Listen up PCGS...

joeykoins · June 12, 2013 3:07AM

What I am posting is a chance for PCGS or for that matter,any other grading co. to really boost their customer interest! Don't you think if you were to start grading and recognizing a coin that has only ONE side having that honorably Cameo designation. Allowing this I'm sure would have more coins being sent in. Without the worry from the customer as to if they get back that dreaded answer by the graders," Not a FULL Cameo"sorry! This would give the consumer a whole better outlook on at least being graded half the Cameo designation the coin deserves. I certainly would be sending in quite a few more than I do now. Just a thought and dream. Thanks -joey

terribleredmonster · June 12, 2013 3:10AM

I'm sorry, but I really don't care for this idea. It's just one more label to put in a holder and I really feel like the more they add, the less they're worth. I thought net grades and + designations were weird enough. I can't imagine looking at a PR68+ (Obv)DCAM (Rev)CAM...

joeykoins · June 12, 2013 3:17AM

This would only be telling the truth of a coins condition. It's like an adopted brother being told he really isn't part of the family. When in fact,he IS!

LindeDad · June 12, 2013 3:18AM

<< I'm sorry, but I really don't care for this idea. It's just one more label to put in a holder and I really feel like the more they add, the less they're worth. I thought net grades and + designations were weird enough. I can't imagine looking at a PR68+ (Obv)DCAM (Rev)CAM... >>

dollarsandcents · June 12, 2013 3:19AM

<< I'm sorry, but I really don't care for this idea. It's just one more label to put in a holder and I really feel like the more they add, the less they're worth. I thought net grades and + designations were weird enough. I can't imagine looking at a PR68+ (Obv)DCAM (Rev)CAM... >>

Agreed!
And I cannot imagine there being a market for such a designation except among those who are criminally OCD.

illini420 · June 12, 2013 3:19AM

NGC does this already with their star designation. If one side is cameo and the other isn't, they will sometimes give it a star grade. Similarly, if one side is DCAM and the other is only CAM, they will call it Star CAM.

joeykoins · June 12, 2013 3:22AM

<< NGC does this already with their star designation. If one side is cameo and the other isn't, they will sometimes give it a star grade. Similarly, if one side is DCAM and the other is only CAM, they will call it Star CAM. >>

Oh, I did not know this?

illini420 · June 12, 2013 3:26AM

<< 

<< NGC does this already with their star designation. If one side is cameo and the other isn't, they will sometimes give it a star grade. Similarly, if one side is DCAM and the other is only CAM, they will call it Star CAM. >>

Oh, I did not know this? >>

The briefly mention it in this article... and probably elsewhere on their site:

LINK

They don't use it as much as they should probably use it, but I've also see star designations on Jefferson Nickels that are almost FS, but not quite there. Using the star designation for coins that are close to a designation like CAM or FS or FB or whatever and also for coins with exceptional eye appeal can be quite confusing.

DIMEMAN · June 12, 2013 3:43AM

Good luck....getting them to do anything you want is like pulling teeth!

dbcoin · June 12, 2013 3:54AM

Good luck....getting them to do anything you want is like pulling teeth!

My experience is the opposite. They will listen and contemplate and run business models. If they feel they can make money on this without detracting from their name, they will do it. It may take time, but if there is a business case to this, it will happen. Maybe years from now...

DennisH · June 12, 2013 4:11AM

<< Good luck....getting them to do anything you want is like pulling teeth!

My experience is the opposite. They will listen and contemplate and run business models. If they feel they can make money on this without detracting from their name, they will do it. It may take time, but if there is a business case to this, it will happen. Maybe years from now... >>

I agree with this. Over the years I have found people at PCGS to be willing to listen.

19Lyds · June 12, 2013 9:40AM

Personally, I think its a silly idea proposed by someone who just cannot seem to find or better yet know when or when not to submit a coin.

Attributing the Obverse and the Reverse separately is the first step toward grading the obverse and the reverse separately. ANACS tried this back in the 80's and it was just not very successful.

People pay premiums or "collection value" based upon the entire coins grade. Not just one side.

