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.
of course its not a MS65 and the MS63 is not a MS63 and the 61s are all AU.
And the MS 65 Chain Cent is not a 65 either.
But if you start calling 61s 63, then you need to call a 64 a 65 or 66, even if they are not.
And thats exactly the issue Im writing about here.
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
Thats exactly the problem. The SP67 is just 10 points better than the MS65, so it will have to be a SP 75.
@Insider2 said: @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?
Yes, I now how a 60 and a 58 is described in the grading guidelines. Here it is if you'd like a refresher:
While a coin that is otherwise a "60" because of major distracting marks would fall to a 55 or lower with a rub, a coin that is "60" due to a preponderance of minor marks would, in my ever humble opinion (you should try it!), could drop to a 58 with minor wear. It need not be otherwise gem with a rub which is what the OP indicated, quoting David Lawrence.
While the majority of AU58 coins probably are 62 or higher with a rub, that is not a requirement for the grade.
From Heritage grading guidelines: "The coin has wear ranging from extremely light to only a trace of friction on the highest points, along with medium to nearly full luster. AU-58 coins have so little wear that they are often mistaken for Uncirculated coins, hence the nickname "Slider", and in some cases are more attractive than low-end uncirculated coins. It has been said that an AU-58 coin is an MS-63 coin with a trace of wear."
IMHO, it's too bad this was also posted: "While a coin that is otherwise a "60" because of major distracting marks would fall to a 55 or lower with a rub, a coin that is "60" due to a preponderance of minor marks would, in my ever humble opinion (you should try it!), could drop to a 58 with minor wear."
LOL. MS-60's DO NOT HAVE "MINOR MARKS." As for MS-58, to quote the ANA: "No major detracting contact marks will be present."
PS I rarely have a humble opinion about anything. I just like to use these big letters (IMHO) to keep from offending the uninformed.
IMHO, it's too bad this was also posted: "While a coin that is otherwise a "60" because of major distracting marks would fall to a 55 or lower with a rub, a coin that is "60" due to a preponderance of minor marks would, in my ever humble opinion (you should try it!), could drop to a 58 with minor wear."
LOL. MS-60's DO NOT HAVE "MINOR MARKS." As for MS-58, to quote the ANA: "No major detracting contact marks will be present."
PS I rarely have a humble opinion about anything. I just like to use these big letters (IMHO) to keep from offending the uninformed.
Here's some TPG AU58. In your less than humble opinion, how would these grade without the rub?
In the 80's, I owned both the Eliasberg and Norman Stack 1795 $10's. By memory both 64.2 or 64.3. Like those are actual quantifiable grades. They are now both in maxed-out 65 holders
Your Garrett '95 $10 is a 65+. MS68 fabric with a mark behind the head and a naked-eye scratch in front of the face. I can't call it a 66, but It would be a sin for it to be holdered a fractional point more than the two aforementioned. I adore it. The scratch is there.
The Childs-Pogue 1804 is a 66.8, not a technical 68. But surely a step above the KOS piece.
There are TPG/CAC EAC coins MS66BN that go no higher than EAC 63.
It's a market grade. It's semi-political in that when a maxi-classic goes through the grading room the condition census is often known and followed. It's been overdone. But what I hear you saying is that you want even more gradeflation. It's not a science. Grading is an art. Your idea has no connection to market realities. That ship has sailed
There is no clear answer to your conundrum. You are buying the coin, not the label. Credit others who are buying world-class quality with doing, as you have, their own due diligence, The market, which is to say maybe 5 or 6 buyers within 25%, will sort it out for themselves.
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
There is no clear answer to your conundrum. You are buying the coin, not the label. Credit others who are buying world-class quality with doing, as you have, their own due diligence,
I agree with you 100%. It is the COIN that should matter and not an arbitrary number on a label, plastic, or foil sticker. I just find it ironic that some publicly claim to detest grade inflation and reject non-CAC coins that are supposedly not technically "all there" and yet openly promote the grading of coins with wear and rub as "uncirculated" or "mint state."
