Chain Cent PCGS AU 58 in 1988, PCGS MS 63 in 1992 and PCGS MS 65 around 2002.
privaterarecoincollector
Posts: 629 ✭✭✭✭✭
I have a question to all of you. Does anybody share this view with me here below or do you have a different opinion and why ?
Its about grading:
There are quite a few coins that are not really unc and now graded PCGS 61 up to PCGS 65 and were before in AU holders.
Here are a few examples:
Chain Cent PCGS MS 65 (formerly PCGS AU 55)
Half Disme PCGS 64 (I bought the coin myself as PCGS AU 58 in 2001, it graded NGC 63, crossed later to PCGS 63 and then got even upgraded to PCGS 64). In strict terms the coin is still AU 58.
Half Disme PCGS 64 ex Pogue (the coin is not 100% unc either).
Quarter Eagle no stars PCGS 62+ (PCGS AU 58 in 1999)
And I am sure there are hundreds of more examples.
Now my problem is the following:
When AU coins are being graded MS 65, how do you grade real unc Gem coins ?
The Chain Cent PCGS MS 66 was PCGS MS 65 already in 1998, when the other Chain Cent was graded PCGS AU 55, that is now graded PCGS MS 65. Maybe all of this doesnt matter so much, as the prices in relations are still different with the 66 coin 2.3 Mio and the 65 coin 900k, but I am still not sure if it is good to grade this way. The 65 coin in this case is just not a 65. Just not. It has lots of wear. (Im relating here to the coin that formerly was owned by Cardinal / Martin Logies).
Now the next problem is that a Chain Cent today graded PCGS AU 55, is really a XF 40 coin at best and was graded XF 40 in 1998.
So you cant grade the coin that was PCGS 55 in 1998 55 anymore, thats why it is now MS 65.
It just seemed on some type coins the grades are way off today.
Comments
Grading has changed over the past few decades. It's all about eye appeal without a loupe now. A little bit of high point wear or friction no longer limits a coin to AU58 if it has full rolling luster. I personally cracked a few AU58 WLH's that I bought decades ago and they came back 64&65. Is that wrong? Not IMO - they look like gems and frankly 58 was way too harsh. They were micro graded the first time. Also, I've own the chain cent in question- 55 is just a silly stupid grade on it. I personally grade it 64 but Cardinal will go to bat on the coin all day long at 65 so who is to say I'm right?
but did they CAC in the new grades?
badum tish
I'm here every night folks
What would it have graded back in 1793?
MY COINS FOR SALE AT https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/other/bajjerfans-coins-sale/3876
Maybe common coins are still graded Technically, but the extreme rarities you mention are better described as being "ranked" by the 'grades' you refer to.
Of course, the Purists insist the Hobby 'should' grade Draped bust quarters the same way as it does clad Washingtons, but it simply is not reality.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
So is the finest known Chain Cent, "The Coin!" now and MS-70? Is the finest known Strawberry Leaf Cent now an MS-60? Filling the MS-65 slots with lesser coins makes that grade meaningless.
Billjones, take any concept to ridiculous extremes, an of course it becomes reducto ad absurdum.
So no, that's not what i meant and you know it.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Oliver, the PCGS MS65 S-2 Chain Cent just does not have "lots of wear." JA stickered both the Cardinal S-2 Chain Cent as MS65 and the Eliasberg-Jung S-4 Chain Cent as MS65, and stated for the record that the Cardinal S-2 was superior to the Eliasberg S-4. (In fact, after I had purchased the S-2 coin, and before JA started CAC, JA advised re-submitting the S-2 coin for an MS66 grade.)
There are nuances to die varieties than need to be taken into consideration. The obverse die of the S-4 variety was entirely new when those coins were struck, and featured significantly different hair detail, in much lower relief than the hair detail of the S-2 obverse. Whereas, the obverse die of the S-2 variety featured higher relief hair details and was used during the entire time of production of the S-1 Ameri Chain Cents. You simply can't judge wear by details alone when a coin is struck by a worn high-relief die, as Strike Weakness does NOT impart wear to the struck coin. The Cardinal S-2 coin is fully lustrous, and I was told that when Naftzger owned it, it was his favorite coin.