OldEastside · June 12, 2013 9:51AM

Oh WOW, I can see right now this thread is gonna be one sided

Steve

messydesk · June 12, 2013 10:10AM

Does the market support premiums for one-sided cameos of most proofs? The only way I could see this working is if a one-sided cameo were to be notated as a comment in fine print on the slab, and the CAM designation only used for a full, two-sided cameo. Likewise for PL designations. It is still a slippery slope to wanting grades given for each side, because the next thing people would want is a comment saying that one side is better than the grade listed.

pennyannie · June 12, 2013 10:27AM

I would not think this would be good business.

Rampage · June 12, 2013 10:32AM

ANACS has always done this. I do not know if they still do, since they have changed hands over the past several years, but there are plenty of slabs that say obv can and the like. So, this is not a new idea.

Good luck, however.

NotSure · June 12, 2013 10:35AM

<< This would only be telling the truth of a coins condition....... >>

The truth is it is not full CAM or fully DCAM. Period.

GoldenEyeNumismatics · June 12, 2013 11:02AM

Pricing would be a PITA. This isn't something that hasn't been considered before. It's more trouble than it's worth.

coin4sale · June 12, 2013 11:06AM

<< Personally, I think its a silly idea proposed by someone who just cannot seem to find or better yet know when or when not to submit a coin. Attributing the Obverse and the Reverse separately is the first step toward grading the obverse and the reverse separately. ANACS tried this back in the 80's and it was just not very successful. People pay premiums or "collection value" based upon the entire coins grade. Not just one side. >>

I would say that this is a weak argument. Coins have two sides ( I know ,no, rim makes 3,...) but truth is only one side "faces" up at a time, be that the obverse or the reverse. I would argue that a colorfully toned coin may only have one side, that is "rainbow" but it will sell for a premium over the assigned grade. I have seen many single sided cameo proof franklins, and sometime submit them for grading, simply because they are beautiful cameos, albeit on the one side. I often wondered why the grading service didn't note the single sided cameo as a point of fact. I guess im thinking like how ngc sometimes notes a deficiency as obverse or reverse only, such as AU details, obverse cleaned. BTW< some where in my inventory I have some ANACS or NGC slabbed morgans ( cant recall which) that say obverse DMPL, or reverse DMPL, i believe this is analogous.

brg5658 · June 12, 2013 11:07AM

<< 
They don't use it as much as they should probably use it, but I've also see star designations on Jefferson Nickels that are almost FS, but not quite there. Using the star designation for coins that are close to a designation like CAM or FS or FB or whatever and also for coins with exceptional eye appeal can be quite confusing. >>

@Illini420: The part in bold quoted above is completely false. The star is given by NGC for only 2 reasons:

1) If it is a non-proof coin, it is given for "exceptional eye appeal"; this usually means attractive toning or really amazing luster for the issue. It can sometimes also mean semi-prooflike surfaces or fully prooflike surfaces but only on one side of the coin.

2) If it is a proof coin, it is given for either one of the reasons in 1) above (toning or above average "look" for the particular issue) or it is also possibly given for a coin that is almost the next CAM or UCAM designation (e.g., as you stated, one side is CAM, the other is UCAM, it could get a CAM star -- one side is CAM, the other is neither CAM/UCAM, it could get just a star).

The NGC star designation is never given in practice nor is it stated as such on their website that it is given for "almost" designations like "FS-full steps" for Jefferson Nickels, "FB-fullbands" for Merc dimes, "FT-fulltorch" for Roosey dimes, "FBL-full bell lines" for Frankies, "FH-full head" for SLQs, etc.

LINK

Constantine · June 12, 2013 11:16AM

Double post

terribleredmonster · June 12, 2013 11:18AM

<< Using the star designation for coins that are close to a designation like CAM or FS or FB or whatever and also for coins with exceptional eye appeal can be quite confusing. >>

eption

I agree with this. I thought the star was introduced specifically to denote coins with exceptional eye appeal or that were superlative for the grade. I recall this being discussed at length right before I took a several year hiatus from collecting. At the time I most often saw the star applied to flashy toners. Drawing on that base of experience it seems to me that if they want to denote that a coin just barely missed a designation they should use something other than the star. Barring that, if they're going to use the star for anything and everything, they should supply a certificate or some such with every star graded coin explaining what attribute of the coin earned it.

