, silly statements, (LOOK AT the pics... and then TELL ME where you see evidence of conservation), and then when someone disagrees with you you become indignant. Grow up. This isn't a children's sandbox.
Everyone can compare the before and after pix and see the coins are unchanged.
And what conservation method , exactly, adds FBL to a Non FBL coin??
Don'y bother replying , you have already lost this debate!!
First, I said the coin may, or may not, have been professionally conserved with respect to grade (and make no mistake that such conservation can be very, very subtle). I never mentioned bell lines. Did you even post the before pic of the bell lines? I have no idea about this particular coin. In fact, I was trying to make you feel a little better about letting an $18,500 coin go for a few hundred dollars. I was not trying to be indignant. You, in fact, called my comments silly and fantastical. I said if that is the way you feel we probably won't have much more to talk about on the subject. I was not having a "debate" with you. I was offering you a possible explanation on the higher grade (not designation) on just a single coin on your list.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
Deltadimeman. I am one of the (38) members of that Board. But, many, perhaps, most of that board do not work for PCGS. I can understand the confusion though. Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
I'm available all day Monday and Tuesday. You have my number. >>
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......
there is no gradeflation . only the best coins are getting the upgrades, because of the huge profit . i don't see average ms61 coins getting in ms63 holders ? big profits for those in the know ?
<< <i> Did you even post the before pic of the bell lines? >>
Yes. Its right there in the first post. Reading Comprehension is difficult isn't it?
<< <i> I never mentioned bell lines. >>
That is a very transparent cop-out on your part. Technically, a strike designation may not be part of a grade... but it is a huge part of value... and that is the bottom line here.
It's all about value afterall, as evidenced by your comment:
<< <i> I was trying to make you feel a little better about letting an $18,500 coin go for a few hundred dollars. >>
So according to your pretzel logic, the 1951 went from $300 to $18,500 just based on numerical grade? The bell line designation is just moot??
Still looking, but did not see your 1951-P MS66 pic of the reverse. Maybe I missed it. As I said before, the lions share of the money was made by getting the coin in an MS67 holder with FBL. Had you been able to get the coin into an MS66FBL holder, you would not have captured a large percentage of the upgrade value. Ditto for MS66+FBL. The big money was made getting that MS67FBL grade. Was the coin exactly the same when submitted to PCGS for that MS67FBL grade? Who knows. Food for thought. Wondercoin.
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
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......
Jethro, You have posted a concern that we all have and provided great examples to illustrate your point. Your post makes me glad that I do not collect Franklins. I find the price differentials between the top pop coins and those just one grade lower to add an amount of risk to collecting that cannot be justified financially when considering the purchase of a top pop coin. Registry set competition is at the root of all of this difference, but the most attractive set, a set that the collector can be very rightfully proud of, is graded only upon the PCGS standard of "excellence".
With modern issues like your Franklins I think that luster and toning have had an increased impact on the grade in recent years. In the case of toning, the toning sometimes hides marks that would other detract from the grade. Some of the coins that you posted had very nice toning, and when they were originally graded the marks on the surfaces of the coin may have been in the toned areas and we cannot tell from yours or anyone's pictures if this were the case. But it may be that marks are more significant now in the untoned areas where they were once totally significant no matter where they were. This may define "market acceptability".
But your post makes me feel much better about passing on top pop coins........
Delta, the 61 to 63 upgrades did happen, but it was mostly years ago (and I did benefit from that event). I think BillJ pointed out there was a major slide in XFs moving to AUs, also mostly years ago.
Gradeflation has been an issue for a long time, and this thread is a clear depiction of the modern version. In terms of things like Franklins, while I know/think the top pops come from mint sets, there are still many roll sets of these, as well as late date walkers, roosies, etc.
When you are playing a "finest known" game, with a series that has a closet/attic/basement supply of potentially 100's of thousands of examples, you are always taking a risk.
"When you are playing a "finest known" game, with a series that has a closet/attic/basement supply of potentially 100's of thousands of examples, you are always taking a risk."
This, and the risk is considerable for anyone who intends to buy and hold. It is compounded by a thin market, with relatively few dealers who actively support (and not just promote--there was at least one memorable thread a few years back about Franklins in particular) the market for top-pop moderns with reasonable buying efforts, and a hoard of coins graded just one point below. This type of market will be dicey until enough time has passed for most of the true high-end coins to come out of the woodworks and be professionally graded--I don't think I will live to see this. It's sort of like waiting for an evolving curve to approach an asymptotic maximum.
Roadrunner's comment about investor needs is also spot on. There are limited ways to enhance the values of one's coins, and getting upgrades with the assistance of gradeflation is one of them.