Here is a modern example of strike weakness from a high relief die:
Here's another example from the same dies, but fully struck:
Both examples display full luster across the surfaces, yet the first one lacks a lot of detail. Should the first one be graded XF-AU because of that missing detail?
Please!
MS-65 is an elite grade, especially with reaspect to early coinage. When you fill It with coins that were viewed as well below that level, you water it down to point where it does not mean anything.
Thank you Cardinal, the die variety and strike variability factors are exactly what was alluded to in my quarter type grading comparison comment.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Both weak strikes and circulation wear are discussed in this thread.
In the case of a weak strike, the coin can be a mint state coin, just not fully struck.
In the case of circulation wear, a coin can be circulated but given a 60+ grade under market grading. In the case where a lightly circulated coin is worth more than an uncirculated coin, under market grading, the lightly circulated coin may have a higher numerical grade than the uncirculated coin.
Lots of Bust halves in au58 trade at dollar levels well beyond sheet.. Some of these could possibly get ms63 grades if resubmitted..
Baley, you evidently attended an excellent high school
The reducto ad absurdum diet is quite effective..
--> I get that with the softness.
Lets look at the coins:
We have the PCGS 65 RB ex Pogue that for sure is unc:
http://www.pcgscoinfacts.com/Coin/Detail/1342
and we have the ex Cardinal coin here:
http://www.legendnumismatics.com/product/1c-1793-chain-america-s-2-pcgs-ms65bn-ex-cardinal/
While the MS 65 RB coin has the softness in the center, the MS 65 coin seems to have the softness in the Center + a little bit of wear all around (not only in the center), you can see that at the chains, at Libertys hair, at the ear, etc.
In modern grading standards its probably correct to call the MS 65 coin a MS 63 or MS 64 or if you overgrade even a 65, but again the problem is what do you call the MS 65 RB that is really 100% unc while the 65 BN coin is not.
My coin btw is PCGS MS 66, its not the Eliasberg coin.
If this coin is MS 65 BN, you have to call the 65 RB a MS 70. And the 66 BN that is 100% sharp and unc too MS 70. And btw the Eliasberg coin too, because that coin is 100% unc too. It has a clip though.
Or we forget all about the real unc and start calling a little bit circulated coins unc too, then it doesnt matter.
I understand the grade inflation from MS 64 to MS 65 or even MS 62 to MS 64, but a coin that was AU 55 and now MS 65 I just cant get it.
The 65 RB Chain Cent btw was graded MS 63 RB in 1978 !
BTW, Cardinal, I do agree in this:
Oliver, the PCGS MS65 S-2 Chain Cent just does not have "lots of wear.
It does not have lots of wear, just a little bit. But thats why I grade it AU 58 and not XF 40.
exactly !
Thank you for bringing this up as it is one of the most important aspects of grading for a collector to understand.
I read a column once where the writer pointed out how messed up things would be in this country if the "standard" for a foot in NJ was 8 inches, in NY it was 10 inches; and in CT it was 13 inches. That is basically what has happend to the coin grading system. As a student of coin grading, I can say this: THERE REALLY IS NO GRADING STANDARD. That's because a standard does not change. The powers that be insist that as they learned more about the nuances of grading, their "standards" evolved. I say BS. They evolved to reflect the higher value of a coins.
Grading was very strict at one time. In fact, an XF coin had practically as much full mint luster as a coin we would call AU today. An uncirculated coin could not have any trace of wear. Gradually, standards loosened as there were not enough true uncirculated coins to go around and coin prices were going up. To justify the price the grade had to go up too!
As one owner of a major auction house said about his rare coin graded AU-58 by strict technical standards: "IWe sold this coin as an MS-65 so the buyer deserves to have it graded MS-65! There is a fine line between a true AU-58 and a MS-65.
Years later, one very unusual thing happened that revealed to the public what professionals knew was going on for years. A grading guide by Dave Bowers stated that many coins that were formerly graded AU are now graded MS!
