Grading has always been and will always be subjective. Numerical grading will never be the answer; just a shorthand for categories of grade.
PNG member, numismatic dealer since 1965. Operates a retail store, also has exhibited at over 1000 shows. I firmly believe in numismatics as the world's greatest hobby, but recognize that this is a luxury and without collectors, we can all spend/melt our collections/inventories.
@Baley said: "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."
LOL. Yeah, we can name your proposed new grading system the "Beatle Baley Early Type Coin System" where anything goes.
@Baley continued: "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."
LOL, Yeah, just ludicrous. Those stupid, know-nothing, ignorant idiots who devised the grading system caused all this mess! So let's not even think of casting blame on all the "Johnny-come-lately" professional coin dealers who insisted that circulated coins be graded and sold as Unc.
@tradedollarnut said: "That's funny - do you know the premise behind the Sheldon scale?"
Actually, your question is funny. Yes, long ago, that scale was a way to indicate value. However, more recently (until it became bastardized and meaningless because the descriptions of its grades were no longer followed) it became used as a way to indicate a coin's actual condition of preservation with absolutely no connection to its value.
@tradedollarnut said: "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?"
There you go again. You are clouding the issue with something covered in every Basic Grading Seminar for YN's. The past history of a coin has absolutely nothing to do with its actual condition of preservation. Most here can tell stories of opening an original bank wrapped roll of vintage coins and finding sliders (AU) and at the same time digging into a junk box to pull out a perfectly Uncirculated "gem."
@Soldi said: "Market grading is a problem that usurps technical grading."
I am not aware that anyone uses "technical" grading outside of a classroom. Commercial grading "crushed" technical grading decades ago.
@DollarAfterDollar said: "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."
Actually, the coins the average schmuck gets to see are graded more strictly and much closer to their actual condition than those XF/AU rare coins bought and sold as Uncirculated. That's why it is hard to teach the average schmuck that a coin is a commercial Unc when he can see friction wear all over the high points. Oh, I mean "cabinet friction."
@tradedollarnut said: "High point rub is not obvious signs of circulation. Wear in the fields is..."
@tradedollarnut said:
As much as you protest, plenty of high point rub occurs from 200 years in a coin cabinet and not from circulation
AGREE! And that's why coins that have lost their original surface luster on their high points due to abrasion are now considered to be Uncirculated. The rules were changed decades ago by major coin dealers who came up with the term "cabinet friction" to cover almost anything.
As a YN, one deceased dealer told me he looks at a coin's fields. If there are no marks or abrasions present he'll call an AU coin Unc and ignore the "trace of wear" on the high points. Another well-known dealer who is now over a hundred told me that I should stop trying to "Buck the System." Things are what they are. LOL.
@tradedollarnut said:
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?
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.
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.
Thanks, you can use and quote it however you want.
@tradedollarnut said:
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?
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.
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 the definition of an UNC Mint State coin is no wear, right ? A coin with wear was in circulation while a coin with huge bag marks could have been never in circulation and just stored with hundreds of other coins in a bag.
It's not, "anything goes " it's simply rational. Drop the words, and just use a number from 1 to 70 inclusive.
A coin with a full strike, full luster, no wear, but an ugly scratch right across the cheek can then "grade" something like 35, for example, and a beautiful coin, very similar, but instead of the scratch, has miniscule highpoint rub and gorgeous toning, and it's, say, a 66
It's the words uncirculated and mint state that cause the confusion, imo. Lose the adjectives and it's all much simpler
@specialist said:
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
of course I adress this and you are wrong.
Im even saying my quarter eagle no stars PCGS MS 65 should be 63, while the 62+ should be AU 58.
I owned the 1808 quarter eagle PCGS 63, it came from an auction in 2001 as PCGS 61. If my coin is a 65, then this coin is a 63. If my coin is a 64, then this coin is a 61. Its all relative and mostly the relations make sense, but sometimes they dont.
@tradedollarnut said:
Are they pretending? Seems to me they are pricing coins with the grades assigned...and mostly getting it right
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.
@Baley said:
It's not, "anything goes " it's simply rational. Drop the words, and just use a number from 1 to 70 inclusive.
A coin with a full strike, full luster, no wear, but an ugly scratch right across the cheek can then "grade" something like 35, for example, and a beautiful coin, very similar, but instead of the scratch, has miniscule highpoint rub and gorgeous toning, and it's, say, a 66
It's the words uncirculated and mint state that cause the confusion, imo. Lose the adjectives and it's all much simpler
and then what ? The lightly circulated ex AU 58 Chain Cent is a 65 and the THE COIN SP 67 is a 67 ? And there are 2 grades in between ?
There are 10 grades in between !!
I hear what you are saying, but it doesnt solve the problem really as the relations are totally off.
@tradedollarnut said:
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?
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.
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 the definition of an UNC Mint State coin is no wear, right ? A coin with wear was in circulation while a coin with huge bag marks could have been never in circulation and just stored with hundreds of other coins in a bag.
Soooo??? You are clinging to antiquated concepts that wear matters more than bagmarks
@privaterarecoincollector said: "Because the definition of an UNC Mint State coin is no wear, right ?"
Well, that is certainly the definition we were all (or should have been) taught but it is not followed, especially for gold and rare coins.
@Baley said: "It's not, "anything goes " it's simply rational. Drop the words, and just use a number from 1 to 70 inclusive. A coin with a full strike, full luster, no wear, but an ugly scratch right across the cheek can then "grade" something like 35, for example, and a beautiful coin, very similar, but instead of the scratch, has miniscule highpoint rub and gorgeous toning, and it's, say, a 66."
LOL, Please stop! IMO, it should be a lot easier to understand Unc w/scratch (old technical grading) than VF-35 for a Mint State coin.
@Baley continued: "It's the words uncirculated and mint state that cause the confusion,"
Now, that is exactly the case. I've been trying very hard to stop using the term Uncirculated but old habits die hard.
Mint State is a much better word. Then we can say Mint State with just a little "cabinet friction." LOL.
Although PRC fairly criticizes some pieces in the top post, he is mistaken about the Cardinal S-2. This is not a good example to illustrate his point.