Member: EAC, NBS, C4, CWTS, ANA
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
I could have sent it in 10x and never got the upgrade, it takes somebody with the knowledge and skill to get it to go most of the time, especially when something has to be done to help it a long.
At least from own experiences in choice/gem MS better date date seated material, these upgrades are coming without any changes to the coins. It's not a like a roll of gem 1858-0 dimes is going to hit the market....as it might for coins minted in the past 70 years. There's no magic "skill" being applied to these coins. The only "skill" is being the right person, at the right time. Why that should have anything to do with grading is beyond me. It's unlikely the OP's coins were "fixed" along the way. It seems much more likely that repeated submissions over a period of time (ending with the right submitter, at the right time, with a different set of graders), got 'er done. It's an art, not a science. But, one can certainly improve their odds. The last grade on the coin doesn't care whether it took 1 submission, 2 submissions, or 20 submissions. Gradeflation is just part of modern coin market psychology. You can't have an active market where everything stays the same all the time. Obviously, the grapes aren't sweet when you tried 5X to upgrade a very worthy coin only to find that the next owner succeeded right off the bat while not changing the coin.
I'll share that I originally owned and "made" the first 52P Franklin in the OP in hopes it might add to this thread.
I found it sitting in a broken up mint set at the winter FUN show around 2010. Only the P board was left, and one coin was already removed. I didn't understand at the time why that coin was overlooked. When I took it home I decided to break up the remainder of the set. It graded 66FBL first time through. It's hard to see in the image but the obverse is semi-prooflike and has sparkling color. The reverse looks frosty snow white in hand. I felt it should go to a collector who really enjoys toned coins so I sent it to PawPaul (Mike Lewis) and when I sent it to him I told him that if I'd ever seen an undergraded top franklin that this was it.
As I understand,Mike, at the St Louis show a year later submitted this coin with seven others which he and Bushmaster hand picked out of his amazing collection as possible upgrades and top pops. If I remember correctly three or four upgraded, this one included. He sold it quickly for 20 times the level he bought it from me ( I was disappointed he sold it because I thought he should keep it but soon after he sold off most of his collection so it made more sense to me then).
Even thought I left lots of money on the table I felt good about identifying the undergraded piece, I really enjoyed my time collecting with Mike and he hooked me up with some great lincolns.
I have a moderate amount of experience with top pop beautifully toned Franklins and there is no doubt in my mind that in the past six or seven years the "look" of a frosty, wild and originally toned Franklin has become a more dominant aspect of PCGS' grading. I don't object. My feelings are that they undergraded these wonderful coins for decades.
I have a slightly different opinion of what has happened to the Washington series.
Just a thought and, even if true, it would only explain part of what OP has presented. As the hobby further and further segments coins into narrower categories, you would expect some movement of coins. What was an MS 65 when that was all there was, may move because it was the highest of the A coins or the lowest of the C coins. And as a grader, the more coins that you see, and the more often that you see each one, the more accurately you are able to move that coin within a grading system to show its true position relative to all the rest.
I still think that moving from a 65 to a 66+ is likely not explainable in a believeable manner, but I am open to hearing an explanation from anybody at PCGS who would chime in on the thread.
Also, another question. Did Op ever submit these to CAC and, if so, how did they do? If it CACs at 66+ one would think it would have had a Gold Bean at one time in the past, no?
U still think that moving from a 65 to a 66+ is likely not explainable in a believeable manner, but I am open to hearing an explanation from anybody at PCGS who would chime in on the thread.
My ex-1858-0 dime followed this same course. Purchased out of Stack's 1982 Robison as gem unc, graded NGC MS65 in 1988. Later resubmitted to NGC in 1997 when I heard that the Eliasberg coins were causing a lot of upward grade movements in the seated series. Came back NGC MS66. Made a couple of attempts to cross the coin from 1998-2004 without success. Even Heritage gave the coin a low probability to cross at that time, and it didn't for them either. Auctioned off in 2004 at Heritage where it brought weak 66 money as a pop 1 between both services. Had it been PCGS and pop 1 it probably would fetched 20-30% more. Gene Gardner bought the coin. When Gardner 1 was auctioned the coin appeared in a PCGS MS 66 CAC holder. It probably crossed on the first look. A subsequent owner has upgraded it to 66+.