Constantine · June 12, 2013 11:18AM

I don't like this idea. A Cameo designation should be reserved only when both sides meet the requirement. Saying one side does and the other doesn't, just undercuts the coins that do meet the stricter requirement in my opinion. I realize saying "Cameo Obverse" is different than full Cameo, but the added grading standard is unnecessary. A coin should either be Cameo or not, plain and simple.

terribleredmonster · June 12, 2013 11:24AM

<< 

<< 
They don't use it as much as they should probably use it, but I've also see star designations on Jefferson Nickels that are almost FS, but not quite there. Using the star designation for coins that are close to a designation like CAM or FS or FB or whatever and also for coins with exceptional eye appeal can be quite confusing. >>

@Illini420: The part in bold quoted above is completely false. The star is given by NGC for only 2 reasons:

1) If it is a non-proof coin, it is given for "exceptional eye appeal"; this usually means attractive toning or really amazing luster for the issue. It can sometimes also mean semi-prooflike surfaces or fully prooflike surfaces but only on one side of the coin.

2) If it is a proof coin, it is given for either one of the reasons in 1) above (toning or above average "look" for the particular issue) or it is also possibly given for a coin that is almost the next CAM or UCAM designation (e.g., as you stated, one side is CAM, the other is UCAM, it could get a CAM star -- one side is CAM, the other is neither CAM/UCAM, it could get just a star).

The NGC star designation is never given in practice nor is it stated as such on their website that it is given for "almost" designations like "FS-full steps" for Jefferson Nickels, "FB-fullbands" for Merc dimes, "FT-fulltorch" for Roosey dimes, "FBL-full bell lines" for Frankies, "FH-full head" for SLQs, etc.

LINK >>

Whoops. Guess I had a little more reading to do. I'm glad to see this, as the star makes far more sense this way.

ricko · June 13, 2013 12:53AM

Seems there is always a push for more finite designations.... next step will be decimal grading..yuck.... buy the coin... Cheers, RickO

Zoins · June 13, 2013 1:00AM

<< Does the market support premiums for one-sided cameos of most proofs? The only way I could see this working is if a one-sided cameo were to be notated as a comment in fine print on the slab, and the CAM designation only used for a full, two-sided cameo. Likewise for PL designations. It is still a slippery slope to wanting grades given for each side, because the next thing people would want is a comment saying that one side is better than the grade listed. >>

Toners seem to do well with one sided toners, which NGC seems to recognize with the star designation. That being said, PCGS toners do well without needing a special toned designation.

Wabbit2313 · June 13, 2013 1:01AM

I don't like it. Way too many one side of the coins are really great, but the other, not so much.

That being said, I feel PCGS gives a little better grade for some of these, or a "+".

PonyExpress8 · June 13, 2013 2:26AM

Not to hijack the OP's thread as this is a good place to discuss ideas, but for years now many of us including some of the biggest dealers in the country (not me I'm a small guy) have been asking PCGS to designate PL on other series besides Morgan Dollars. It never has made much sense to me not too. Across all proofs Cameo and Deep Cameo is used, why not at least us PL for other series besides Morgans. DMPL isn't necessary, in part because smaller sized coins have less field to measure the depth of mirror, but I think using PL is certainly relevant and easy enough to ascertain. ATS has been using the designation for many years and it would be nice and relevant to see PCGS do it and in their pop reports. I would want it to be two-sided though as the majority seem to here in response to this post.

