When a cataloguer should KEEP his thoughts, no pun intended!

marcmoish · December 15, 2012 11:19AM

OK so I'm reading through the recently arrived Heritage catalog - just love it when these door stoppers come in - looking over abit and I notice more than a few with comments of disagreement with said grades. So curiosity sneaks in and after looking closely at a few I disagree.
For fun I took one lot that seems over the top with disdain to tpg (this one NGC). Here is lot#20813

William III Crown 1700, S-3474, ESC-97, 3rd Bust, Dvodecimo edge, AU58 NGC. The cataloguer disagrees with the numerical grade; this coin should be graded MS63 and is very choice looking with full radiant luster, zero wear, a bold strike with the devices all centered, showing full toothed rims on reverse and nearly complete on obverse, and has exactly correct silvery gold toning for this time period. The eye-appeal here puts this premium crown among the population of the best available pieces. Concerning the AU58 grade, it's one thing to sit in a dark cave in Florida guessing about a coin you don't understand and giving it a "safe grade" for money paid to you in good faith, with no refund available for being wrong, and quite another thing to know your coins.

http://coins.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=3021&lotNo=20813&lotIdNo=149056&ts=off#Photo

He believes it should be MS63? No way in hell! This crown is at best "well graded". There are more nicks on bust and surface than the statue of liberty. We won't even discuss wear albeit very little. Yes, its a beautiful piece, for AU but how can someone state all this bs and stay on payroll?

It is upsetting b/c collectors that don't know better would buy into this easily - especially coming from a well known and respected auction house.

HoledandCreative · December 15, 2012 3:46PM

I agree with you on the opinion and the grade. Very overgraded at 58, and not just by a few points.

MrEureka · December 15, 2012 3:58PM

From the pictures, I'm guessing that I will end up siding with the cataloger. Regardless, the real question is if a cataloger should ever state his disagreement with a grading firm.

coinkat · December 15, 2012 8:36PM

Grading is an opinion- all we all seem to have them with certain coins. It seems that the Cataloger can write what he/she believes represents a fair description of the coin- I see no compelling reason why a coin graded by a TPG Company somehow trumps what the cataloger can write.

I would rather see the coin in hand first before taking sides.

I suspect the coin could have been resubmitted in an effort to obtain what the cataloger believed would be a more appropriate grade-perhaps there was not enough time before listing

nicholasz219 · December 15, 2012 8:51PM

Coinkat, I kind of disagree with you. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, of course and a person can state that they disagree or agree with anything that they want. I think the issue is that when you are working for a reputable auction house, you are basically selling your name, reputation and ability to use both to attract buyers who will buy lots consigned by owners looking to sell. Using a third party grading service is much the same in that they develop a reputation for trust and reliability so those things are translated into a currency with which people can trade on to make a market with many difficulties much easier to manage.

For a cataloguer to state that the grade is effectively "not correct" is for the cataloguer to pit his experience and knowledge against that of the experience and knowledge of the staff of the grading service and to call the reputations and abilities of both into question. If he or the staff at the auction house disagreed with the grade given to the coin by the grading service, then they should crack out the coin, sell it graded as they feel appropriate and then disregard the whole grading process by NGC entirely. It is almost like the cataloguer left the coin in the NGC holder to trade upon the reputation of the third party grader (because it is useful to assure buyers who may not see the coin in hand and may not have the expertise to grade very accurately) yet calls into question the judgment and therefore reputation of the grader while trading upon both by disagreeing with the given grade.

It's just distasteful and could have easily been handled correctly by removing the coin from the holder, selling it raw or having it resubmitted for regrading.

JCMhouston · December 15, 2012 11:01PM

If it is the usual cataloger for Heritage on British material, while his wording seems pretty harsh for how he normally writes he does know his stuff on British. I've conversed with him several times on specific coins coming up at Heritage and felt he was spot on for the coins I later won.

As far as I know none of the auction houses would break out a slabbed coin and offer it raw, and I don't know of any consignors that would be happy if they did.

7Jaguars · December 15, 2012 11:22PM

We do need to word things carefully. I will state that in the later milled section (Vicky and up) that I quite disagreed with the grading AND the comments of the cataloguer on some of the coins - and not just as far as numerical grading went, although it included numerical grades from the pictures. They are definately in the business to hype up coins but some really quite exceded what I felt reasonable. How about the blurb on the gold Lauer "pattern" crown (please tell me how that is not an earlier day Patina issue anyway?).

gnuschler · December 16, 2012 12:14AM

<< How about the blurb on the gold Lauer "pattern" crown (please tell me how that is not an earlier day Patina issue anyway?). >>

Please explain ... I saw that it was unlisted in W&R, and I'm genuinely curious what you are referring to?