It always bothered me with the NGC bias that was applied to this coin back in the 2002-2004 period when I showed the coin around to dealers I respected.....I was still looking to see if the coin had potential to go PCGS 66. In particular Larry Whitlow was not fond of NGC coins. And on this coin he felt it had too many marks, way too deep original toning, and muted luster to be anything but a MS65. That was holder bias at its finest though at the same time his concerns did have some basis in fact. But, that was typical of what I got back when I showed the coin around. Back in 2004, thicker original toning was not all that popular with PCGS and would often result in a 1 point deduction...I understood it....and planned for it. But, now in 2015 with the coin being P66+ I have to wonder why it took so many years for "everyone" else to come around to what I (and Gene Gardner) saw over 10 years ago? I was disappointed back in 1988 when this coin "only" graded MS65 as it was essentially the equal of other MS66 stars dimes I had at that time. I held on to that coin for 22 years....and having to "settle" for NGC MS66 money back in 2004. The holder kept it back. I could have sent that coin back another dozen times and it still wouldn't have crossed. The coin itself hasn't changed any since 1982. The only changes I see are "time" and "new" owners. You could call that gradeflation or that it took 10-25 years to give the coin the grade it deserved back in 1988. Pick your poison. That coin has probably been at the TPG's 7-8 times in its life. I know all my duplicate stickers made their way back the TPG's, I can't vouch for the others. I gave that coin 22 years to "work" for me. It never really did. However it worked really well for Gene Gardner during 2004-2014. I wasn't willing to hang on for 32 years as additional 66's were inevitably made......sorry if I was weak in "staying power." Ironically, I could have sold it for 30% more money in 1989 than I got in 2004. Time marches on.
Collectors many times focus on the technicality of a grade. "This coin should not go ms65->to ms66 because of the tiny tic on the the left field."
Crack out guys specialize in finding coins that are strong for the lower grade but would not look to much out of place in a higher graded holder. That is many times how they get the upgrade.
Remember that grading is not based solely on technicality. Eye appeal and luster are 2 other major influences.
I remember that ms68+ cac morgan that legend sold a couple of months back for $50k labeling it as the craziest toner etc...
When I looked at it I kept saying this is no ms68 from a technical grading and should have been 67+ at best based on some marks under the toning. I also discussed this coin with a bunch of crackout guys whom also felt the coin was a high 67 at best on technical terms. Did the crazy toning help get the extra bump? Im sure of it. Was it a phenomenal coin? surely. Did I agree with the grade? no- but I can understand why it was there.
The first set of coins I put together complete and in a whitman folder in Gem BU,as we called it back then, was Frankling Half Dollars. I loved doing it and I made a profit on the set in an era that was near impossible to profit in coins. So much for that. I agree with the OP this is sickening to see the gradeflation in that series. They are tough coins to grade, but not this tough. Oh well pity the folks who paid so much for so little utility.
Maybe it was a Dansco anyway, it had those plastic slide covers that you had to be so careful of scratching the coins with like the 7070.
The OP and the replies to same touch upon and illustrate a wide variety of dynamics and points of view that are present in the hobby/industry.
For some people numismatics is purely a hobby.
For others it is a business that is either full time [and the sole source of support for ones livelihood] or part time [and one of many sources of support for one's livelihood].
For others it is a way to passively invest money and hopefully make a profit.
Numismatics has been around for a long time, likely since the first coins were made. It exists due to basic human nature [competition with others, wanting to strive to acquire and have the best, ego, obsession, compulsion].
Adjectival grading has been supplanted by numeric grading. Third party experts who inspect a coin, provide their expert opinion of it's grade and then encapsulate same into a plastic tomb with a grading label is the mechanism through which much of numismatic's operate today. Coins that have been graded and encapsulated enter the market place and are bought, sold, traded and otherwise transferred to and from end buyers. Many times these coins take detours into the hands of middlemen who squeeze money out of same before they end up with another end buyer. Having the same coins rotate through the marketplace keeping the grades assigned to them when they were first graded just will not happen because it is easy to crack them out and send them in for a new grade opinion or resubmit them in their existing holder for a regrade. Given the guarantees offered by grading companies, it is not likely that a coin will come back graded lower. Constantly staying the same grade will also not work since if that was the only thing that happened regrades would dry up and grading service revenue would fall. Eventually higher grades get assigned because those who participate in numismatics want their coins to grade higher [for multiple reasons].
To accommodate the demands for "better" designations (i.e. FBL, *), + signs etc. have been adopted by grading companies to allow for differentiation. This allows the demands for "better" to be accommodated.
To further accommodate this demand for "better" CAC was created so that a 4th party can chime in and give green and gold stickers to an already graded coin. This allows for further differentiation.
As coins progress through multiple trips to TPG's and CAC some of them become well known. The history of their travels become traceable (like the ownership and lien history of a parcel of real property can be tracked through looking at documents recorded at the County Recorder) and like the coins discussed and photographed in the OP it can be shown that the coin stays the same while the opinion of its grade and whether or not it should receive a designation changes over time. Many times the coins are eventually regraded in an upward direction, because that is what is desired.
