CoinFacts hurt or help PCGS's image?

Datentype · May 16, 2013 2:25AM

I subscribe to PCGS coinfacts and view coins often, mainly modern proof and MS coins and frequently use it to set my bearings while searching coins for potential submission. IMHO many examples look like junk for the grade and need to be replaces with better examples because i know how hard they really are in these grades. Many proof Ikes and Lincolns called 70DC or some tougher issues in 69DC have carbon spots, whacks and other problems. MS coins are even worse, Roosie bands are not even close and grades are off. Lincoln's are spotted with many die polish and bubbles with other problems. Clad Washington, Kennedy and Jeff's have nicks whacks and scrapes etc.

Is the answer: they grade tougher now and these were slabbed some time ago or is it these are blown up pictures and not a fair representation like top PCGS people say?

AMRC · May 16, 2013 2:35AM

<< I subscribe to PCGS coinfacts and view coins often, mainly modern proof and MS coins and frequently use it to set my bearings while searching coins for potential submission. IMHO many examples look like junk for the grade and need to be replaces with better examples because i know how hard they really are in these grades. Many proof Ikes and Lincolns called 70DC or some tougher issues in 69DC have carbon spots, whacks and other problems. MS coins are even worse, Roosie bands are not even close and grades are off. Lincoln's are spotted with many die polish and bubbles with other problems. Clad Washington, Kennedy and Jeff's have nicks whacks and scrapes etc.

Is the answer: they grade tougher now and these were slabbed some time ago or is it these are blown up pictures and not a fair representation like top PCGS people say? >>

While I have noticed a few things like this I certainly am not ready to throw the baby out with the bath water.

wondercoin · May 16, 2013 2:35AM

Great coins look great even when blown up big time! Here is an MS67 that starts off my clad quarter set that is solid for the grade however large one wants to make the photo.

Wondercoin

Datentype · May 16, 2013 2:47AM

Mitch, the weakness in the upper hair area is more than compensated by the artificial toning...just kidding that one is great but come on you know what I mean of all people - it hurts their credibility and they need to trade out the trash and if no one has brought up this point then here it is.

MilkmanDan · May 16, 2013 2:56AM

I personally love coinfacts and think that it helps us move toward the openness that everyone thinks the hobby needs more of. Openness exposes both the good and bad, as you've observed.

coinbuf · May 16, 2013 3:34AM

I am not a coinfacts customer but I think there are other issues; one big one imo; that could(or does) hurt the PCGS image more than afew poor images on coinfacts.

DeliaBug · May 16, 2013 3:49AM

When the condition census coins pictured are all the exact same coin because of resub's it doesn't exactly help.

OldEastside · May 16, 2013 5:14AM

A little of both.........sometimes I see something and the grade and I think "REALLY"
and then sometimes I see something stunning and think "DAAAAAMMMMN"

Steve

MilkmanDan · May 16, 2013 5:18AM

Aside from the issue of looking at pictures of coins vs. looking at coins in hand, in general it is good to look at as many coins as possible. Coinfacts allows us to look at a whole bunch of coins with grades associated with them, which can be very educational.

shylock · May 16, 2013 5:24AM

Anyone who has attempted to image a coin, or has purchased coins based on only an image, learns the true meaning of the phrase
"you have to see this coin in hand".

Coin photography has come a long way but will never capture all the dimensions of a miniature work of art in metal using a two dimensional medium.
So learn to interpret the real look based on your experience of seeing images of coins you have also seen in person. And yes, blowing them up
beyond their real size always accentuates every flaw. Many great coins have been flamed on the forum by collectors who don't understand this.

I love the idea of PCGS creating an image catalog of every coin they grade, if they get to that point. Can you think of a better learning
tool for new collectors of a series? If Heritage took better images, and they have gotten better, they would be the ultimate learning tool.
PCGS has the unique advantage of imaging coins out of their plastic and are doing a great job these days. I love Coinfacts and hope PCGS
continues to improve and expand it.

Cant tell you how many times I open Coinfacts in a separate window while viewing online auction lots or dealer inventories. It is one of the best
coin related investments I have ever made. Even if you cant find the coin with its current or previous grade it gives you a nice point of comparison.

BillJones · May 16, 2013 6:24AM

I think that Coin Facts is well worth the money. It is a lot easier to carry an ipad than a whole library when you go to a show.

Yes, a few of the coins pictured are disappointing, but most of the coins are okay or high end for the assigned grades.

lkeigwin · May 16, 2013 6:40AM

I'm a fan. I probably use it every day. And I think it helps PCGS image.
Lance.