The specific coins discussed in this thread are irrelevant to me. Sure, I'd appreciate being able to see them in hand, but I will never own any of them.
The problem of this thread is that the same discussion applies to many of the coins which most of us can afford. Moving grading standards when your coin is graded at a specific moment in time means that before you sell a coin which you think is valuable, you need to get it regraded. This applies moreso the longer the time between when a coin was graded and when the current owner wishes to sell it.
Someone who shall remain anonymous whose name everyone should recognize, recently told me that many of the coins I own should be sent for regrading before they are sold because they would upgrade. That means an additional trip to CAC as well.
In a nutshell, this dampens my enthusiasm for the hobby. Unfortunately,, I can't offer any constructive solutions which are financially feasible for the hobby.
"Vou invadir o Nordeste, "Seu cabra da peste, "Sou Mangueira......."
@Elcontador said: "Someone who shall remain anonymous whose name everyone should recognize, recently told me that many of the coins I own should be sent for regrading before they are sold because they would upgrade. That means an additional trip to CAC as well.
In a nutshell, this dampens my enthusiasm for the hobby. Unfortunately,, I can't offer any constructive solutions which are financially feasible for the hobby."
You should be happy! More $$$ for the TPGS, more $$$ for CAC, and best of all - more $$$ for you. What difference does it make. Every coin I bought (still in original slabs) in the 1980's -1990"s has gone up in grade. The Cameo Proof Franklins are all up 2-3 grades according to TPGS graders.
I'll jump into the fray! An MS60 coin graded as such due to contact marks will never garner a 58 IMHO! If the luster is outstanding it would be a 53. If the luster is not it would be a 50.
"I chose all my coins myself, some of them against the advice of my dealers based on my personal taste."
Hmm, who knows more, the top guys you hired or you? you've built incredible sets. however, its okay to admit not every coin is the best. a finest known coin does not mean it is properly graded. in fact a coin like the 1808 is most likely to get a push for that reason. there is no question it is the finest known-just is it really a 64 or 65?
@amwldcoin said:
I'll jump into the fray! An MS60 coin graded as such due to contact marks will never garner a 58 IMHO! If the luster is outstanding it would be a 53. If the luster is not it would be a 50.
@amwldcoin said:
I'll jump into the fray! An MS60 coin graded as such due to contact marks will never garner a 58 IMHO! If the luster is outstanding it would be a 53. If the luster is not it would be a 50.
PLEASE explain the image you posted. The poster you quoted understands that an MS-60 coin (lots of detracting marks) cannot grade AU-58 (Choice surfaces). IMO, the coin you posted has obvious wear (AU) and is not all beat up. Therefore either AU-55-58 or MS-62-63?
The main problem with the AU grade was started by the ANA GRADING GUIDE. The "experts" who wrote the book combined wear AND the number of marks on a coin. An AU-58 was to be a coin with just a little wear and very clean surfaces (looks like a gem w/wear). An AU-50 (typical) was to be a coin with a little more wear and many marks - not choice.
NOTE: The technical grading system only considered the amount of detail lost from MS. So a coin with a trace of wear became an AU-58 no matter how chopped up it was (within limits as too many marks made it AU-58, Excessive Marks). Add some more circulation and it was an AU-55 and so on. So for a normally circulated coin, only the amount of wear was considered from AU-58 down to P-1.
Today, professional graders are often in a bind. Let's forget about AU's graded as Uncirculated and stick with strict grading. Now, a commercial grader needs to weigh the number of marks in addition to the amount of detail present. There are examples of coins graded AU-50's due to marks that have very little wear and examples of AU-58 coins with mark free surfaces yet more wear.
Your coin is a case in point. It can have several grades and each can be defended as accurate. Technically, it ONLY HAS ONE - AU-58. Not to worry, technical grading proved not to be acceptable in the coin market.
Luster doesn't seem to weigh very much with a lot of people anymore. Just an observation. Bust halves luster should weigh heavily. Other series as well, I only used that as an example.
A coin can have hardly any wear, but if it is a dead fish, I do not care what the market says. It's a pass where I come from.