So what happens when (decades down the road???) most of the slab worthy coins which are still raw change hands after the death of their current owners and are submitted for grading multiple times so that they receive their top grade. Further what happens when coins already slabbed are resubmitted multiple times to receive their top grade. When all that is left is the same group of coins and when all of these coins have been documented and publicized so well that their history is known, what will happen to accommodate the demand for "better"?
Will the current 1-70 grading scale be deemed outdated and unworkable for numismatics? Will it be replaced with something else (100 point scale?).
Stay tuned, for the future will reveal itself. Future changes will happen to further accommodate the demand for "better" because human nature is not going to change.
In the meantime, sit back, enjoy the ride and enjoy numismatics. If you choose to do so, jump into competing with others and build the best collection you can (realizing that even if you become #1 [however you define it] rarely if ever does someone stay #1 for ever). The fun thing about numismatics is that it can be whatever one desires it to be. The individual can determine what participation in numismatics best suits his or her needs and wants. Once this determination is made individuals can proceed however they want for as long as they want. The best that can be hoped for is that through progress in information technology more information on all aspects of numismatics becomes available to the masses and that most of the masses will be willing and able to learn all they can about numismatics so that when they jump into fray they can operate with a base of knowledge that will help them make good decisions.
<< <i>Will the current 1-70 grading scale be deemed outdated and unworkable for numismatics? Will it be replaced with something else (100 point scale?).
Not if ... but when. >>
Followed by pluses and stickers. Enjoy your coins.
I suppose I do not quite see gradeflation in the same light as most that have posted their thoughts. Grading remains an opinion- it is not a math problem with an exact answer. Opinions can change and some opinions are sought after and better than others. A coin submitted different times will not always produce the same grade result. Let's not criticize TPG for bumping a grade for a coin from 65 to 66 that has a shot at 66 4 out of 10 times... that is if someone goes to that extreme (and apparently that is happening with greater frequency). A coin can have the power to leave an impression whereby its strength in terms of eye appeal can eclipse the technical aspect of grading. I do not see this as gradeflation as much as dealers and collectors pushing the odds to maximize a grade.
TPG deserves a better fate than what is expressed here. Is it perfect? No, but it is part of the evolutionary process to make grading what it needs to be. A continuous examination of how to best describe the state of preservation of a coin.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
<< <i>Will the current 1-70 grading scale be deemed outdated and unworkable for numismatics? Will it be replaced with something else (100 point scale?).
Not if ... but when. >>
Followed by pluses and stickers. Enjoy your coins. >>
Exactly---a 'new and improved' grading scale, extended to 100 points, would not fundamentally change anything. People would still find a way to game the system in order to make money.
Member: EAC, NBS, C4, CWTS, ANA
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
Please circulate the call-in number for the Ike call. A discussion of gradeflation in connection with clad Ikes seems worthy of an audience as well as the participation of others.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Coinkat, I don't think the vast majority of collectors have much of an issue with deserving coins being re-evaluated and adjusted upwards. But, like others here, I have observed a general loosening of standards that makes me scratch my head a lot. At the last Long Beach, I saw MS67+ coins with hits in prime focal areas. It wasn't as if these were monster toners that were being market graded, either.
In the end analysis, I return to my core belief that a collector must learn to grade as a means of ultimate self-protection. Slabs are a good first approximation, but there are too many variables in play to rely on them absolutely.
Hmm...If a persons coin is at the post office and a TPG 12 months in 5 years, why buy the coin in the first place? Nobody makes you sell it. Maybe grades start out low to minimize TPGs liability/guarantee? Basically protecting their exposure? I don't know. Win some lose some.
<< <i>Collectors many times focus on the technicality of a grade. "This coin should not go ms65->to ms66 because of the tiny tic on the the left field."
Remember that grading is not based solely on technicality. Eye appeal and luster are 2 other major influences. >>
Persuing choice countermarked coinage on 2 reales.
Enjoyed numismatic conversations with Eric P. Newman, Dave Akers, Jules Reiver, David Davis, Russ Logan, John McCloskey, Kirk Gorman, W. David Perkins...
There is too much money assigned to the grades, greed ruins the hobby. If we were talking about minor dollar swings on what were once common coins, it wouldn't be such a big deal. Ego = "ease God out".
I would give the grading services the benefit of the doubt. Who benefits when the grading gets tighter in some areas and looser in others? Insiders, the most aggressive manipulators and submitters, those making a living at this. For those who just want to enjoy the hobby the fierce competition undermines their goals and they get on the sidelines.