I know the Cardinal S-2 well. It was PCGS graded MS-65 before 2005. Actually, it set an auction record for a large cent when it brought $431,250 in the ANR pre-FUN event in January 2005. I covered that auction for Numismatic News newspaper and then wrote about this specific coin. I covered it again in 2013, in detail.
MrEureka: 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.
I have discussed this coin with Andy on more than one occasion. I, too, believe that it was certified as "AU-58" during the late 1980s not "AU-55" in "1998"! There is a big difference between 1988 and 1998. It was a common practice from 1986 to 1990 for grading-wholesalers to submit the same coins again many times, sometimes even 30 times for a single coin, in hopes of higher grades. PCGS and NGC were then very young, and became more consistent later.
The "AU-58" certification then was not the accurate grade at the time in the opinions of relevant experts. I think that every expert who saw it in a 58 holder probably figured that PCGS had undergraded this coin by PCGS's own standards. The AU58 certification was a mistake, not a fair grade at the time. An all-star baseball player will sometimes hit into a double-play and the best of soccer goalies will sometimes miss an easy-save while giving up a game-winning goal.
Also, my guess is that some flecks were removed with trike, acetone or perhaps just water! Additionally, the coin was oiled as are most, high grade, pre-1815 large cents. When I grade a coin from a past era, I take various positive and negative factors into consideration. All early copper coins have some negative characteristics, even those that fairly grade 66 or 67.
Although Cardinal's illustration in a post above of the consequence of a weak strike is brilliant, it is also important to keep in mind that the S-4 'With Periods' Chain Cents were struck with an obverse die that had more detail engraved into it than the detail that was engraved into the obverse die used to strike S-2 Chain Cents. On the obverse, a fully struck S-2, if one ever existed, would have much less detail than a fully struck S-4!
There is no wear on the Cardinal S-2; a combination of poor engraving of the die, weak strike and oil cause some observers to erroneously think that this coin has wear. I have seen many strictly uncirculated, pre-1830 coins that have some mushiness in the design.
There are various imperfections in old minting processes. Many strictly uncirculated British coins from the 1500s to the 1700s are characterized by portraits of monarchs with mushy heads, just blobs as faces. Obviously, some monarchs understood that imperfections in minting processes that lead to mushiness in new coins, otherwise such products would not have been tolerated.
The Cardinal S-2 has minimal contact marks and was struck on a choice planchet. The relative lack of corrosion is a big deal, too. The Eliasberg S-4 has far more corrosion. The Cardinal S-2 is #5 in my condition census of Chain Cents of all varieties, and the Eliasberg S-4 is #6.
The only way this grading mess will ever be solved is to grade the coin ONLY by its condition of preservation. Mint State coins should have no trace of wear. In that way. a coin's grade will not change upward every few years and rich collectors will be bidding against each other in an auction to pay four million dollars for an AU coin that even my blind grandmother can tell is actually circulated! There would be very little wiggle room and crack-out-upgrades would be severely curtailed. Why, even CAC would not be needed anymore.
With proper instruction and a good pair of eyes, coin gradig is the easiest thing in the world using decades old grading guides.- until we introduce value. Then is becomes extremely difficult for many of us.
@tradedollarnut said:
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?
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.
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 the definition of an UNC Mint State coin is no wear, right ? A coin with wear was in circulation while a coin with huge bag marks could have been never in circulation and just stored with hundreds of other coins in a bag.
Soooo??? You are clinging to antiquated concepts that wear matters more than bagmarks
No, Im saying an uncirculated coin should have no wear while an uncirculated coin can and should have bagmarks.
I wouldnt mind to grade slightly circulated coins MS in case the wear is minimal, but they should not jump from 58 to 64 (to take a different example, my former half disme). If we grade slightly circulated coins MS, then PCGS should not only look for scratches and bag marks, but also discount the MS grade by the fact that there is minimal wear.
While I still think the PCGS MS 65 Chain Cent has some minor wear, I agree to grade the coin UNC, my grade would be PCGS 63.
I also agree to grade the PCGS 62+ 1796 quarter eagle NS MS 62, as one side is AU 58 with almost full lustre and the other side is Gem MS 65 or better. Its a beautiful coin btw !
I understand sometimes its just hard to grade coins the right way and what bothers me is when the relations are off because certain coins are overgraded and you cant call the others MS 70 because of that.
@MrEureka said:
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.
Thanks for the information, I corrected the title of this post.
This is an important topic with many interesting posts.
Personally, I've never liked market grading. TPGS should not be pricing coins, which is a major part of market grading.
This sounds like good advice: "The grading instructor advised us not to fight the system - just use it." Unfortunately that means that longtime collectors should consider having their older slabs re-graded before they sell.
I concur roadrunner “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.”
I’ve seen seated dollars graded MS-64 with obvious high point rub, caused by cabinet friction. Why did the grading companies decide to ignore cabinet friction? Is it because the coins did not circulate in the traditional manner? Wear is wear, IMHO.
Bravo! This is a problem “The definition of an UNC Mint State coin is no trace of wear.” Recently I sent DH an email suggesting that he update their current definition of MS because it does not accurately describe their current grading standards for MS coins. Unfortunately I did not receive a response.
TDN asks “So? You are clinging to antiquated concepts that wear matters more than bagmarks. Perhaps antiquated, but both are important. If you consider the history of coin grading it’s fairly recently that the concept of market grading, specifically grading coins with high point rub MS, has been practiced by the grading companies. I agree with privaterarecoincollector “I’m saying an uncirculated coin should have no wear while an uncirculated coin can and should have bagmarks.”
I agree with Insider2 with a few slight modifications. With proper instruction, a good pair of eyes, and some practice, coin grading is straight forward using decades old grading guides. That is until we introduce value, then is becomes extremely difficult for many of us.
Words of wisdom from Julian “Grading has always been and will always be subjective. Numerical grading will never be the answer; just a shorthand for categories of grade.” And RogerB “Absent stable public standards and consistent application of those standards, the entire exercise borders on meaningless.”
Perhaps this is a reasonable solution that most numismatists would embrace. “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.”