Please... Save The Stories, Just Answer My Questions, And Tell Me How Much!!!!!
@ChrisH821 said: "None of this will matter when we switch to a 100 point grading scale."
100 point, 70 + decimals, whatever. Unless, the TPGS spell out the standards, and make some changes to the way value, marks, and strike are factored, all of this will still matter and nothing will actually change.
@stman said:
Luster doesn't seem to weigh very much with a lot of people anymore. Just an observation. Bust halves luster should weigh heavily. Other series as well, I only used that as an example.
A coin can have hardly any wear, but if it is a dead fish, I do not care what the market says. It's a pass where I come from.
Luster (and mint frost on the devices) is paramount
@tradedollarnut said: "...And yet here is an MS60 coin (test marks and scratches) with a trace of high point rub in an AU58 holder."
If that coin were not so famous, it would probably be in an MS-62 holder at the minimum. The way things are going, when the "right" collector buys it from you and sends it in it probably will be graded Mint State.
Unfortunately for you and the next owner, the coin is an AU. It has obvious rub, even in the image. No if's, ands, or but's. It will always be an AU no matter what the next label says down the road. I applaud PCGS for assigning that grade as they must have been under some pressure to grade it higher. I've only had well-circulated examples in hand. Yours must be the finest known?
first who says the regraded coins will CAC? that what is what happened here with private collectors $2.51808-had been a 64.
the coins will sell at the proper levels if regraded. if they are over graded they will not sell full price. if they are under graded, then they do sell for more. that is what really matters. yes grade inflation might have mad things out of whack, the market values keep things in line
your pals are wrong, pcgs does not liberally just up grade coins
first who says the regraded coins will CAC? that what is what happened here with private collectors $2.51808-had been a 64.
the coins will sell at the proper levels if regraded. if they are over graded they will not sell full price. if they are under graded, then they do sell for more. that is what really matters. yes grade inflation might have mad things out of whack, the market values keep things in line
your pals are wrong, pcgs does not liberally just up grade coins
These coins are notorious in the first place, as held in high esteem, CAC will know these pieces and there is little doubt in my mind that they will sticker at inflated grades.
@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.
Do you recall when the Starr 1793 S-2 was graded MS-65? Is this the coin the original poster is referring to?
It was in the Dan Holmes auction in 2009 as PCGS-63. Then the 2014 ANA as PCGS-64 CAC. PCGS CoinFacts shows it in the census as still MS-64.
**NOTE: After typing up this post, just noticed in CoinFacts your name under the unpictured MS-65 in the census. That was the 1988 Halpern coin rather than Starr, so guessing that was the one you meant which would be this one:
first who says the regraded coins will CAC? that what is what happened here with private collectors $2.51808-had been a 64.
the coins will sell at the proper levels if regraded. if they are over graded they will not sell full price. if they are under graded, then they do sell for more. that is what really matters. yes grade inflation might have mad things out of whack, the market values keep things in line
your pals are wrong, pcgs does not liberally just up grade coins
These coins are notorious in the first place, as held in high esteem, CAC will know these pieces and there is little doubt in my mind that they will sticker at inflated grades.
The regraded coins will CAC if they come back in the same grade + holders from PCGS, as CAC does not recognize the +. If the coins go up a full grade - a few might - then who knows.
Secondly, nowhere did I say PCGS liberally upgrades coins. You did. My source is impeccable. No one here, or anywhere else, will disagree with my source. They know better.
"Vou invadir o Nordeste, "Seu cabra da peste, "Sou Mangueira......."
I never said anything about liberally upgrading anything. I am happy for you and your source. I think you should consider my comment an opinion on the integrity of all. Including you.
These coins are notorious in the first place, as held in high esteem, CAC will know these pieces and there is little doubt in my mind that they will sticker at inflated grades.
They are famous now, They will be infamous if upgraded.
I cannot imagine any possible scenario in which it would to be to CAC's advantage to re-sticker at a higher grade.
The rationale behind your "little doubt" is......?