I've been collecting franklins for 15 years and you can bet ones with monster color get a bump in grade. I personally feel all of them should be graded as seen and not given gifts just cause the color makes you gaga.
Comments
I would challenge your assertation about gradeflation on Ikes. Point to the specific increase in pop reports over the last 3 years outside of a few increase in top pop Ikes that are bound to occur, just like they occurred the previous 25 years. I clearly stated that the early "P" mints have grown, but out side of that pop growth has been limited. Of the top pop clads, I think we've seen maybe 10 coins made in the last 3 years for the entire series (again discounting the early "P" mints). The only documented coin that I know that jumped grades was my 74-D that went from a Green Label MS67 CAC to a 67+ CAC. When I sold the coin I told my customer that if a MS68 Clad was going to be made this would be it. The only other 67+ was submitted by me for a client and that coin IMHO should have grade 68. It was a virtually flawless 76-D Type II.
The proofs have grown immensely, just like I said they would about 5 years ago. Prices have dropped precipitously just as predicted. At the time, you said that my comments were all wet.
This is a series that I follow closely and understand as well as anyone in the country.
Going off the top of my head here with pops in the last 3 years
71-D MS67 Maybe 3-4 added
72-D MS67 3 added
73-D MS67 1 added
74-D MS67 1 added
74-D MS67+ 2 added (1 was an upgrade)
All the other MS67 Clads have stayed the same Hardly gradeflation over 5 years, but maybe your definition is different than mine.
Proofs...several dates have had increases in the double digit range, and several dates have had PR70 made where none exited previously.
Ike Specialist
Finest Toned Ike I've Ever Seen, been looking since 1986
As always, just my two cents. Wondercoin
Wondercoin.
Sigh...
I'm available all day Monday and Tuesday. You have my number.
Ike Specialist
Finest Toned Ike I've Ever Seen, been looking since 1986
Edited to add... I now see you edited your previous post to include some MS67 data. But, MS66 and MS66+ coins are huge in the Mint State Ike dollar series as well. Many dates are top pop in MS66 and MS66+
<< <i>Nothing far fetched about anything I have said. The simple reality is PCGS may (or may not) have been looking at a slightly different coin when they graded it MS67FBL as compared to the times they rejected your submissions for upgrade to even MS66+. If you find that assertion to be "fantastical" in nature, then, with all due respect, we probably don't have much more to talk about. Wondercoin. >>
Typical of your posts WC.
You make frankly, silly statements, (LOOK AT the pics... and then TELL ME where you see evidence of conservation), and then when someone disagrees with you you become indignant. Grow up. This isn't a children's sandbox.
Everyone can compare the before and after pix and see the coins are unchanged.
And what conservation method , exactly, adds FBL to a Non FBL coin??
Don'y bother replying , you have already lost this debate!!
Wondercoin
<< <i>wondercoin set it up. I'm challenging you.
I'm available all day Monday and Tuesday. You have my number. >>
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......
And if it ends up getting poofed I'm at least glad I was able to read it.
ANA LM
USAF Retired — 34 years of active military service! 🇺🇸
Wondercoin
I don't think that I will be able to look at registry set coins again without those clips coming to mind.
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
CJ: 'No one!' [Ain't no angels in the coin biz]
<< <i> Did you even post the before pic of the bell lines? >>
Yes. Its right there in the first post. Reading Comprehension is difficult isn't it?
<< <i> I never mentioned bell lines. >>
That is a very transparent cop-out on your part. Technically, a strike designation may not be part of a grade... but it is a huge part of value... and that is the bottom line here.
It's all about value afterall, as evidenced by your comment:
<< <i> I was trying to make you feel a little better about letting an $18,500 coin go for a few hundred dollars. >>
So according to your pretzel logic, the 1951 went from $300 to $18,500 just based on numerical grade? The bell line designation is just moot??
<< <i>Justacommenman. Can I be Hansel?
Wondercoin >>
Yours. I'm Mugato ( Me Halloween)
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......
With modern issues like your Franklins I think that luster and toning have had an increased impact on the grade in recent years. In the case of toning, the toning sometimes hides marks that would other detract from the grade. Some of the coins that you posted had very nice toning, and when they were originally graded the marks on the surfaces of the coin may have been in the toned areas and we cannot tell from yours or anyone's pictures if this were the case. But it may be that marks are more significant now in the untoned areas where they were once totally significant no matter where they were. This may define "market acceptability".
But your post makes me feel much better about passing on top pop coins........