This is an excellent discussion, and illustrates the weakness of a system that has no standards. I do see and understand the various opinions and arguments - they have merit. This may be the most informative and substantive thread on grading that I have seen on this forum. There is, of course, only one conclusion to be drawn.... Grading must have measurable standards. Until this is defined, documented and implemented, the inconsistencies and grade creep will continue. Therein lies the future of coin grading - without which, chaos will continue. Cheers, RickO
@Insider2 said: @Baley said: "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."
LOL. Yeah, we can name your proposed new grading system the "Beatle Baley Early Type Coin System" where anything goes.
@Baley continued: "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."
LOL, Yeah, just ludicrous. Those stupid, know-nothing, ignorant idiots who devised the grading system caused all this mess! So let's not even think of casting blame on all the "Johnny-come-lately" professional coin dealers who insisted that circulated coins be graded and sold as Unc.
@tradedollarnut said: "That's funny - do you know the premise behind the Sheldon scale?"
Actually, your question is funny. Yes, long ago, that scale was a way to indicate value. However, more recently (until it became bastardized and meaningless because the descriptions of its grades were no longer followed) it became used as a way to indicate a coin's actual condition of preservation with absolutely no connection to its value.
@tradedollarnut said: "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?"
There you go again. You are clouding the issue with something covered in every Basic Grading Seminar for YN's. The past history of a coin has absolutely nothing to do with its actual condition of preservation. Most here can tell stories of opening an original bank wrapped roll of vintage coins and finding sliders (AU) and at the same time digging into a junk box to pull out a perfectly Uncirculated "gem."
@Soldi said: "Market grading is a problem that usurps technical grading."
I am not aware that anyone uses "technical" grading outside of a classroom. Commercial grading "crushed" technical grading decades ago.
@DollarAfterDollar said: "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."
Actually, the coins the average schmuck gets to see are graded more strictly and much closer to their actual condition than those XF/AU rare coins bought and sold as Uncirculated. That's why it is hard to teach the average schmuck that a coin is a commercial Unc when he can see friction wear all over the high points. Oh, I mean "cabinet friction."
@tradedollarnut said: "High point rub is not obvious signs of circulation. Wear in the fields is..."
Oh, my...
Oh, my...
A rather Priggish display of ignorance and don't backtrack. You appear to know everyone's thought processes as they opine. This posting of yours is just another reason why people are moving out of "rare coins". I mean really who needs this?
I don't mind grading standards evolving over time. I do hate coins with an obvious rub suddenly being not only "UNC" but Gem or near Gem UNC. Circulated is circulated, even if pretty.
I also think it's funny/disturbing to look at early copper on Heritage and see their EAC grade next to the slab grade.
Of course, if I'm running a grading service, I like evolving standards because it fuels my bottom line with resubmissions.
@tradedollarnut said:
Are they pretending? Seems to me they are pricing coins with the grades assigned...and mostly getting it right
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
That's an interesting suggestion. Could you also be MS55 for a really bad strike or poor luster?
@privaterarecoincollector said:
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.
Hasn't this always been the "problem" with slabs? It's just one person's opinion at a snapshot in time.
In an ideal world, CAC shouldn't exist much less be so highly valued. A "65" should be a narrow range, distinct from "64" and "66". In the real world, a "65" overlaps the 64 range and the 66 range (or worse) and so the beans start trying to sort out the distinctions.
This is a very damning thread to our hosts. There is much mis-information here.
Apparently private collector refused to acknowledge his $2.5 1808 is over graded. He has similar coins as well. This thread seems to be more of a vendetta from a person who had a very intelligent dealer vet most of his purchases.
clearly way back when, many coins were under graded as the grading services had not seen many examples. Why is no one discussing that? this happened on all grade levels for all kinds of coins from cheapies to million dollar coins.
@tradedollarnut said:
Are they pretending? Seems to me they are pricing coins with the grades assigned...and mostly getting it right
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
That's an interesting suggestion. Could you also be MS55 for a really bad strike or poor luster?
Yup. The idea that 60 is this magical cutoff for wear or no wear has come and gone. Seen the Norweb 70-S? I don't think it ever circulated
@tradedollarnut said:
Are they pretending? Seems to me they are pricing coins with the grades assigned...and mostly getting it right
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
That's an interesting suggestion. Could you also be MS55 for a really bad strike or poor luster?
Yup. The idea that 60 is this magical cutoff for wear or no wear has come and gone. Seen the Norweb 70-S? I don't think it ever circulated
So do they just take into consideration the great rarities as far as die state, and the big money coins these days. I know I see many early halves and bust halves that when graded and stickered or not, strike die wear etc. sure doesn't seem to be taken into consideration..
I will just continue to adhere to my SIG line. Everyone can call them whatever they want.
Please... Save The Stories, Just Answer My Questions, And Tell Me How Much!!!!!
My opinions have been questioned and the way I post is offensive to many. For example: "A rather Priggish display of ignorance and don't backtrack."
In my very limited experience, I've been told that you can offer a collector an education; but .. ]
"You appear to know everyone's thought processes as they opine."
LOL, I am not a mind reader, the words that are posted by members have meaning. I scored extremely high in reading comprehension testing.
"This posting of yours is just another reason why people are moving out of "rare coins". I mean really who needs this?"
I'll bet I have brought more folks into this hobby than will leave it due to my posts. BTW, this is a very educational discussion. Some excellent ideas about grading have been brought up AGAIN.
@privaterarecoincollector said: "...btw, Im always complaining about the PCGS grades here, NGC is even worse. I have seen XF40 coins in MS 62 and MS 63 holders there.
Them's fighting words! Please do not throw around nonsense like this Without posting evidence. I'll guarantee that my personal grading standards (I grade with a stereo microscope) are tougher than 99.99% of the collectors/dealers in the world and I've NEVER seen an example of an XF-40 in an MS major TPGS slab.
PGGS, PGCS, PPCS, NCG,NGS, and others are not PCGS or NGC! Without proof, I'm going to think that the example you made up (until I see the proof) may not be a problem with the grading service's opinion.