Zohar · December 16, 2012 12:55AM

Very good thread. I prefer a TPG indicating quality as an objective 3rd party. Auction houses becoming grading experts would have a conflict of interest in my opinion.

DoubleEagle59 · December 16, 2012 1:28AM

<< Very good thread. I prefer a TPG indicating quality as an objective 3rd party. Auction houses becoming grading experts would have a conflict of interest in my opinion. >>

Exactly!!

Would this expert grader from Heritage ever go the other way with his comments, such as......."NGC grades this coin an ms64. I say it's way overgraded and should only be sold as an au58".

I don't think so and this is why if they are selling a coin, they should stay quiet about giving grading advice.

covers · December 16, 2012 2:05AM

I have no expertise in coin grading but do have experience with how auction houses operate. It should be a rare occurence that a describer is so adamant in his opinion being superior to a TPG. However, in some cases at least, the describer may well have more experience than the TPG on a particular coin issue. In this case, I presume that we can not ascribe the particular catalog description to a particular describer to judge the relative experience levels between describer and the TPG. For all we know, he may be better than TPR graders.

Some catalogs have been written by a single describer that can be identified. I am all for naming the describers in such cases and then I can attempt to judge the relative veracity of the descriptions.

YQQ · December 16, 2012 2:20AM

The golden rule always applies:
Buy the coin, NOT the package.
and , whatever the auction houses opinion is, we do not have to believe it.
their employees have one mandate only:
do the best to make $$$$$

Hyperion · December 16, 2012 2:33AM

I'm no high powered buyer but when I see any institution unleash such an unbridaled attack on the competancy of another organization, above an beyond a defensible point (I disagree with the grade), my eyebrows go up.

This casts Heritage in a bad light, and should have been caught and muted.

The "dark cave" comment unprofessional and makes me not want to deal with the prissy child who performed the writeup.

7Jaguars · December 16, 2012 2:52AM

A bit much but I think he could have "cracked" on some of the over optimistic grading of Vickies as well.

The Lauer piece is a private "pattern" struck in Germany with amidst a LOAD of crap struck in all sorts of metals for different denominations. Absolutely NO connection to the Royal Mint or engravers. IMO really some junk that just happened to be struck in gold and as a private issue with no association to real issues. I really couldn't give a gang if it was in W&R or not.

And all this rarity and goodness for $250k!

coinkat · December 16, 2012 6:14AM

BTW, I am curious how many here have seen a full run of the William III Crowns in hand that grade mint state with the exception of the 1697-

nicholasz219 · December 16, 2012 6:25AM

I should also make a clarification here as well as to not sound like a total fool. I noted JCM's comment about breaking out a coin from its slab and I must admit I wrote too hastily and while I was very tired this morning. I was thinking the auction house is submitting the coins on their own like a regular collector would so they would be able to crack them out and resubmit if they so cared to. My apologies for a hastily written statement.

I just think that decorum calls for remaining silent or giving a slight boost to a coin you feel is severely undergraded by saying something complimentary about the coin such as "This coin is second only to the 63 sold at Gorny last April."

The dark cave comment was entirely inappropriate and arguing with the grade just low brow in my opinion.

marcmoish · December 16, 2012 6:58AM

Would like to hear from someone that examines this one in hand....

This one supposedly has a huge spread at present AU58 to a purported/imagined/Disney magic poof upgrade of MS63 !

This is not someone stating this AU55 is a 58 etc. or a MS63 could really pass for 64.

nich219 I don't believe you wrote anything out of character in your tired state - I believe this is a very sensitive topic depending on who is collecting or has what connections with whom. I believe I saw some comments re PCGS in the catalog too.

I truly want to understand the grade discrepancies here better.

swhuck · December 18, 2012 8:20AM

We appreciate those of you who have commented in the spirit of constructive criticism.

As you know from the hundreds of thousands of items we’ve offered over the years, our professional cataloguers almost never include personal opinions regarding the accuracy of a coin’s certified grade. We encourage our numismatic catalogers to use thorough analysis and research on the coins we present for auction and we regret that one of our numismatic cataloguers made inappropriate references to a third party grading service’s grade on a lot being offered in our upcoming NYINC event.