LoveMyLiberty · May 16, 2013 6:52AM

<< Anyone who has attempted to image a coin, or has purchased coins based on only an image, learns the true meaning of the phrase
"you have to see this coin in hand".

Coin photography has come a long way but will never capture all the dimensions of a miniature work of art in metal using a two dimensional medium.
So learn to interpret the real look based on your experience of seeing images of coins you have also seen in person. And yes, blowing them up
beyond their real size always accentuates every flaw. Many great coins have been flamed on the forum by collectors who don't understand this.

I love the idea of PCGS creating an image catalog of every coin they grade, if they get to that point. Can you think of a better learning
tool for new collectors of a series? If Heritage took better images, and they have gotten better, they would be the ultimate learning tool.
PCGS has the unique advantage of imaging coins out of their plastic and are doing a great job these days. I love Coinfacts and hope PCGS
continues to improve and expand it.

Cant tell you how many times I open Coinfacts in a separate window while viewing online auction lots or dealer inventories. It is one of the best
coin related investments I have ever made. Even if you cant find the coin with its current or previous grade it gives you a nice point of comparison. >>

Very well said. I agree.

TwoSides2aCoin · May 16, 2013 7:24AM

Learning is earning. Some is, some ain't.

Datentype · May 16, 2013 7:35AM

It looks like everybody likes CoinFacts and I do too. That is not my point though, as I use it often but i would not expect my coin submissions to grade out the same in many cases.

Modern Mint State coin dealers from 1965-1998 all denominations have any input? Don't be afraid the PCGS politboro will supsend your membership if you speak the truth as this is for the betterment of Coinfacts/PCGS and not a bashing post.

They need better examples if you know how these coins should grade. Those that respect these better examples will think more highly of their standards or does everybody just except the plastic they have represented (the links to Teletrade and Heritage show some pretty nasty examples as well)?

I admire the courage of PCGS to supply all of the pictures they do but this does not help me when deciding whether or not my coin submissions equal or better the pictures......maybe this website is more for set collectors than dealers and should be appreciated as such?

cladking · May 16, 2013 7:49AM

<< Anyone who has attempted to image a coin, or has purchased coins based on only an image, learns the true meaning of the phrase
"you have to see this coin in hand".

Coin photography has come a long way but will never capture all the dimensions of a miniature work of art in metal using a two dimensional medium.
So learn to interpret the real look based on your experience of seeing images of coins you have also seen in person. And yes, blowing them up
beyond their real size always accentuates every flaw. Many great coins have been flamed on the forum by collectors who don't understand this.

I love the idea of PCGS creating an image catalog of every coin they grade, if they get to that point. Can you think of a better learning
tool for new collectors of a series? If Heritage took better images, and they have gotten better, they would be the ultimate learning tool.
PCGS has the unique advantage of imaging coins out of their plastic and are doing a great job these days. I love Coinfacts and hope PCGS
continues to improve and expand it.

Cant tell you how many times I open Coinfacts in a separate window while viewing online auction lots or dealer inventories. It is one of the best
coin related investments I have ever made. Even if you cant find the coin with its current or previous grade it gives you a nice point of comparison. >>

I strongly agree that interpreting coin photos is about experience; it's an art rather than a science.

And no matter how much experience you have with a series a photo can still misrepresent details and
especially details related surfaces and color. You don't know until you have the coin in hand with the
proper lighting.

Datentype · May 16, 2013 8:53AM

I agree with the art vs the science part when analyzing a coin for the most part but let's say hypothetically you happen to have a sample of several thousand of the same date and mint coin and know every detail possible (for the most part) of a particular issue and then you pull up something online from the same die and state - you start and get a pretty good idea the best a coin can look for this example since you have the best of the best in hand and the online coin in top grade pales in comparison technically. I can for sure tell the difference between the two. Online photos can for the most part be compared to your live coin in hand if you know what to look for - particularly if you compare under the same magnification.

cladking · May 16, 2013 9:32AM

<< I agree with the art vs the science part when analyzing a coin for the most part but let's say hypothetically you happen to have a sample of several thousand of the same date and mint coin and know every detail possible (for the most part) of a particular issue and then you pull up something online from the same die and state - you start and get a pretty good idea the best a coin can look for this example since you have the best of the best in hand and the online coin in top grade pales in comparison technically. I can for sure tell the difference between the two. Online photos can for the most part be compared to your live coin in hand if you know what to look for - particularly if you compare under the same magnification. >>

I should start up the trial subscription to CoinFacts so I can speak more to the point but
I don't need to do it to know there are some overgraded coins out there. Sometimes you
can pretty easily find a coin superior to some of the high grades pictured. A lot of moderns
don't come nice and some only rarely. It seems the biggest problems are where the coins
are pretty tough. Something like a '91 quarter or half dollar that you can find in a mint set
if you have a few hundred to check. Perhaps some of the coins graded early on were over-
estimated somewhat. A '91 quarter can be spectacular and PL quite often but to find it with-
out marking is tough.