@tradedollarnut said: "When grading a coin, take everything into account. Absorb the entire coin and the grade is obvious."
While that may work for folks of your ability and that of professional graders and major dealers, many things tend to be either missed entirely or seen and ignored on purpose. That makes grading very subjective. It is all of the knowledgeable "big boys" making choices of what to "see" against all of the knowledgeable little guys who will never be able to understand the way "commercial" grading often ignores the obvious!
@privaterarecoincollector said: "I wouldnt mind to grade slightly circulated coins MS in case the wear is minimal, but they should not jump from 58 to 64 (to take a different example, my former half disme). If we grade slightly circulated coins MS, then PCGS should not only look for scratches and bag marks, but also discount the MS grade by the fact that there is minimal wear."
This makes a great deal of sense; however, it does not work in practice because the difference between an AU and MS coin depends on a lot of factors that we all know or should know. Remember the court case where several long-time, nationally-known, very successful and knowledgeable professionals who were hired as Expert Witnesses' graded the same $20 Saint from AU-58 to MS-65. BTW EACH OF THEM WAS CORRECT.
@cameonut2011 posted this: "If there is no principled way to distinguish the end result, what difference does it make?" as a reply to TDN who wrote: "As much as you protest, plenty of high point rub occurs from 200 years in a coin cabinet and not from circulation."
AFAIK, with the "right" equipment and lighting + decades of experience examining all types of coins, I've been told that many "seemingly impossible" things become quite easy to determine. Nevertheless, if the old, strict definition of Mint State were followed, it would not make a difference what caused the friction and loss of luster on the high points of a coin - it would always be called AU. That way the coins that still exist after hundreds of years with a full original surface would really be special.
As I posted before, grading is the way it is. We need to forget about "should be" and "could be" while we have neat discussions like this as what any of us think or post here makes absolutely no difference to anyone!
@specialist said:
This is a very damning thread to our hosts. There is much mis-information here.
Apparently private collector refused to acknowledge his $2.5 1808 is over graded. He has similar coins as well. This thread seems to be more of a vendetta from a person who had a very intelligent dealer vet most of his purchases.
clearly way back when, many coins were under graded as the grading services had not seen many examples. Why is no one discussing that? this happened on all grade levels for all kinds of coins from cheapies to million dollar coins.
The 2.5 USD 1808 MS 65 is the finest known by at least 2 full grades and I dont think its overgraded at all in todays and the last 20 years grading standards.
I chose all my coins myself, some of them against the advice of my dealers based on my personal taste.
Happy to discuss that too. I have seen many undergraded coins that were 63 and ended up in 65 holders for a good reason. One of them was a 1796 quarter dollar PCGS 63 that graded immediately 65. It was amazing to see as it sold at auction for 57.000 and two weeks later i bought it for 125.000 USD back then.
I also think the 1808 quarter eagle PCGS 63 was undergraded when it sold as PCGS 61 at heritage around 2001. It immediately upgraded from 61 to 63.
@privaterarecoincollector said: "...btw, Im always complaining about the PCGS grades here, NGC is even worse.
I have seen XF40 coins in MS 62 and MS 63 holders there.
Them's fighting words! Please do not throw around nonsense like this Without posting evidence. I'll guarantee that my personal grading standards (I grade with a stereo microscope) are tougher than 99.99% of the collectors/dealers in the world and I've NEVER seen an example of an XF-40 in an MS major TPGS slab.
PGGS, PGCS, PPCS, NCG,NGS, and others are not PCGS or NGC! Without proof, I'm going to think that the example you made up (until I see the proof) may not be a problem with the grading service's opinion.
--> it was a 1793 half Cent NGC 62 that was XF, it was a long time ago and Im sure it was a bit of an exception.
Way back folks said the dealers were ripping people off by selling sliders for mintstate. According to how some lobby now they weren't ripping us off at all. What about the Walkers that are true 58's, should they be bumped up too?
It took some of us a lot of looking at a bunch of sliders and mintstate coins to learn the difference. Are the walkers slight friction on the high points cabinet friction. Never heard of it on a walker. When the field luster is broken and there is wear, to me it should be around 55 not 58. Just my worthless opinion.
Signed, dyed in the wool collector.
Please... Save The Stories, Just Answer My Questions, And Tell Me How Much!!!!!
@DIMEMAN said:
David Lawrence once told me that a 60 coin does not wear and become a 58. A 58 is a 65 with a very slight rub.
I think that this is what's going on in the discussion of the coins in this thread.
The same coin could be a 58 or 65 depending on how the graders saw it that day.
David Lawrence is half right. A 58 could be a 65 with a rub (under the old rules), but a 58 could also be a 60 with a rub. 58 is the highest circulated grade, that doesn't guarantee that it is otherwise GEM except for an UNC. IMHO
@stman said:
Way back folks said the dealers were ripping people off by selling sliders for mintstate. According to how some lobby now they weren't ripping us off at all. What about the Walkers that are true 58's, should they be bumped up too?
It took some of us a lot of looking at a bunch of sliders and mintstate coins to learn the difference. Are the walkers slight friction on the high points cabinet friction. Never heard of it on a walker. When the field luster is broken and there is wear, to me it should be around 55 not 58. Just my worthless opinion.
Signed, dyed in the wool collector.
A lot of us "old-timers" feel similarly. It's the way we were raised. For the real old timers, there wasn't even an AU grade. It went from UNC to XF with nothing in between.
You could argue the dealers selling you sliders were just ahead of their time. But as soon as the dealer is outside CURRENT market parameters, he's ripping you off. That said, sliders must be getting uglier and uglier...
@jmlanzaf said: "David Lawrence is half right. A 58 could be a 65 with a rub (under the old rules), but a 58 could also be a 60 with a rub. 58 is the highest circulated grade, that doesn't guarantee that it is otherwise GEM except for an UNC. IMHO"
Since you have decades of experience as both a dealer and collector I'm a little perplexed and curious. Are you self taught? Do you know how an MS-60 or AU-58 is described in the grading guides?
The 2.5 USD 1808 MS 65 is the finest known by at least 2 full grades and I dont think its overgraded at all in todays and the last 20 years grading standards.