OINK
Gradeflation has been an issue for a long time, and this thread is a clear depiction of the modern version. In terms of things like Franklins, while I know/think the top pops come from mint sets, there are still many roll sets of these, as well as late date walkers, roosies, etc.
When you are playing a "finest known" game, with a series that has a closet/attic/basement supply of potentially 100's of thousands of examples, you are always taking a risk.
This, and the risk is considerable for anyone who intends to buy and hold. It is compounded by a thin market, with relatively few dealers who actively support (and not just promote--there was at least one memorable thread a few years back about Franklins in particular) the market for top-pop moderns with reasonable buying efforts, and a hoard of coins graded just one point below. This type of market will be dicey until enough time has passed for most of the true high-end coins to come out of the woodworks and be professionally graded--I don't think I will live to see this. It's sort of like waiting for an evolving curve to approach an asymptotic maximum.
Roadrunner's comment about investor needs is also spot on. There are limited ways to enhance the values of one's coins, and getting upgrades with the assistance of gradeflation is one of them.
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
CJ: 'No one!' [Ain't no angels in the coin biz]
At least from own experiences in choice/gem MS better date date seated material, these upgrades are coming without any changes to the coins. It's not a like a roll of gem 1858-0 dimes is going to hit the market....as it might for coins minted in the past 70 years. There's no magic "skill" being applied to these coins. The only "skill" is being the right person, at the right time. Why that should have anything to do with grading is beyond me. It's unlikely the OP's coins were "fixed" along the way. It seems much more likely that repeated submissions over a period of time (ending with the right submitter, at the right time, with a different set of graders), got 'er done. It's an art, not a science. But, one can certainly improve their odds. The last grade on the coin doesn't care whether it took 1 submission, 2 submissions, or 20 submissions. Gradeflation is just part of modern coin market psychology. You can't have an active market where everything stays the same all the time. Obviously, the grapes aren't sweet when you tried 5X to upgrade a very worthy coin only to find that the next owner succeeded right off the bat while not changing the coin.
I found it sitting in a broken up mint set at the winter FUN show around 2010. Only the P board was left, and one coin was already removed. I didn't understand at the time why that coin was overlooked. When I took it home I decided to break up the remainder of the set. It graded 66FBL first time through. It's hard to see in the image but the obverse is semi-prooflike and has sparkling color. The reverse looks frosty snow white in hand. I felt it should go to a collector who really enjoys toned coins so I sent it to PawPaul (Mike Lewis) and when I sent it to him I told him that if I'd ever seen an undergraded top franklin that this was it.
As I understand,Mike, at the St Louis show a year later submitted this coin with seven others which he and Bushmaster hand picked out of his amazing collection as possible upgrades and top pops. If I remember correctly three or four upgraded, this one included. He sold it quickly for 20 times the level he bought it from me ( I was disappointed he sold it because I thought he should keep it but soon after he sold off most of his collection so it made more sense to me then).
Even thought I left lots of money on the table I felt good about identifying the undergraded piece, I really enjoyed my time collecting with Mike and he hooked me up with some great lincolns.
I have a moderate amount of experience with top pop beautifully toned Franklins and there is no doubt in my mind that in the past six or seven years the "look" of a frosty, wild and originally toned Franklin has become a more dominant aspect of PCGS' grading. I don't object. My feelings are that they undergraded these wonderful coins for decades.
I have a slightly different opinion of what has happened to the Washington series.
I still think that moving from a 65 to a 66+ is likely not explainable in a believeable manner, but I am open to hearing an explanation from anybody at PCGS who would chime in on the thread.
Also, another question. Did Op ever submit these to CAC and, if so, how did they do? If it CACs at 66+ one would think it would have had a Gold Bean at one time in the past, no?
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
My ex-1858-0 dime followed this same course. Purchased out of Stack's 1982 Robison as gem unc, graded NGC MS65 in 1988. Later resubmitted to NGC in 1997 when I heard that the Eliasberg coins were causing a lot of upward grade movements in the seated series. Came back NGC MS66. Made a couple of attempts to cross the coin from 1998-2004 without success. Even Heritage gave the coin a low probability to cross at that time, and it didn't for them either. Auctioned off in 2004 at Heritage where it brought weak 66 money as a pop 1 between both services. Had it been PCGS and pop 1 it probably would fetched 20-30% more. Gene Gardner bought the coin. When Gardner 1 was auctioned the coin appeared in a PCGS MS 66 CAC holder. It probably crossed on the first look. A subsequent owner has upgraded it to 66+.