I lack the experience with graded coins to have much of an opinion and most of the highest
grades I see tend to be very top notch coins but there are exceptions. It tends to be just
off the top where it appears coins are more likely to be overgraded. I should add that some
of this is the result of my prefering good strikes to clean surfaces but a top end coin is a top
end coin no matter how you grade. There is a tendency for the cleanest coins to be the best
strikes (though this is less true with nickels). What I've seen getting graded in the last seven
years is pretty consistent though fairly tough grading. They have a strong preference for clean
surfaces and booming luster. Most of this opinion is founded on photos and, I believe, I can
usually get a good mental image of clad coins from photos but looks can be deceiving.

wondercoin · May 16, 2013 9:49AM

Coinfacts assists by showing the high end and low end examples in each grade ... modern or classic. I see coins all the time that appear wildly undergraded and wildly overgraded based upon the pics. Not to mention the lion's share of the pics that appear perfectly graded as well in the pics. That's what makes it great in my mind.

So, I do NOT believe they need "better" examples. I want to see EVERY example possible ... the good, the bad and the ugly.

Wondercoin

Datentype · May 16, 2013 10:18AM

Mitch, but they don't have all grades and tend to have only one or two - many times the top pop within each date and mint and coin dates across the entire series, let's say clad Roosies can't be compared as they have different diagnostics particular to each date/mint. Perhaps the Roosies are the worst photoed series or possibly Jefferson's for moderns.

Gary, I recently went through 1,212 1991 mint sets and there was only 1 PCGS level ms 67 and about 2 NGC level ms 67 just a slight notch below PCGS standards for MS coins currently but actually quite a bit tougher on proof coins in the 70's

TwoSides2aCoin · May 16, 2013 10:18AM

The Coinage Act of 1997 called for a new dollar coin of the same size and weight as the Susan B. Anthony dollar, but with a golden color and a plain edge. After a national competition, a new design was chosen featuring a portrait of the Shoshone Indian, Sacagawea, carrying her infant son, Jean-Baptiste (or "Pomp").

~Ron Guth~
Coinfacts

It's not the "image" of PCGS that matters so much as attaining knowledge. Pictures might be necessary, but there is enough information on any ONE page in CoinFacts to overwhelm any one of us, individually. Who can memorize it all, with moderns ?

Since we are addressing moderns , who "KNEW" that the baby in the papoose was nicknamed "POMP" , or John-Baptiste, for that matter ?

bidask · May 16, 2013 10:28AM

Nobody does research like PCGS.

There is nothing out there like coinfacts.

Yours is a grading issue.

cladking · May 16, 2013 10:29AM

<< 
Gary, I recently went through 1,212 1991 mint sets and there was only 1 PCGS level ms 67 and about 2 NGC level ms 67 just a slight notch below PCGS standards for MS coins currently but actually quite a bit tougher on proof coins in the 70's >>

I haven't seen so many '91 sets even in aggregate yet.

The really clean '91-P quarters are usually a little dull and lifeless compared to the PL's.

I'd guess you found six or eight MS-66's but only a couple are PL.

For this date even MS-65's are a little elusive if you want clean surfaces.

A lot of the '87 to '98 dates are tough. Older Gems are probably scarcer but appear much more regularly in the mint set.

coinkat · May 16, 2013 10:36AM

I do not see it hurting

I do think that collectors have a significant misunderstanding in connection with grading- especially in the MS range. Grading is subjective and that is the way it is. Pictures are pictures and coins have certain characteristics that one can not reduce to a math formula.

LindeDad · May 16, 2013 11:28AM

I think part of the problem with the images of moderns is simply the fact that most of them are graded without the submitter getting them imaged.
I would almost bet that less than 1% or less have images taken of them. In fact most of the top pop coins come out of dealer bulk submissions and images would never be cost effective when they end up dumping most of them for less than the grading fees now.

CoinFacts hurt or help PCGS's image?

Comments

Leave a Comment