Kove · June 13, 2013 2:53AM

<< Not to hijack the OP's thread as this is a good place to discuss ideas, but for years now many of us including some of the biggest dealers in the country (not me I'm a small guy) have been asking PCGS to designate PL on other series besides Morgan Dollars. It never has made much sense to me not too. Across all proofs Cameo and Deep Cameo is used, why not at least us PL for other series besides Morgans. DMPL isn't necessary, in part because smaller sized coins have less field to measure the depth of mirror, but I think using PL is certainly relevant and easy enough to ascertain. ATS has been using the designation for many years and it would be nice and relevant to see PCGS do it and in their pop reports. I would want it to be two-sided though as the majority seem to here in response to this post. >>

Great comment, Glenn. ATS has been eating PCGS' lunch for years on designating PL on classic silver and gold commems, and there are other series as well.

Baley · June 13, 2013 3:25AM

<< Seems there is always a push for more finite designations.... next step will be decimal grading..yuck.... buy the coin... Cheers, RickO >>

Yep, buy the coin from the dealer's description of it, and sell it based on the dealer's description of it, just like in the old days

19Lyds · June 13, 2013 3:29AM

<< 

<< Personally, I think its a silly idea proposed by someone who just cannot seem to find or better yet know when or when not to submit a coin. Attributing the Obverse and the Reverse separately is the first step toward grading the obverse and the reverse separately. ANACS tried this back in the 80's and it was just not very successful. People pay premiums or "collection value" based upon the entire coins grade. Not just one side. >>

I would say that this is a weak argument. Coins have two sides ( I know ,no, rim makes 3,...) but truth is only one side "faces" up at a time, be that the obverse or the reverse. I would argue that a colorfully toned coin may only have one side, that is "rainbow" but it will sell for a premium over the assigned grade. I have seen many single sided cameo proof franklins, and sometime submit them for grading, simply because they are beautiful cameos, albeit on the one side. I often wondered why the grading service didn't note the single sided cameo as a point of fact. I guess im thinking like how ngc sometimes notes a deficiency as obverse or reverse only, such as AU details, obverse cleaned. BTW< some where in my inventory I have some ANACS or NGC slabbed morgans ( cant recall which) that say obverse DMPL, or reverse DMPL, i believe this is analogous. >>

Slabs of a few years ago showed both obverse and reverse.
Slabs today show obverse, reverse and edge.

Regardless, if folks want to get into micro grading I suppose they are free to do so however, I do not believe for one second that PCGS will ever entertain the idea since they appear to be doing quite well with their current standards.

illini420 · June 13, 2013 4:43AM

<< 

<< 
They don't use it as much as they should probably use it, but I've also see star designations on Jefferson Nickels that are almost FS, but not quite there. Using the star designation for coins that are close to a designation like CAM or FS or FB or whatever and also for coins with exceptional eye appeal can be quite confusing. >>

@Illini420: The part in bold quoted above is completely false. The star is given by NGC for only 2 reasons:

1) If it is a non-proof coin, it is given for "exceptional eye appeal"; this usually means attractive toning or really amazing luster for the issue. It can sometimes also mean semi-prooflike surfaces or fully prooflike surfaces but only on one side of the coin.

2) If it is a proof coin, it is given for either one of the reasons in 1) above (toning or above average "look" for the particular issue) or it is also possibly given for a coin that is almost the next CAM or UCAM designation (e.g., as you stated, one side is CAM, the other is UCAM, it could get a CAM star -- one side is CAM, the other is neither CAM/UCAM, it could get just a star).

The NGC star designation is never given in practice nor is it stated as such on their website that it is given for "almost" designations like "FS-full steps" for Jefferson Nickels, "FB-fullbands" for Merc dimes, "FT-fulltorch" for Roosey dimes, "FBL-full bell lines" for Frankies, "FH-full head" for SLQs, etc.

LINK >>

I know what they say on their website and the information appears to suggest the star grades are limited to proof coins that are nearly CAM or nearly UCAM when it comes to designations... and of course to any coin with exceptional eye appeal.

However, I have heard from dealers who deal in lots of NGC coins that this star is also used on circulated coins that are nearly PL but not quite there... you could argue those coins simply have exceptional eye appeal, but from what I've seen it's more about being almost enough for the PL designation. That use of the star isn't mentioned in the article so it's not clear whether it's completely true.