I also think the 1808 quarter eagle PCGS 63 was undergraded when it sold as PCGS 61 at heritage around 2001. It immediately upgraded from 61 to 63.
Totally the finest known by a point and a half but . . .
By the standards of:
Dave Akers, all-time US Gold authority.
Jimmy Hayes, whose pedigree it bears.
John Dannreuther, guys named Ryan, Jimmy, Matt, Andy, Kevin, (maybe even your not-so-average Wisconsin beach-bum) PCGS - corrected, the coin is sarcophagized as PCGS MS65
CAC
It's a gem, and the only one close. Just not MS65. Too many hairlines.
You and Mark Salzberg disagree.
You are pissing on the heads of giants and don't even realize you are standing on their shoulders.
It's an amazing coin... now get over yourself.
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
So what do we call true choice/gem uncirculated coin(s) (i.e. the ones that were graded as such all along*)? As the grades become higher and loftier, there are fewer intervals to meaningfully distinguish between all but the most serious differences in quality. What is the end result? Either the differences between grades become meaningless (i.e. the grades represent relative position or rank in a population that is subject to change rather than a representation of true quality - the purpose of grading) or the true choice/gem coins are grouped with worn "MS" coins and the subsequent value decreases for coins that are "all there." Isn't this supposedly one of the "evils" of grade inflation? If the AU from 1988 is now MS65, what do we call the SP67 specimen?
*General statement applicable to any coin or series
The 2.5 USD 1808 MS 65 is the finest known by at least 2 full grades and I dont think its overgraded at all in todays and the last 20 years grading standards.
I also think the 1808 quarter eagle PCGS 63 was undergraded when it sold as PCGS 61 at heritage around 2001. It immediately upgraded from 61 to 63.
Totally the finest known by a point and a half but . . .
By the standards of:
Dave Akers, all-time US Gold authority.
Jimmy Hayes, whose pedigree it bears.
John Dannreuther, guys named Ryan, Jimmy, Matt, Andy, Kevin, (maybe even your not-so-average Wisconsin beach-bum)
PCGS
CAC
It's a gem, and the only one close. Just not MS65. Too many hairlines.
You and Mark Salzberg disagree.
You are pissing on the heads of giants and don't even realize you are standing on their shoulders.
It's an amazing coin... now get over yourself.
Where can I see a photo of this "dog?" I promise not to post any comments!
Comments
Grading has always been and will always be subjective. Numerical grading will never be the answer; just a shorthand for categories of grade.
I firmly believe in numismatics as the world's greatest hobby, but recognize that this is a luxury and without collectors, we can all spend/melt our collections/inventories.
eBaystore
@Baley said: "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."
LOL. Yeah, we can name your proposed new grading system the "Beatle Baley Early Type Coin System" where anything goes.
@Baley continued: "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."
LOL, Yeah, just ludicrous. Those stupid, know-nothing, ignorant idiots who devised the grading system caused all this mess! So let's not even think of casting blame on all the "Johnny-come-lately" professional coin dealers who insisted that circulated coins be graded and sold as Unc.
@tradedollarnut said: "That's funny - do you know the premise behind the Sheldon scale?"
Actually, your question is funny. Yes, long ago, that scale was a way to indicate value. However, more recently (until it became bastardized and meaningless because the descriptions of its grades were no longer followed) it became used as a way to indicate a coin's actual condition of preservation with absolutely no connection to its value.
@tradedollarnut said: "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?"
There you go again. You are clouding the issue with something covered in every Basic Grading Seminar for YN's. The past history of a coin has absolutely nothing to do with its actual condition of preservation. Most here can tell stories of opening an original bank wrapped roll of vintage coins and finding sliders (AU) and at the same time digging into a junk box to pull out a perfectly Uncirculated "gem."
@Soldi said: "Market grading is a problem that usurps technical grading."
I am not aware that anyone uses "technical" grading outside of a classroom. Commercial grading "crushed" technical grading decades ago.
@DollarAfterDollar said: "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."
Actually, the coins the average schmuck gets to see are graded more strictly and much closer to their actual condition than those XF/AU rare coins bought and sold as Uncirculated. That's why it is hard to teach the average schmuck that a coin is a commercial Unc when he can see friction wear all over the high points. Oh, I mean "cabinet friction."
@tradedollarnut said: "High point rub is not obvious signs of circulation. Wear in the fields is..."
Oh, my...
Oh, my...
As much as you protest, plenty of high point rub occurs from 200 years in a coin cabinet and not from circulation
AGREE! And that's why coins that have lost their original surface luster on their high points due to abrasion are now considered to be Uncirculated. The rules were changed decades ago by major coin dealers who came up with the term "cabinet friction" to cover almost anything.
As a YN, one deceased dealer told me he looks at a coin's fields. If there are no marks or abrasions present he'll call an AU coin Unc and ignore the "trace of wear" on the high points. Another well-known dealer who is now over a hundred told me that I should stop trying to "Buck the System." Things are what they are. LOL.
Thanks, you can use and quote it however you want.
Because the definition of an UNC Mint State coin is no wear, right ? A coin with wear was in circulation while a coin with huge bag marks could have been never in circulation and just stored with hundreds of other coins in a bag.
It's not, "anything goes " it's simply rational. Drop the words, and just use a number from 1 to 70 inclusive.
A coin with a full strike, full luster, no wear, but an ugly scratch right across the cheek can then "grade" something like 35, for example, and a beautiful coin, very similar, but instead of the scratch, has miniscule highpoint rub and gorgeous toning, and it's, say, a 66
It's the words uncirculated and mint state that cause the confusion, imo. Lose the adjectives and it's all much simpler
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
of course I adress this and you are wrong.
Im even saying my quarter eagle no stars PCGS MS 65 should be 63, while the 62+ should be AU 58.
I owned the 1808 quarter eagle PCGS 63, it came from an auction in 2001 as PCGS 61. If my coin is a 65, then this coin is a 63. If my coin is a 64, then this coin is a 61. Its all relative and mostly the relations make sense, but sometimes they dont.