It always bothered me with the NGC bias that was applied to this coin back in the 2002-2004 period when I showed the coin around to dealers I respected.....I was still looking to see if the coin had potential to go PCGS 66. In particular Larry Whitlow was not fond of NGC coins. And on this coin he felt it had too many marks, way too deep original toning, and muted luster to be anything but a MS65. That was holder bias at its finest though at the same time his concerns did have some basis in fact. But, that was typical of what I got back when I showed the coin around. Back in 2004, thicker original toning was not all that popular with PCGS and would often result in a 1 point deduction...I understood it....and planned for it. But, now in 2015 with the coin being P66+ I have to wonder why it took so many years for "everyone" else to come around to what I (and Gene Gardner) saw over 10 years ago? I was disappointed back in 1988 when this coin "only" graded MS65 as it was essentially the equal of other MS66 stars dimes I had at that time. I held on to that coin for 22 years....and having to "settle" for NGC MS66 money back in 2004. The holder kept it back. I could have sent that coin back another dozen times and it still wouldn't have crossed. The coin itself hasn't changed any since 1982. The only changes I see are "time" and "new" owners. You could call that gradeflation or that it took 10-25 years to give the coin the grade it deserved back in 1988. Pick your poison. That coin has probably been at the TPG's 7-8 times in its life. I know all my duplicate stickers made their way back the TPG's, I can't vouch for the others. I gave that coin 22 years to "work" for me. It never really did. However it worked really well for Gene Gardner during 2004-2014. I wasn't willing to hang on for 32 years as additional 66's were inevitably made......sorry if I was weak in "staying power." Ironically, I could have sold it for 30% more money in 1989 than I got in 2004. Time marches on.
Crack out guys specialize in finding coins that are strong for the lower grade but would not look to much out of place in a higher graded holder.
That is many times how they get the upgrade.
Remember that grading is not based solely on technicality. Eye appeal and luster are 2 other major influences.
I remember that ms68+ cac morgan that legend sold a couple of months back for $50k labeling it as the craziest toner etc...
When I looked at it I kept saying this is no ms68 from a technical grading and should have been 67+ at best based on some marks under the toning. I also discussed this coin with a bunch of crackout guys whom also felt the coin was a high 67 at best on technical terms.
Did the crazy toning help get the extra bump? Im sure of it. Was it a phenomenal coin? surely. Did I agree with the grade? no- but I can understand why it was there.
Maybe it was a Dansco anyway, it had those plastic slide covers that you had to be so careful of scratching the coins with like the 7070.
<< <i>There are limited ways to enhance the values of one's coins, and getting upgrades with the assistance of gradeflation is one of them. >>
But, I remember hearing that stickers were going to be the antidote to gradeflation.
The OP and the replies to same touch upon and illustrate a wide variety of dynamics and points of view that are present in the hobby/industry.
For some people numismatics is purely a hobby.
For others it is a business that is either full time [and the sole source of support for ones livelihood] or part time [and one of many sources of support for one's livelihood].
For others it is a way to passively invest money and hopefully make a profit.
Numismatics has been around for a long time, likely since the first coins were made. It exists due to basic human nature [competition with others, wanting to strive to acquire and have the best, ego, obsession, compulsion].
Adjectival grading has been supplanted by numeric grading. Third party experts who inspect a coin, provide their expert opinion of it's grade and then encapsulate same into a plastic tomb with a grading label is the mechanism through which much of numismatic's operate today. Coins that have been graded and encapsulated enter the market place and are bought, sold, traded and otherwise transferred to and from end buyers. Many times these coins take detours into the hands of middlemen who squeeze money out of same before they end up with another end buyer. Having the same coins rotate through the marketplace keeping the grades assigned to them when they were first graded just will not happen because it is easy to crack them out and send them in for a new grade opinion or resubmit them in their existing holder for a regrade. Given the guarantees offered by grading companies, it is not likely that a coin will come back graded lower. Constantly staying the same grade will also not work since if that was the only thing that happened regrades would dry up and grading service revenue would fall. Eventually higher grades get assigned because those who participate in numismatics want their coins to grade higher [for multiple reasons].
To accommodate the demands for "better" designations (i.e. FBL, *), + signs etc. have been adopted by grading companies to allow for differentiation. This allows the demands for "better" to be accommodated.
To further accommodate this demand for "better" CAC was created so that a 4th party can chime in and give green and gold stickers to an already graded coin. This allows for further differentiation.
As coins progress through multiple trips to TPG's and CAC some of them become well known. The history of their travels become traceable (like the ownership and lien history of a parcel of real property can be tracked through looking at documents recorded at the County Recorder) and like the coins discussed and photographed in the OP it can be shown that the coin stays the same while the opinion of its grade and whether or not it should receive a designation changes over time. Many times the coins are eventually regraded in an upward direction, because that is what is desired.