Third party grading is an essential part of the modern numismatic landscape. Naturally our cataloguers will occasionally disagree with the specific grade of a coin, but as a matter of company policy, they refrain from expressing it in the content of a description. In this specific case, the catalogue went to print before we had a chance to edit the description, so we were only able to change the description online.

We thank you for your understanding.

worldcoinguy · December 18, 2012 9:46AM

<< We appreciate those of you who have commented in the spirit of constructive criticism.

As you know from the hundreds of thousands of items we’ve offered over the years, our professional cataloguers almost never include personal opinions regarding the accuracy of a coin’s certified grade. We encourage our numismatic catalogers to use thorough analysis and research on the coins we present for auction and we regret that one of our numismatic cataloguers made inappropriate references to a third party grading service’s grade on a lot being offered in our upcoming NYINC event.

Third party grading is an essential part of the modern numismatic landscape. Naturally our cataloguers will occasionally disagree with the specific grade of a coin, but as a matter of company policy, they refrain from expressing it in the content of a description. In this specific case, the catalogue went to print before we had a chance to edit the description, so we were only able to change the description online.

We thank you for your understanding. >>

Good response HA.

coinkat · December 19, 2012 9:31AM

Disagreements can be expressed in a less polarizing manner, however, I will defend a cataloger's right to express his thoughts.

coinkat · December 19, 2012 10:02AM

Instead of editing the last post I will just continue and add...

even if it is in contrast with a TPG opinion such as what is expressed here.

Perhaps we are loosing site of something basic- a TPG opinion is an opinion. Often, it is a good and sound opinion but by no means does it strip the right of a cataloger, collector or somone that has expertise in that specific arena to express their own thoughts/opinion as to the grade.

marcmoish · December 19, 2012 11:24AM

Hey coinkat - what's the deal? - you defending the catalogur??

Heritage already posted what I take as a very satisfactory reply/post to my comment.

You still think that coin is a 58??

Why don't you convince me better that its an MS63?

Expertise in his area? What area is that? Where the dark caves are in the South?

Sheees!

MacCrimmon · December 19, 2012 12:10PM

<< Instead of editing the last post I will just continue and add...

even if it is in contrast with a TPG opinion such as what is expressed here.

Perhaps we are loosing site of something basic- a TPG opinion is an opinion. Often, it is a good and sound opinion but by no means does it strip the right of a cataloger, collector or somone that has expertise in that specific arena to express their own thoughts/opinion as to the grade. >>

And lest anyone forget, neither you (nor I) can really assess the true surface conditions of a given coin by either the printed catalog images, or the online images.

As a collector (or dealer) you can only determine the grade (value) of the coin by direct examination, or having a knowledgeable, trusted agent do so on your behalf.

As to this 1700 crown, I would defer to the cataloger's opinion since I know he has nearly 40 years experience making a living buying and selling, not slabbed British coins, but raw British coins. In other words, I would trust he understands the "fabric" of this crown in a more concise manner. By fabric, I just mean, "how they come" whether 'as stuck', or how they should look with a touch on honest rub, or cabinet friction. Bottom line is that when we submit coins to a given TPG, we don't really know who graded the coin. Was it the A-Team, or the B-Team? And, how many of these particular "manufacture" have they ever seen.

As to the "dark cave" and "safe grade" comments, I chuckled!!! If you didn't laugh, you need to submit more raw coins of which you are very expert in the manufacture and grading thereof, and have them returned in "puzzling" holders. As I joke, were the graders eating "angry" bean burritos for lunch that day, or a light, green salad with a raspberry vinaigrette? The vinaigrette yields more conciliatory grades, btw.

coinkat · December 19, 2012 12:13PM

I am defending the right of the cataloger to write his catalog description of the coin which includes his thoughts as to what the appropriate grade is for the coin based on his experience- even if he disagrees with the TPG company

I am now completely convinced my point has been lost here

Please consider the following:

- grading is an opinion and there are no right answers, but some opinions are better than others
- TPG offers an opinion as to a grade for a submission fee
- A cataloger has experience- some are retained for their expertise in certain types of coins and their thoughts are worthy of consideration by those interested bidders
-TPG should not serve to silence the cataloger

After objectively considering the above, why should I believe a TPG opinion over the cataloger's opinion as to the grade of a coin?