I love that.
and then what ? The lightly circulated ex AU 58 Chain Cent is a 65 and the THE COIN SP 67 is a 67 ? And there are 2 grades in between ?
There are 10 grades in between !!
I hear what you are saying, but it doesnt solve the problem really as the relations are totally off.
Yes and I am fine with that. And we are not talking about cabinet rub when talking about the chain cents. They have real circulated wear.
high point rub we can see on some bust dollars and flowing hair dollars like the 1795 PCGS 64+ that you own and of course thats not a problem at all.
btw, Im always complaining about the PCGS grades here, NGC is even worse.
I have seen XF40 coins in MS 62 and MS 63 holders there.
Soooo??? You are clinging to antiquated concepts that wear matters more than bagmarks
@privaterarecoincollector said: "Because the definition of an UNC Mint State coin is no wear, right ?"
Well, that is certainly the definition we were all (or should have been) taught but it is not followed, especially for gold and rare coins.
@Baley said: "It's not, "anything goes " it's simply rational. Drop the words, and just use a number from 1 to 70 inclusive. A coin with a full strike, full luster, no wear, but an ugly scratch right across the cheek can then "grade" something like 35, for example, and a beautiful coin, very similar, but instead of the scratch, has miniscule highpoint rub and gorgeous toning, and it's, say, a 66."
LOL, Please stop! IMO, it should be a lot easier to understand Unc w/scratch (old technical grading) than VF-35 for a Mint State coin.
@Baley continued: "It's the words uncirculated and mint state that cause the confusion,"
Now, that is exactly the case. I've been trying very hard to stop using the term Uncirculated but old habits die hard.
Mint State is a much better word. Then we can say Mint State with just a little "cabinet friction." LOL.
PRC:
Although PRC fairly criticizes some pieces in the top post, he is mistaken about the Cardinal S-2. This is not a good example to illustrate his point.
I know the Cardinal S-2 well. It was PCGS graded MS-65 before 2005. Actually, it set an auction record for a large cent when it brought $431,250 in the ANR pre-FUN event in January 2005. I covered that auction for Numismatic News newspaper and then wrote about this specific coin. I covered it again in 2013, in detail.
MrEureka:
I have discussed this coin with Andy on more than one occasion. I, too, believe that it was certified as "AU-58" during the late 1980s not "AU-55" in "1998"! There is a big difference between 1988 and 1998. It was a common practice from 1986 to 1990 for grading-wholesalers to submit the same coins again many times, sometimes even 30 times for a single coin, in hopes of higher grades. PCGS and NGC were then very young, and became more consistent later.
The "AU-58" certification then was not the accurate grade at the time in the opinions of relevant experts. I think that every expert who saw it in a 58 holder probably figured that PCGS had undergraded this coin by PCGS's own standards. The AU58 certification was a mistake, not a fair grade at the time. An all-star baseball player will sometimes hit into a double-play and the best of soccer goalies will sometimes miss an easy-save while giving up a game-winning goal.
Also, my guess is that some flecks were removed with trike, acetone or perhaps just water! Additionally, the coin was oiled as are most, high grade, pre-1815 large cents. When I grade a coin from a past era, I take various positive and negative factors into consideration. All early copper coins have some negative characteristics, even those that fairly grade 66 or 67.
Although Cardinal's illustration in a post above of the consequence of a weak strike is brilliant, it is also important to keep in mind that the S-4 'With Periods' Chain Cents were struck with an obverse die that had more detail engraved into it than the detail that was engraved into the obverse die used to strike S-2 Chain Cents. On the obverse, a fully struck S-2, if one ever existed, would have much less detail than a fully struck S-4!
There is no wear on the Cardinal S-2; a combination of poor engraving of the die, weak strike and oil cause some observers to erroneously think that this coin has wear. I have seen many strictly uncirculated, pre-1830 coins that have some mushiness in the design.
There are various imperfections in old minting processes. Many strictly uncirculated British coins from the 1500s to the 1700s are characterized by portraits of monarchs with mushy heads, just blobs as faces. Obviously, some monarchs understood that imperfections in minting processes that lead to mushiness in new coins, otherwise such products would not have been tolerated.
The Cardinal S-2 has minimal contact marks and was struck on a choice planchet. The relative lack of corrosion is a big deal, too. The Eliasberg S-4 has far more corrosion. The Cardinal S-2 is #5 in my condition census of Chain Cents of all varieties, and the Eliasberg S-4 is #6.
Pogue Family Coin Collection, Part 12 – The Amazing Garrett 1793 Chain Cent
Insightful10@gmail.com
When grading a coin, take everything into account. Absorb the entire coin and the grade is obvious
The only way this grading mess will ever be solved is to grade the coin ONLY by its condition of preservation. Mint State coins should have no trace of wear. In that way. a coin's grade will not change upward every few years and rich collectors will be bidding against each other in an auction to pay four million dollars for an AU coin that even my blind grandmother can tell is actually circulated! There would be very little wiggle room and crack-out-upgrades would be severely curtailed. Why, even CAC would not be needed anymore.
With proper instruction and a good pair of eyes, coin gradig is the easiest thing in the world using decades old grading guides.- until we introduce value. Then is becomes extremely difficult for many of us.
I don't think pcgs minds all the regrade$...
No, Im saying an uncirculated coin should have no wear while an uncirculated coin can and should have bagmarks.
I wouldnt mind to grade slightly circulated coins MS in case the wear is minimal, but they should not jump from 58 to 64 (to take a different example, my former half disme). If we grade slightly circulated coins MS, then PCGS should not only look for scratches and bag marks, but also discount the MS grade by the fact that there is minimal wear.
to close the case from my end:
While I still think the PCGS MS 65 Chain Cent has some minor wear, I agree to grade the coin UNC, my grade would be PCGS 63.
I also agree to grade the PCGS 62+ 1796 quarter eagle NS MS 62, as one side is AU 58 with almost full lustre and the other side is Gem MS 65 or better. Its a beautiful coin btw !
I understand sometimes its just hard to grade coins the right way and what bothers me is when the relations are off because certain coins are overgraded and you cant call the others MS 70 because of that.
Thanks for the information, I corrected the title of this post.