That's the fact. In the last grading seminar I attended, the instructor had to teach the class what an Uncirculated coin with full luster looked like. Then the class learned what weak strike, roll rub, and actual friction wear looked like. Next, he told the class that each of them needs to decide for themselves how much actual friction wear they would tolerate on a coin before it became their personal AU because these days AU coins are regularly graded MS-62! LOL. And we better learn how much the TPGS's allow also. The grading instructor advised us not to fight the system - just use it.
History is full of rare coins such as the 1804 dollar, Brasher Doubloon, 1870-S Half dime, etc that were all graded lower in the past. The condition of the coins did not change that much!" As you pointed out - the grading standards changed! IMHO, it is a darn shame. For example, the commercial value of the formerly graded XF-45 1870-S Half dime is what it is *no matter what grade is on the slab.
@PrivateCoinCollector asked::
When AU coins are being graded MS 65, how do you grade real unc Gem coins?
They are graded just the same or "bumped" a little. Here is the dirty little secret. (First a disclaimer: I have not done this experiment in four years; however, I doubt the results would be different today) If I take 100 TPGS MS-63 Saints (bean or no bean) Perhaps ten to fifteen of them will be true "technical" Uncs with full luster and no trace of wear, stacking, etc. At this time, most do not care. I wish I could give a shout-out to the major coin company that let me go through stacks of Saints to pick out a technical Unc for a grading set.
Here is another one for you. Decades ago, Silvertown bough a large collection of frosty, original, BU commemoratives. Those coins made many of the coins previously graded look like crap! That's because (IMO) quite a large number of commemorative halves are not original.
TDN,
I did the same thing with the half disme, AU 58 -> NGC 63, and then crossed only a few years later.
I think here is what we have today:
100% UNC coins
95% to 98% UNC coins (that were formerly AU 58, but better than just AU 58 in todays standards)
AU 58 coins in todays standards.
Problem is that we are now mixing the 100% UNC coins with the 98% UNC coins in the same grades, as the unc grades reflect the scratches and not the 98% in most cases.
"Modern crap. No one will ever care."
"To Be Esteemed Be Useful" - 1792 Birch Cent --- "I personally think we developed language because of our deep need to complain." - Lily Tomlin
WOW! BEST ANSWER. This is perhaps the best and shortest explanation of the present situation I have ever read. When I steal it I'm going to give you credit. If you wish your real name used, PM me.
I understand the Chain Cent in your current collection is the MS66 S-4 Chain Cent. I was not referring to that one.
You sold the Eliasberg MS65 S-4 Chain Cent in 2004, and that was the one I was comparing to the Naftzger-Cardinal S-2 Chain Cent. You are correct that the Eliasberg Chain Cent has a planchet clip. Perhaps you have forgotten it also has a sizable spot of corrosion on the lower reverse.
Please recognize that the PCGS 65RB Chain Cent, Ex: Pogue is the S-3 variety, and also struck from a newly-engraved fresh obverse die. So, it was issued by the Mint in finer condition to begin with than the Naftzger-Cardinal coin.
Absent stable public standards and consistent application of those standards, the entire exercise borders on meaningless.
You all have hit on something I experienced in the 1970's. This exact problem was discussed in an authentication class at the ANA Summer Seminar. I don't recall the exact coin. At the time, Internal grading was done at ANACS in Washington to help identify coins. An authenticator there developed a very strict "technical" system to ensure that a coin would be identified exactly the same each time it was seen. No wiggle room was allowed. You could not call a coin AU one time and BU the next time it was seen.
That's when the situation you mentioned came up in the class. If a person calls a bunch of the normally seen sliders, mishandled Uncs, or coins that look Unc - "Uncirculated", what do you call the true Unc with no trace of wear? You see, ANACS authenticators had seen such things as Mint RB colonials locked away in museums that had no trace of wear. Yet the market was selling AU's as MS. The instructor related that he nearly fell off his chair when he saw his first "Gem" Uncirculated Barber half a dollar (Full frosty white, not one tiny mark or discoloration anywhere on it) come in for authentication. For years before each half he had seen was silver-gray! Back then "raw" $2 1/2 dollars were all over the place at shows but it was not until 1986 that the true Uncirculated coins came out of the "woodwork" making all the previous stuff look like crap.