I also recently purchased a really nice MS66* War Nickel that is just blast white and lustrous and has no more eye appeal than any other average MS66 War Nickel. However, the coin has 99% full steps and probably should have gotten an FS designation. The dealer selling it to me told me they gave it the star for being so close... and it makes sense based on their other uses of the star designation, whether or not they specifically mentioned that on their website...

So while the information posted on the NGC website about the star designation doesn't come right out and support my earlier statements, I don't necessarily believe them to be "completely false" either.

weresteve · June 13, 2013 4:52AM

<< Not to hijack the OP's thread as this is a good place to discuss ideas, but for years now many of us including some of the biggest dealers in the country (not me I'm a small guy) have been asking PCGS to designate PL on other series besides Morgan Dollars. It never has made much sense to me not too. >>

In some cases PCGS does designate coins as PL ... I made one such example albeit darkside.

1904 UK 4D Maundy

brg5658 · June 13, 2013 5:10AM

<< 

<< 

<< 
They don't use it as much as they should probably use it, but I've also see star designations on Jefferson Nickels that are almost FS, but not quite there. Using the star designation for coins that are close to a designation like CAM or FS or FB or whatever and also for coins with exceptional eye appeal can be quite confusing. >>

@Illini420: The part in bold quoted above is completely false. The star is given by NGC for only 2 reasons:

1) If it is a non-proof coin, it is given for "exceptional eye appeal"; this usually means attractive toning or really amazing luster for the issue. It can sometimes also mean semi-prooflike surfaces or fully prooflike surfaces but only on one side of the coin.

2) If it is a proof coin, it is given for either one of the reasons in 1) above (toning or above average "look" for the particular issue) or it is also possibly given for a coin that is almost the next CAM or UCAM designation (e.g., as you stated, one side is CAM, the other is UCAM, it could get a CAM star -- one side is CAM, the other is neither CAM/UCAM, it could get just a star).

The NGC star designation is never given in practice nor is it stated as such on their website that it is given for "almost" designations like "FS-full steps" for Jefferson Nickels, "FB-fullbands" for Merc dimes, "FT-fulltorch" for Roosey dimes, "FBL-full bell lines" for Frankies, "FH-full head" for SLQs, etc.

LINK >>

I know what they say on their website and the information appears to suggest the star grades are limited to proof coins that are nearly CAM or nearly UCAM when it comes to designations... and of course to any coin with exceptional eye appeal.

However, I have heard from dealers who deal in lots of NGC coins that this star is also used on circulated coins that are nearly PL but not quite there... you could argue those coins simply have exceptional eye appeal, but from what I've seen it's more about being almost enough for the PL designation. That use of the star isn't mentioned in the article so it's not clear whether it's completely true.

I also recently purchased a really nice MS66* War Nickel that is just blast white and lustrous and has no more eye appeal than any other average MS66 War Nickel. However, the coin has 99% full steps and probably should have gotten an FS designation. The dealer selling it to me told me they gave it the star for being so close... and it makes sense based on their other uses of the star designation, whether or not they specifically mentioned that on their website...

So while the information posted on the NGC website about the star designation doesn't come right out and support my earlier statements, I don't necessarily believe them to be "completely false" either. >>

You can believe whatever you want, but NGC doesn't give the star for "almost designations" for things like FB, FT, FBL, FH, FS, etc. I was just really bothered by your claim that the star can sometimes be given for "almost" meeting a designation. As I already mentioned in my description, PL or semi-PL surfaces will get the star sometimes. The star is also given for booming luster that is abnormal for the issue sometimes. The most common use of the star is for "attractive toning", as deem attractive by the graders (not necessarily by everyone else).

I do not believe for 1 second (nor would NGC claim that) the star was given to that one example of a nickel for "almost FS". That's simply false, and I have never heard of that anywhere nor seen that anywhere for as long as the star has existed. So, I will state again, what you claimed is completely false. It's possible the strike was particularly strong on that War Nickel you saw, or what you saw as normal blast white the grader saw as particularly lustrous. But what the dealer told you was mularky. The star is particularly prone to subjectivity (yes, I know all grading is). Even more so than technical grading.

Listen up PCGS...

Comments

Leave a Comment