If there is no principled way to distinguish the end result, what difference does it make?
For all the criticism of grade inflation that I hear, it seems that a good number of collectors and dealers have acquiesced in it.
What's the other choice?
Maybe to at least not promote it.
This is an important topic with many interesting posts.
Personally, I've never liked market grading. TPGS should not be pricing coins, which is a major part of market grading.
This sounds like good advice: "The grading instructor advised us not to fight the system - just use it." Unfortunately that means that longtime collectors should consider having their older slabs re-graded before they sell.
I concur roadrunner “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.”
I’ve seen seated dollars graded MS-64 with obvious high point rub, caused by cabinet friction. Why did the grading companies decide to ignore cabinet friction? Is it because the coins did not circulate in the traditional manner? Wear is wear, IMHO.
Bravo! This is a problem “The definition of an UNC Mint State coin is no trace of wear.” Recently I sent DH an email suggesting that he update their current definition of MS because it does not accurately describe their current grading standards for MS coins. Unfortunately I did not receive a response.
TDN asks “So? You are clinging to antiquated concepts that wear matters more than bagmarks. Perhaps antiquated, but both are important. If you consider the history of coin grading it’s fairly recently that the concept of market grading, specifically grading coins with high point rub MS, has been practiced by the grading companies. I agree with privaterarecoincollector “I’m saying an uncirculated coin should have no wear while an uncirculated coin can and should have bagmarks.”
I agree with Insider2 with a few slight modifications. With proper instruction, a good pair of eyes, and some practice, coin grading is straight forward using decades old grading guides. That is until we introduce value, then is becomes extremely difficult for many of us.
Words of wisdom from Julian “Grading has always been and will always be subjective. Numerical grading will never be the answer; just a shorthand for categories of grade.” And RogerB “Absent stable public standards and consistent application of those standards, the entire exercise borders on meaningless.”
Perhaps this is a reasonable solution that most numismatists would embrace. “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.”
This is an excellent discussion, and illustrates the weakness of a system that has no standards. I do see and understand the various opinions and arguments - they have merit. This may be the most informative and substantive thread on grading that I have seen on this forum. There is, of course, only one conclusion to be drawn.... Grading must have measurable standards. Until this is defined, documented and implemented, the inconsistencies and grade creep will continue. Therein lies the future of coin grading - without which, chaos will continue. Cheers, RickO
A rather Priggish display of ignorance and don't backtrack. You appear to know everyone's thought processes as they opine. This posting of yours is just another reason why people are moving out of "rare coins". I mean really who needs this?
Yawn
I don't mind grading standards evolving over time. I do hate coins with an obvious rub suddenly being not only "UNC" but Gem or near Gem UNC. Circulated is circulated, even if pretty.
I also think it's funny/disturbing to look at early copper on Heritage and see their EAC grade next to the slab grade.
Of course, if I'm running a grading service, I like evolving standards because it fuels my bottom line with resubmissions.
That's an interesting suggestion. Could you also be MS55 for a really bad strike or poor luster?
Hasn't this always been the "problem" with slabs? It's just one person's opinion at a snapshot in time.
In an ideal world, CAC shouldn't exist much less be so highly valued. A "65" should be a narrow range, distinct from "64" and "66". In the real world, a "65" overlaps the 64 range and the 66 range (or worse) and so the beans start trying to sort out the distinctions.
This is a very damning thread to our hosts. There is much mis-information here.
Apparently private collector refused to acknowledge his $2.5 1808 is over graded. He has similar coins as well. This thread seems to be more of a vendetta from a person who had a very intelligent dealer vet most of his purchases.
clearly way back when, many coins were under graded as the grading services had not seen many examples. Why is no one discussing that? this happened on all grade levels for all kinds of coins from cheapies to million dollar coins.
Yup. The idea that 60 is this magical cutoff for wear or no wear has come and gone. Seen the Norweb 70-S? I don't think it ever circulated
We just need to get rid of the AU/MS cutoff now.
So do they just take into consideration the great rarities as far as die state, and the big money coins these days. I know I see many early halves and bust halves that when graded and stickered or not, strike die wear etc. sure doesn't seem to be taken into consideration..
I will just continue to adhere to my SIG line. Everyone can call them whatever they want.
My opinions have been questioned and the way I post is offensive to many. For example: "A rather Priggish display of ignorance and don't backtrack."
In my very limited experience, I've been told that you can offer a collector an education; but ..
]
"You appear to know everyone's thought processes as they opine."
LOL, I am not a mind reader, the words that are posted by members have meaning. I scored extremely high in reading comprehension testing.
"This posting of yours is just another reason why people are moving out of "rare coins". I mean really who needs this?"
I'll bet I have brought more folks into this hobby than will leave it due to my posts. BTW, this is a very educational discussion. Some excellent ideas about grading have been brought up AGAIN.
@privaterarecoincollector said: "...btw, Im always complaining about the PCGS grades here, NGC is even worse.
I have seen XF40 coins in MS 62 and MS 63 holders there.
Them's fighting words! Please do not throw around nonsense like this Without posting evidence. I'll guarantee that my personal grading standards (I grade with a stereo microscope) are tougher than 99.99% of the collectors/dealers in the world and I've NEVER seen an example of an XF-40 in an MS major TPGS slab.
PGGS, PGCS, PPCS, NCG,NGS, and others are not PCGS or NGC! Without proof, I'm going to think that the example you made up (until I see the proof) may not be a problem with the grading service's opinion.
@tradedollarnut said: "When grading a coin, take everything into account. Absorb the entire coin and the grade is obvious."
While that may work for folks of your ability and that of professional graders and major dealers, many things tend to be either missed entirely or seen and ignored on purpose. That makes grading very subjective. It is all of the knowledgeable "big boys" making choices of what to "see" against all of the knowledgeable little guys who will never be able to understand the way "commercial" grading often ignores the obvious!
@privaterarecoincollector said: "I wouldnt mind to grade slightly circulated coins MS in case the wear is minimal, but they should not jump from 58 to 64 (to take a different example, my former half disme). If we grade slightly circulated coins MS, then PCGS should not only look for scratches and bag marks, but also discount the MS grade by the fact that there is minimal wear."