Both the TPG and cataloger have examined the coin- I have not and I refuse to side with either unless and until I see the coin in hand.
You have asked that I convince you the coin is better than a 58- I am not in a position to convince anyone as to the grade because I have not seen the coin in hand. However, I can attempt to at least lay the foundation that a cataloger has the right to describe and grade a coin as he sees it. A TPG grade opinion of a coin simply does not trump the right of the cataloger to write his description of the coin which can include his thoughts as to the grade.

My defense of the cataloger never extended to the comments about dark caves or anything else other than the right for him to catalog and describe the coin-

I thought my comments were clear from the outset- and if they were not then, they are now.

MacCrimmon · December 19, 2012 12:22PM

coinkat, if I ever need an agent to view some auction lots I'll give you a call.

7Jaguars · December 19, 2012 12:23PM

Actually, a bit of spice may be a good thing. I would imagine that the price fetched will likely be enhanced a bit by the controversy if it is indeed of "63" quality.
IMO, I often disagree with both this cataloguer (and I do not know BL) AND the TPGs. Usually he is a bit optimistic and the TPGs a bit commercial (which I will leave mostly alone) in that the source does seem to influence the grade, high or low.

nicholasz219 · December 19, 2012 9:16PM

My sole concern here was that the cataloguer, expertise never in doubt by me, even though I know no one at HA, him/her included, made some statements that could be taken as Heritage Auctions' opinion as a company. I'm sure it is frustrating to see coins you specialize in being mis or undergraded consistently. It would be a shame to see an expert cataloguer with a lot of knowledge put himself in a position to lose his company position because he spoke out of turn in a printed catalog. Grading is an opinion, yes, and we are all entitled, but when your employer has a policy of not disagreeing in print with a TPG opinion and you do so, you do so at your own peril. This battle may just be better fought elsewhere.

And yes, I did laugh at the dark cave and other comments. But I also think that without the unnecessary derogatory comments at the end, his opinion that the coin was undergraded would have been easily inserted with no controversy and even more effective for his buying public, that's all.

YQQ · December 20, 2012 12:57AM

Ok fellows,
what does a cataloger base his "knowledge" on? Or, pardon me please, is it also only an opinion?
remember, until the day comes that the grades of coins are internationally normed , or even just nationally, anyone can offer an opinion for payment. Hell will most likely freeze over before, as the TPF's would fight regulating bodies tooth and nail.
think about it, even Sentsles would be out of business.( that would be a good thing)
Graders, catalogers etc and whatever, are by any means definitely NOT professionals. as such they would have to proof their knowledge by being educated based on norms and facts on the subject, and by passing numerous controlled tests.
And, they would have to back up their findings(not opinions as it now has to be fact based on known criteria).
Arguments about being correct etc, could be decided by the courts with awards made to the sufferrering parties... etcc etcc etc....

RobP · December 20, 2012 3:23AM

I think people get far too hung up on the value of another person's opinion when it comes to grade. The question is, 'What grade do I think it is, is it attractive to me to the extent that I would like to buy it and if so, how much would I pay?

Everyone can have an opinion. That opinion can be better made with the benefit of having looked at numerous pieces of the same type in all grades. A TPG will assign a number - what that number is doesn't matter as long as it is consistently applied because you can do a mental adjustment for that TPG's standards, even by the more comical TPGs. Someone who looks at raw coins but doesn't give a number will assign a grade to it which again is nothing more than an opinion. That a non-TPG person should say the grade of 58 is too low and should really be 63 is just one person's opinion of an opinion.

If you want a definitive grade, look at it long and hard yourself. Compare it with other similar examples of the type in various grades to see where it ranks in your eyes. Ignore the grade or the number in the description or on the slab. Do your own spadework and be confident in yourself.

Having said all that, I'll throw in my opinion which is that the obverse is nearly EF, but not quite given the large number of contact marks and there is visible wear. The reverse is a bit better. Converting that to US numbers, I would say 55 or 58 obverse and 60-61 reverse. Dissent welcome

marcmoish · December 20, 2012 11:35AM

Seems heritage chose to rightfully ammend the description - its much more carefully worded now in terms of the grade.
Here is the corrected version.