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
first who says the regraded coins will CAC? that what is what happened here with private collectors $2.51808-had been a 64.
the coins will sell at the proper levels if regraded. if they are over graded they will not sell full price. if they are under graded, then they do sell for more. that is what really matters. yes grade inflation might have mad things out of whack, the market values keep things in line
your pals are wrong, pcgs does not liberally just up grade coins
These coins are notorious in the first place, as held in high esteem, CAC will know these pieces and there is little doubt in my mind that they will sticker at inflated grades.
The regraded coins will CAC if they come back in the same grade + holders from PCGS, as CAC does not recognize the +. If the coins go up a full grade - a few might - then who knows.
Secondly, nowhere did I say PCGS liberally upgrades coins. You did. My source is impeccable. No one here, or anywhere else, will disagree with my source. They know better.
You seem like a very knowledgeable collector/dealer so will you please state what you disagreed with in @Elcontador's post? I wish to learn from your extensive experience submitting coins to CAC.
Where did I disagree? I am at a loss as to the problem here. Are we not talking about some very high end rarities that would be held up to a very high standard? As they cost a lot of money. Yes, No? Where did I go wrong with an opinion on this type of coin?
first who says the regraded coins will CAC? that what is what happened here with private collectors $2.51808-had been a 64.
the coins will sell at the proper levels if regraded. if they are over graded they will not sell full price. if they are under graded, then they do sell for more. that is what really matters. yes grade inflation might have mad things out of whack, the market values keep things in line
your pals are wrong, pcgs does not liberally just up grade coins
These coins are notorious in the first place, as held in high esteem, CAC will know these pieces and there is little doubt in my mind that they will sticker at inflated grades.
The regraded coins will CAC if they come back in the same grade + holders from PCGS, as CAC does not recognize the +. If the coins go up a full grade - a few might - then who knows.
Secondly, nowhere did I say PCGS liberally upgrades coins. You did. My source is impeccable. No one here, or anywhere else, will disagree with my source. They know better.
I wrote in ERROR I meant to say "THEY WILL NOT STICKER AT INFLATED GRADES" MY APOLOGIES
Sol, makes mistakes too.
first who says the regraded coins will CAC? that what is what happened here with private collectors $2.51808-had been a 64.
the coins will sell at the proper levels if regraded. if they are over graded they will not sell full price. if they are under graded, then they do sell for more. that is what really matters. yes grade inflation might have mad things out of whack, the market values keep things in line
your pals are wrong, pcgs does not liberally just up grade coins
Some of his pals spend $5K-$10K monthly on grading, so they've calibrated the cost/benefit ratios and the odds.
Not liberally, but often enough.
CAC may not consider the plus in its pricing, but enough others will.
$500 on a Morgan going from 67 to 67+
$1000 -1818-S 5c "B" lustre, strong head/shoulder from 63->64
$750 -1926-D 5c "A" lustre, mushy head/shoulder from 63->-64.
$1000 on a small-size Bust 10c (B+ eye appeal) going from 64 to 64+.
$1500 on the same quality Bust 5oc.
Grading fee: $32 each if valued under $3000
$2000 on a MCMVII going from CAC 62+ to NGC non-CAC 63
grading fee: Walkthrough of $100 if valued over $10K
$15000 on a MCMVII going from 66 to 66+
Grading fee: $125 if valued under $100K.
Not liberally, but often enough
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
@amwldcoin said:
I'll jump into the fray! An MS60 coin graded as such due to contact marks will never garner a 58 IMHO! If the luster is outstanding it would be a 53. If the luster is not it would be a 50.