This makes a great deal of sense; however, it does not work in practice because the difference between an AU and MS coin depends on a lot of factors that we all know or should know. Remember the court case where several long-time, nationally-known, very successful and knowledgeable professionals who were hired as Expert Witnesses' graded the same $20 Saint from AU-58 to MS-65. BTW EACH OF THEM WAS CORRECT.
@cameonut2011 posted this: "If there is no principled way to distinguish the end result, what difference does it make?" as a reply to TDN who wrote: "As much as you protest, plenty of high point rub occurs from 200 years in a coin cabinet and not from circulation."
AFAIK, with the "right" equipment and lighting + decades of experience examining all types of coins, I've been told that many "seemingly impossible" things become quite easy to determine. Nevertheless, if the old, strict definition of Mint State were followed, it would not make a difference what caused the friction and loss of luster on the high points of a coin - it would always be called AU. That way the coins that still exist after hundreds of years with a full original surface would really be special.
As I posted before, grading is the way it is. We need to forget about "should be" and "could be" while we have neat discussions like this as what any of us think or post here makes absolutely no difference to anyone!
The 2.5 USD 1808 MS 65 is the finest known by at least 2 full grades and I dont think its overgraded at all in todays and the last 20 years grading standards.
I chose all my coins myself, some of them against the advice of my dealers based on my personal taste.
Happy to discuss that too. I have seen many undergraded coins that were 63 and ended up in 65 holders for a good reason. One of them was a 1796 quarter dollar PCGS 63 that graded immediately 65. It was amazing to see as it sold at auction for 57.000 and two weeks later i bought it for 125.000 USD back then.
I also think the 1808 quarter eagle PCGS 63 was undergraded when it sold as PCGS 61 at heritage around 2001. It immediately upgraded from 61 to 63.
@privaterarecoincollector said: "...btw, Im always complaining about the PCGS grades here, NGC is even worse.
I have seen XF40 coins in MS 62 and MS 63 holders there.
Them's fighting words! Please do not throw around nonsense like this Without posting evidence. I'll guarantee that my personal grading standards (I grade with a stereo microscope) are tougher than 99.99% of the collectors/dealers in the world and I've NEVER seen an example of an XF-40 in an MS major TPGS slab.
PGGS, PGCS, PPCS, NCG,NGS, and others are not PCGS or NGC! Without proof, I'm going to think that the example you made up (until I see the proof) may not be a problem with the grading service's opinion.
--> it was a 1793 half Cent NGC 62 that was XF, it was a long time ago and Im sure it was a bit of an exception.
David Lawrence once told me that a 60 coin does not wear and become a 58. A 58 is a 65 with a very slight rub.
I think that this is what's going on in the discussion of the coins in this thread.
The same coin could be a 58 or 65 depending on how the graders saw it that day.
@privaterarecoincollector said: "it was a 1793 half Cent NGC 62 that was XF, it was a long time ago and Im sure it was a bit of an exception."
Still need to see it! Additionally, ask any EAC member about TPGS grades! LOL.
Way back folks said the dealers were ripping people off by selling sliders for mintstate. According to how some lobby now they weren't ripping us off at all. What about the Walkers that are true 58's, should they be bumped up too?
It took some of us a lot of looking at a bunch of sliders and mintstate coins to learn the difference. Are the walkers slight friction on the high points cabinet friction. Never heard of it on a walker. When the field luster is broken and there is wear, to me it should be around 55 not 58. Just my worthless opinion.
Signed, dyed in the wool collector.
David Lawrence is half right. A 58 could be a 65 with a rub (under the old rules), but a 58 could also be a 60 with a rub. 58 is the highest circulated grade, that doesn't guarantee that it is otherwise GEM except for an UNC. IMHO
A lot of us "old-timers" feel similarly. It's the way we were raised. For the real old timers, there wasn't even an AU grade. It went from UNC to XF with nothing in between.
You could argue the dealers selling you sliders were just ahead of their time. But as soon as the dealer is outside CURRENT market parameters, he's ripping you off. That said, sliders must be getting uglier and uglier...
@jmlanzaf said: "David Lawrence is half right. A 58 could be a 65 with a rub (under the old rules), but a 58 could also be a 60 with a rub. 58 is the highest circulated grade, that doesn't guarantee that it is otherwise GEM except for an UNC. IMHO"
Since you have decades of experience as both a dealer and collector I'm a little perplexed and curious. Are you self taught? Do you know how an MS-60 or AU-58 is described in the grading guides?
"Talking about music is like dancing about architecture" - John Coltrane
Totally the finest known by a point and a half but . . .
By the standards of:
Dave Akers, all-time US Gold authority.
Jimmy Hayes, whose pedigree it bears.
John Dannreuther, guys named Ryan, Jimmy, Matt, Andy, Kevin, (maybe even your not-so-average Wisconsin beach-bum)
PCGS - corrected, the coin is sarcophagized as PCGS MS65
CAC
It's a gem, and the only one close. Just not MS65. Too many hairlines.
You and Mark Salzberg disagree.
You are pissing on the heads of giants and don't even realize you are standing on their shoulders.
It's an amazing coin... now get over yourself.
1988 - AU58
1992 - MS63
2002 - MS65
...
2017 - Probably MS66 or MS67
2020 - MS68?
So what do we call true choice/gem uncirculated coin(s) (i.e. the ones that were graded as such all along*)? As the grades become higher and loftier, there are fewer intervals to meaningfully distinguish between all but the most serious differences in quality. What is the end result? Either the differences between grades become meaningless (i.e. the grades represent relative position or rank in a population that is subject to change rather than a representation of true quality - the purpose of grading) or the true choice/gem coins are grouped with worn "MS" coins and the subsequent value decreases for coins that are "all there." Isn't this supposedly one of the "evils" of grade inflation? If the AU from 1988 is now MS65, what do we call the SP67 specimen?
*General statement applicable to any coin or series
Where can I see a photo of this "dog?" I promise not to post any comments!
Found it. I think the large scrape on the jaw takes it out of MS-65.