William III Crown 1700, S-3474, ESC-97, 3rd Bust, Dvodecimo edge, AU58 NGC. We feel the coin is undergraded on the holder, fully Mint State, and is very choice looking with full radiant luster, zero wear, a bold strike with the devices all centered, showing full toothed rims on reverse and nearly complete on obverse, and has exactly correct silvery gold toning for this time period. The eye-appeal here puts this premium crown among the population of the best available pieces. Estimate: $2,250 - $3,250.

This is def on my must see lots - as the grade is still a big question mark to some.

coinkat you replied to me very elequently for that at least I commend you even if we agree to disagree to some extent. I did actually find it funny too - the post was more about the grade period.

Mac I don't want to go into he said - she said routine - with every comment here or we'll be pounding this for weeks but one point you specifically tried to mention is that the cataloguer has 40 years experience ... as if to show that he/she cannot be wrong or that they have tremendous advantage or experience over many of us etc.
Just so you know I know more than a few "dealers" or specialists that have been around for 40 years too, and they until today know diddly sqaut about grading let alone corrected their prescription for their eyewear in decades.
However your point is well taken regardless and does have merit overall.

In this case though I'm sticking to my guns

coinkat · December 21, 2012 8:42AM

In looking at a coin such as this, we really need to turn the clock back a few centuries. It is difficult to look back at the issues associated with British milled coins from this era from where we sit today.

The 1700 Crown is likely the most common date of the series in Mint State with the 1697 being prohibitively rare to the point its rarity is just not fully appreciated or even comprehended by most collectors.

AU and MS examples from this series suffer from issues ranging from how they were stored- cabinet friction.

This example which seemed to create a barnstorm of controvesy is really an excellent example to point out the problems with the coining process back in the day in England. This coin has some obverse flecking on the portrait neck and fields. Flecking was a common issue for early milled British coins and TPG really has not accepted or dealt with the issue in a historical context. Flecking resulted from impurities in the silver which left what can be described as slight marks and darkened indentations on the surface. Flecking is not a defect or environmental problem- it was the life of just how coins were produced. Further, the quality of the dies where just not that great as reflected in later die state examples.

The image of the reverse leads me to believe this coin is MS. The obverse is a victim of the production process which is just misunderstood- it has evidence of flecking combined with a obverse die which appears worn. In fact, I wish I could do a better job of explaining flecking.

For these reasons, the coin really needs to be seen in hand before being critical of the opinion of NGC or the cataloger. I want to be on a level playing field with NCG and the cataloger-they saw the coin in hand and I have not- before I offer an opinion as to a numerical grade.

coinkat · December 21, 2012 8:54AM

Marcmoish-

I appreciate your comments and concern for the appropriate grade of the crown- It is apparent you were more concerned about the grade and I was far more concern with the right of the cataloger to express his thoughts- even if they differ from a respected TPG company.

edited to add:

I suspect flecking is likely the key issue which accounts for the difference of grade opinions between NGC and the cataloger

MacCrimmon · December 21, 2012 10:15AM

<< In looking at a coin such as this, we really need to turn the clock back a few centuries. It is difficult to look back at the issues associated with British milled coins from this era from where we sit today.

The 1700 Crown is likely the most common date of the series in Mint State with the 1697 being prohibitively rare to the point its rarity is just not fully appreciated or even comprehended by most collectors.

AU and MS examples from this series suffer from issues ranging from how they were stored- cabinet friction.

This example which seemed to create a barnstorm of controvesy is really an excellent example to point out the problems with the coining process back in the day in England. This coin has some obverse flecking on the portrait neck and fields. Flecking was a common issue for early milled British coins and TPG really has not accepted or dealt with the issue in a historical context. Flecking resulted from impurities in the silver which left what can be described as slight marks and darkened indentations on the surface. Flecking is not a defect or environmental problem- it was the life of just how coins were produced. Further, the quality of the dies where just not that great as reflected in later die state examples.

The image of the reverse leads me to believe this coin is MS. The obverse is a victim of the production process which is just misunderstood- it has evidence of flecking combined with a obverse die which appears worn. In fact, I wish I could do a better job of explaining flecking.

For these reasons, the coin really needs to be seen in hand before being critical of the opinion of NGC or the cataloger. I want to be on a level playing field with NCG and the cataloger-they saw the coin in hand and I have not- before I offer an opinion as to a numerical grade. >>

Heritage's cataloger(s) have written several descriptions explaining this type of "flecking" which is observed on most Charles II through George III milled coinage.