__ My source is impeccable. No one here, or anywhere else, will disagree with my source. They know better. My source is impeccable. __
Sorry guy the top graders in the world do not deal w/the public. Hate to hit you with reality. yes, I would disagree with your source. most dealers today are plastic babies and only know if a coin looks good, they do not know how to grade. the internet has made many dealers look smarter then they are
@specialist said:
__ My source is impeccable. No one here, or anywhere else, will disagree with my source. They know better. My source is impeccable. __
Sorry guy the top graders in the world do not deal w/the public. Hate to hit you with reality. yes, I would disagree with your source. most dealers today are plastic babies and only know if a coin looks good, they do not know how to grade. the internet has made many dealers look smarter then they are
not every thing from the past upgrades
back at ya colonel
If you disagree with my source(s), you're simply wrong. Period. If you don't want to believe me, it's no skin off my nose. I am not talking about most dealers. My sources are a few levels on the food chain higher than that. They teach dealers how to grade, among other things.
The internet has nothing to do with it, and I'd be happy to sell ocean front property in Kansas to people who look at coins on the internet and think they can grade them properly. All the internet has done is make more coins available to more people. You need to look at coins in your hands if you want to grade them properly with more consistency than by using any other method.
"Vou invadir o Nordeste, "Seu cabra da peste, "Sou Mangueira......."
Nothing more to teach that I didn't cover at ANA Summer Seminar.
Nothing more to respond that wouldn't be trolling myself
The point has been made to the lurkers,
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
Has anyone mentioned the Eliasberg 1804 $ ?
I was at the Eliasberg sale and saw the coin which was circulated with rub on it.
However it was an 1804 $
Spectrum Numismatics ( Greg Roberts) who is now the principal at Stacks/Bowers
Bought it at the time for inclusion in a very spectacular type set
PCGS graded the coin Proof or Sp 65
Even the damaged 1804 $ Trade Dollar Nut owns is light years finer in quality
But now both coins are in 65 holders
So as Colonel Jessup said " Buy the Coin and not the holder "
I say grade the coin in $ and not what the grading company writes on the paper insert
@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.
Andy, was this the same coin TonyT had in a 63 holder at the Philly ANA in 2000? Just trying to keep my facts straight.
@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.
Do you recall when the Starr 1793 S-2 was graded MS-65? Is this the coin the original poster is referring to?
It was in the Dan Holmes auction in 2009 as PCGS-63. Then the 2014 ANA as PCGS-64 CAC. PCGS CoinFacts shows it in the census as still MS-64.
**NOTE: After typing up this post, just noticed in CoinFacts your name under the unpictured MS-65 in the census. That was the 1988 Halpern coin rather than Starr, so guessing that was the one you meant which would be this one:
>
Oops. Good catch! Yes, I was talking about the Beckwith-Halpern S-2, not the Starr coin.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
@specialist said: "...Sorry guy, the top graders in the world do not deal w/the public."
Please take this as a "poke" in the side from a poster without a life as I disagree with this statement.
I hate to be picky - just looking for further clarification as your statement depends completely on your definition of "the public" and "top grader." Are you referring to folks like John Albanese as a "top grader?" You'll get no argument on that from me yet one new poster here (soldi) who is a member of the public, has claimed in a PM to me that he has been a regular visitor to CAC, had coins stickered for free, and is pals with JA. What about Mark Salzberg and Randy Campbell? While the latter may not be a MS or JA, both of these folks deal with the public and give authentication/grading opinions at shows. Same for all the ANA instructors in their classes!
I like to think "top graders" should include more that TPGS owners and employers. Many of the folks here on CU are dealers and collectors who rate that distinction and many of them would probably take a pay cut if they joined the "top graders" at a major TPGS. They deal with the public too.
I'm one of the top collector graders. Which may sneak me into the top 1,000 graders in the country. The real graders just laugh at those of us posting here
I thought so! I consider myself just a student (with a very bad attitude) on the way to becoming a grading "expert *** in my own mind", sometime before I die.
The "real graders" probably don't have the time to post. I'll also agree that all but a few real graders don't give a rat's you-know-what about coin forums or the opinions expressed. Let them laugh. As I posted before, IMO lots of folks here could step into a grading room and get with the "internal program standards" in a few days.
IMO, it's too bad TPGS graders don't post here - they probably should. We could see a different side of the table and learn even more. However, a great effort is made by TPGS to keep the grading as consistent as possible and only allow change at the discretion from the top. What goes on outside the grading room with both correct or misguided and ignorant opinions may have an undesirable effect on a professional grader. I do know that TPGS's constantly take "outside-the-room" heat about their grading from their largest customers. No point adding "inside-the-room" discussion to the subjectivity of the system.