So what happens when (decades down the road???) most of the slab worthy coins which are still raw change hands after the death of their current owners and are submitted for grading multiple times so that they receive their top grade. Further what happens when coins already slabbed are resubmitted multiple times to receive their top grade. When all that is left is the same group of coins and when all of these coins have been documented and publicized so well that their history is known, what will happen to accommodate the demand for "better"?
Will the current 1-70 grading scale be deemed outdated and unworkable for numismatics? Will it be replaced with something else (100 point scale?).
Stay tuned, for the future will reveal itself. Future changes will happen to further accommodate the demand for "better" because human nature is not going to change.
In the meantime, sit back, enjoy the ride and enjoy numismatics. If you choose to do so, jump into competing with others and build the best collection you can (realizing that even if you become #1 [however you define it] rarely if ever does someone stay #1 for ever). The fun thing about numismatics is that it can be whatever one desires it to be. The individual can determine what participation in numismatics best suits his or her needs and wants. Once this determination is made individuals can proceed however they want for as long as they want.
The best that can be hoped for is that through progress in information technology more information on all aspects of numismatics becomes available to the masses and that most of the masses will be willing and able to learn all they can about numismatics so that when they jump into fray they can operate with a base of knowledge that will help them make good decisions.
This thread timed out **perfectly** just as I submitted about 60 Frankies!!
Will the current 1-70 grading scale be deemed outdated and unworkable for numismatics? Will it be replaced with something else (100 point scale?).
Not if ... but when.
<< <i>Will the current 1-70 grading scale be deemed outdated and unworkable for numismatics? Will it be replaced with something else (100 point scale?).
Not if ... but when. >>
Followed by pluses and stickers. Enjoy your coins.
My 1866 Philly Mint Set
I suppose I do not quite see gradeflation in the same light as most that have posted their thoughts. Grading remains an opinion- it is not a math problem with an exact answer. Opinions can change and some opinions are sought after and better than others. A coin submitted different times will not always produce the same grade result. Let's not criticize TPG for bumping a grade for a coin from 65 to 66 that has a shot at 66 4 out of 10 times... that is if someone goes to that extreme (and apparently that is happening with greater frequency). A coin can have the power to leave an impression whereby its strength in terms of eye appeal can eclipse the technical aspect of grading. I do not see this as gradeflation as much as dealers and collectors pushing the odds to maximize a grade.
TPG deserves a better fate than what is expressed here. Is it perfect? No, but it is part of the evolutionary process to make grading what it needs to be. A continuous examination of how to best describe the state of preservation of a coin.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
<< <i>
<< <i>Will the current 1-70 grading scale be deemed outdated and unworkable for numismatics? Will it be replaced with something else (100 point scale?).
Not if ... but when. >>
Followed by pluses and stickers. Enjoy your coins. >>
Exactly---a 'new and improved' grading scale, extended to 100 points, would not fundamentally change anything. People would still find a way to game the system in order to make money.
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
CJ: 'No one!' [Ain't no angels in the coin biz]
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
being re-evaluated and adjusted upwards. But, like others here, I have observed a general loosening
of standards that makes me scratch my head a lot. At the last Long Beach, I saw MS67+ coins with
hits in prime focal areas. It wasn't as if these were monster toners that were being market graded,
either.
In the end analysis, I return to my core belief that a collector must learn to grade as a means
of ultimate self-protection. Slabs are a good first approximation, but there are too many variables
in play to rely on them absolutely.
<< <i>Collectors many times focus on the technicality of a grade. "This coin should not go ms65->to ms66 because of the tiny tic on the the left field."
Remember that grading is not based solely on technicality. Eye appeal and luster are 2 other major influences. >>
THIS. Well put.
Tech Grade: 66
Luster: +.5
Eye appeal: +.5
Overall market grade: 67
Or
Tech grade: 25
Surface distractions: -5
Eye appeal: 0
Overall market grade: 20
Enjoyed numismatic conversations with Eric P. Newman, Dave Akers, Jules Reiver, David Davis, Russ Logan, John McCloskey, Kirk Gorman, W. David Perkins...
I would give the grading services the benefit of the doubt. Who benefits when the grading gets tighter in some areas and looser in others? Insiders, the most aggressive manipulators and submitters, those making a living at this. For those who just want to enjoy the hobby the fierce competition undermines their goals and they get on the sidelines.
<< <i>The first thought that came to my mind when reading georgiacop50's opening post was "DAMN! I'd love to see this guy's collection!". >>
That first 53-D example is STUNNING. I have never quite seen color and originality like that on a Franklin. Just oozing with both.
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947):
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/