It's an alloying problem on the early British milled coinage which is somewhat analogous to the US bronze coinage which exhibits 'wood graining'. The 'wood graining' may also be the result of alloying inefficiencies with the tin, albeit not quite as severe on IHCs and Lincolns.

marcmoish · January 7, 2013 12:58AM

So did anyone see this piece?

Seems it went for AU58 money - with extra padding for a wishful "squeeze" into a 61 holder!

The silence is deafening for some that sided with the cataloger that said piece is an MS63!

Glad I stuck to my guns - unless proven otherwise

mkman123 · January 7, 2013 1:09AM

dont many cataloguers do this if they feel the coin is undergraded?

Zohar · January 7, 2013 2:14AM

My view remains that graders should remain separate and independent from auction houses as rating agencies from banks and investment firms. The critique of Wall Street was the lack of separation. Same logic should apply here

pruebas · January 7, 2013 3:29AM

<< My view remains that graders should remain separate and independent from auction houses as rating agencies from banks and investment firms. The critique of Wall Street was the lack of separation. Same logic should apply here >>

The cataloger does not have any fiduciary duty the potential bidder/buyer as does someone on Wall Street, and in fact, is paid by the auction house to help sell coins. If anything, the cataloger has a fiduciary duty to his employer.

The whole reason the TPG company is used is to transfer the risk to them. Why a cataloger would do anything to jeopardize that is beyond me.

If in fact he disagrees with the TPG opinion, why not just do it tactfully?

CoinJunkie · January 7, 2013 3:24PM

<< So did anyone see this piece?

Seems it went for AU58 money - with extra padding for a wishful "squeeze" into a 61 holder!

The silence is deafening for some that sided with the cataloger that said piece is an MS63!

Glad I stuck to my guns - unless proven otherwise

>>

Yes, I actually flew to NYC for the weekend just to view (and bid on) the British lots, so I saw
the coin. To my eyes, it was in the appropriate holder due to some rub on the high points,
but perhaps Andy (or someone else more knowledgeable than I) will disagree. Coins with rub
get into MS holders all the time, so maybe it could have gone either way. Certainly not
overgraded, IMO.

Regarding the cataloger's opinion, I think something along the lines of "conservatively graded
with strong pretensions to MS" might have served him better than the somewhat defamatory
tone actually taken.

coinkat · January 7, 2013 8:08PM

so what was the hammer price?

wybrit · January 7, 2013 10:24PM

$2350, juice included.

bidask · January 7, 2013 10:25PM

How often has anyone seen cataloguers comment a coin is overgraded?

marcmoish · January 7, 2013 10:38PM

$2350 is alot but exactly on the money for what I thought it would net. maybe abit too much really thrown in for posterity sake.

Goes to show you - know your series (and I don't even know British that well compared to many others here), and learn how to grade, and see coins with careful eyes and be open to question your eye if you see something you don't like. It is very easy to fall into the I love that piece blindly b/c it has the look or others are yelling its praises.

edited to remove an extra unnecessary sentence.

coinkat · January 8, 2013 10:00AM

2350 is not an unreasonable price-

I would like to see the coin in hand- keep in mind this is the most available date of the series in MS.

SYRACUSIAN · January 10, 2013 11:20PM

In all honesty, if the cataloguer was BL, there is a serious conflict of interest, in case he was the seller of that particular coin to the consignor. For those of you who don't remember, BL had also written the description of Mac's PR65DCAM 1893 crown, and he had mentioned that the owner of this coin, had bought it raw and preferred it to another that later graded PR67 (also sold by Heritage). In that case, his comments along with the quality of the coin, had helped Mac's crown sell for just shy of $10K. I do not question his expertise , and in fact, noone can guarantee to me that the NGC or PCGS graders aren't involved in some coin selling too. It's not as black and white as you'd think.

Still, in this case, I tend to agree with Mr Eureka, regardless if he was right on his comments on that crown or not. At the very least, he should have been more subtle. The cataloguer's opinion carries a lot of weight in European auctions, where most coins sold are still raw, but when he is describing a graded coin that might have been his own, it's hard to maintain objectivity once you start making this kind of comments.

7Jaguars · January 11, 2013 1:06AM

Dimitri, well put. I do question the links of sellers and graders in all circumstances as it may go without saying that there is potential for conflict of interest ( to put in diplomatically). I have seen some very "strange" results based on consignors in terms of grading with as much as a 3-5 point swings.

When a cataloguer should KEEP his thoughts, no pun intended!

Comments