I guess there is no answer to this right now. Eventually, I believe grading will become more detailed. The market will demand it and each specific factor in a coin's grade will be rated. That is the only way to separate the seldom seen gems from the rest. Perhaps the + and * designations are one such attempt.
The OP states " I am sure there are hundreds of more examples." There certainly are, like the one and only AU-55 1870-S half dime, graded AU-55 at the time of its discovery, later slabbed as an MS-63, and now in an MS-64 holder ...... yet still an AU-55.
FWIW, I owned the Starr 1793 S-2 back in 1988. Bought it raw. It graded 58 the first time. Ended up selling it in a 63 holder not much later, and I considered that the correct grade. And I handled it again a few years later at the bottom of the market, selling it for 75K. (It was NOT an easy sell!) Then it became a 65 something like a decade later, but it looked accurately graded at that point. Some disturbances in the original dirt had been eliminated, probably in a completely acceptable way.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Okkkk....but so what? Why is a little bit of high point rub any worse than a huge bag mark in a focal area? Hmmmmm?
Because it is disingenuous to call something uncirculated or mint state when it is not. A technical AU58 may be worth more than a low MS piece. It is time collectors overcome the assumption that a higher grade or TPG number automatically means a more valuable coin. Alternatively, maybe a new scale is in order.
Personally, I think it is time to ditch market grading altogether. TPGS shouldn't be pricing coins which is what market grading is about. Market preferences change and the market grading concept invites guarantee liabilities and market instability if the answer is more grade inflation to dodge guarantee payouts.
There have been "AU60+" coins for some time now under market grading which is practiced by the TPGs and taught by the ANA.
Perhaps it's time to retire the technical grading "AU" and "MS" monikers as they seem to create confusion with market grading? Another approach is to keep AU and MS but call a circulated 65 coin an "AU65" instead of a "MS65".
all this is called gradeflation. private collector, you have several coins in your set-including the $2.5 1808 that did not CAC because they were pushed in grades. it is still the finest. address that while you hammer the other coins.
we all know grading is not perfect.
It sounds to me if you don't own it (even if you sold it), you diss it. Ever stop to think the Half Disme was never really an AU? Same thing happened to a TYIII 1804 $1 on a different level.
this sounds like a very slanted post
Actually, you are not correct. This coin was first brought to ANACS in Washington to be authenticated. At that time, it was graded XF-45 for the internal records. It was also photographed and weighed.
The reason I know this is there were two columns in Numismatic News a while back that were written by an ANACS authenticator who described the authentication process, where it was discovered, who bought it, etc.
What you may be correct about is that eventually it was slabbed as an AU-55. I cannot remember if that was before or after it was "brightened up" from its original state.
I would really like to see coins given two grades if necessary: an unchanging technical grade and then the more mercurial market grading information. It seems more forthright and transparent to me. We could add a new 100 point scale for eye appeal/market grading to avoid confusion. That is where this hobby is headed to keep TPG revenues up anyway.
The "Line" between Uncirculated and "Not" is the crux of the entire argument with regards to early coins. Its completely specious and should be done awsy with.
The idea that a beautiful, lusterous original early coin with a full strike, no marks, and a hint of obvious high point rub is 58 at best, and an identical date and die pair coin with no trace of wear, but a weak strike, full of ugly bagmarks, and poor eye appeal is 60 at worst, is ludicrous.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Only if you look at that possibility with the flawed assumption that a higher numerical grade always means a better coin. There are eye appealing coins that transcend numerical grade for every issue.
I'm not surprised, early US coins, an area where grading is certainly an art not demonstrable science written in stone. A dealer I know picked up a rare Colonial that graded around VF, sent to cac it went gold sticker when they were still doing Colonials.
That's funny - do you know the premise behind the Sheldon scale?
Take a shiny new quarter out of your pocket. Is it uncirculated? No. But submit it and it will be graded such. So what's the difference?
I don't see this as a good example. There's no real challenge to determine high point weakness in strike vs. wear for this pair. The other 98% of the coin is pristine, right down to every other high point including the rims. You won't be finding that on 1793 large cents or other early draped bust coinage. 95% of the coins called "unc" do display high point rub and missing luster on areas that are well struck. A less than fully struck coin with full luster on all the other coin's high points needs no real debate to determine it's fully unc status.
I can understand why the high end of the market now calls the ex-Pogue and ex-Cardinal MS65's what they are. But, it doesn't change my opinion that both have wear and less than full luster. I apply the same standards to those that I would to ANY bust and early seated coinage of the 1810-1855 era. I don't give the earlier coins a pass because they are near impossible to find in truly full mint state condition. Luster is luster. Wear is wear. If only John Clapp's grand dad was a coin collector....he'd have saved those early coins right from the mint so we would have as struck examples to look at today.
Yes, it was absurd and based on multipliers of basal value. At the same time, why continue to pretend to adhere to one scale if you're doing something completely different? A standardless standard is not a standard at all.
Only if you look at that possibility with the flawed assumption that a higher numerical grade always means a better coin. There are eye appealing coins that transcend numerical grade for every issue.
Exactly. The problem is not that a beautiful, but barely circulated coin grades 58 or that an ugly but technically uncirculated coin grades 60. The problem is people thinking a superior coin cannot have a lower numerical grade.
The system works.
Are they pretending? Seems to me they are pricing coins with the grades assigned...and mostly getting it right
I was there in Parsippany and I saw that coin, it was and is a beautiful coin.
Market grading is a problem that usurps technical grading
You guys are playing in the wrong end of the pool. It's just hard to relate this debate to the coins the average schmuck never gets to even see.
>
Maybe. Was it just removed from a fresh original bankroll without enough time to rub with several other coins?
When a grader sees a coin, s/he obviously doesn't know the coin's history (ultra rarities excepted) and can only evaluate the coin based on how it presents in hand. Within a narrow time window, it is possible for a coin to arguably circulate but show no signs of circulation. Like in many other fields where data is quantified, operational (as opposed to theoretical) definitions are used. It doesn't follow logically that since we are using operational definitions that a coin with obvious signs of circulation should be given a free pass.
High point rub is not obvious signs of circulation. Wear in the fields is...
You typically won't get high point rub sitting in a roll for 100-200 hundred years. I've never seen fresh rolls of BU Morgans showing any stacking friction/roll rub. And Morgan dollars didn't get high point rub sitting in original mint bags being tossed around from time to time. But coins sitting in drawers, wooden cabinets, or coin albums do pick up high point rub over decades. All the original bags of Morgans got were high grazes and field grazes/bag marks. Take a freshly minted coin from circulation that still shows 99-100% full luster (most any of them). Try your best to rub that down where it shows high point wear. I suspect it will take you hours or days of continuous rubbing with your fingers to notice a change. It is not a rapid process. By the time you recognize a coin with high point wear or less than full luster, it's probably circulated for years.
High point rub is the reason coins aren't uncirculated. I don't care if the coin was plucked from the US mint and then sat in a drawer picking up cabinet friction. It got worn...period. Wear in the fields is just the more obvious stage of a not uncirculated coin and those are the next stage of wear following high point rub only. By the time you notice the fields have a small "hole" in them...they are already down to the AU55 level...or maybe a low end 58-. And in the case of the MS65 1793 chain cents, they have less than full field luster since you have squint to see it.....another reason they have legitimate wear. Consistent strength of field luster that is clearly visible from one side of the coin to the other is a good sign of a potentially unc coin....ideally with a cartwheel effect (proof like coins are a harder call).
The "MS" part of the "MS65" grade for a lightly circulated coin seems to be the issue. "AU65" might be more appropriate and put some of these issues to rest.
I've advocated such for over a decade - maybe two
How has the response been? Have the TPGs or the ANA indicated their thoughts on this?