*** Expert: "Ex" = From or out of. "Pert" = A little "drip" under pressure.
@stman said: "But are you sure no graders read, or post here?"
I don't consider anyone who just reads posts as relevant as they are not adding to the discussion. That said, I'm 100% sure some past and present TPGS do actually post here. I can think of at least three. Oh, I just thought of at least one TPGS consultant who also posts here. So, IMHO, I'll bet the number of TPGS graders, authenticators, and consultants may be over a dozen. Remember, when PCGS and NGC were started they had dozens of part-time graders working. I'll bet many are now dealers who post here.
PS @stman I'm going to guess you may be one of them that is not known to me!
sorry guys, you all have no clue who the top graders are today. they do nothing but submit and blow coins out via auction or wholesale. no mess, no fuss. they spend hundreds of thousands per year on grading fees.
the dirty little secret is most dealers are just marketed names who deal w/the public. only a handful are have a clue.
in a way I am glad this thread got derailed. private collector was not fully correct in the premise he was trying to have his way on. yet, he refuses to acknowledge his 1808 $2.5 was a 64 then upgraded.
sadly grading evolved too much. not everything is bad tho. now that things are pretty much maxed out, we can kinda of set the restart clock.
Comments
of course its not a MS65 and the MS63 is not a MS63 and the 61s are all AU.
And the MS 65 Chain Cent is not a 65 either.
But if you start calling 61s 63, then you need to call a 64 a 65 or 66, even if they are not.
And thats exactly the issue Im writing about here.
Perhaps the real issue here is that one day, after all of us are gone, your coin will grade even higher!
Thats exactly the problem. The SP67 is just 10 points better than the MS65, so it will have to be a SP 75.
Yes, I now how a 60 and a 58 is described in the grading guidelines. Here it is if you'd like a refresher:
https://www.thespruce.com/grade-au-58-768496
While a coin that is otherwise a "60" because of major distracting marks would fall to a 55 or lower with a rub, a coin that is "60" due to a preponderance of minor marks would, in my ever humble opinion (you should try it!), could drop to a 58 with minor wear. It need not be otherwise gem with a rub which is what the OP indicated, quoting David Lawrence.
While the majority of AU58 coins probably are 62 or higher with a rub, that is not a requirement for the grade.
From Heritage grading guidelines: "The coin has wear ranging from extremely light to only a trace of friction on the highest points, along with medium to nearly full luster. AU-58 coins have so little wear that they are often mistaken for Uncirculated coins, hence the nickname "Slider", and in some cases are more attractive than low-end uncirculated coins. It has been said that an AU-58 coin is an MS-63 coin with a trace of wear."
@jmlanzaf posted a link to the ANA Grading Guide as a refresher for us: https://www.thespruce.com/grade-au-58-768496
Thanks, that is EXACTLY THE CASE.
IMHO, it's too bad this was also posted: "While a coin that is otherwise a "60" because of major distracting marks would fall to a 55 or lower with a rub, a coin that is "60" due to a preponderance of minor marks would, in my ever humble opinion (you should try it!), could drop to a 58 with minor wear."
LOL. MS-60's DO NOT HAVE "MINOR MARKS." As for MS-58, to quote the ANA: "No major detracting contact marks will be present."
PS I rarely have a humble opinion about anything. I just like to use these big letters (IMHO) to keep from offending the uninformed.
Here's some TPG AU58. In your less than humble opinion, how would these grade without the rub?
https://coins.ha.com/itm/morgan-dollars/silver-and-related-dollars/1897-o-1-au58-ngc-ngc-census-1928-1486-pcgs-population-1657-1571-cdn-250-whsle-bid-for-problem-free-ngc-pcgs-a/a/131739-27883.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515
https://coins.ha.com/itm/peace-dollars/silver-and-related-dollars/1928-1-au58-pcgs-pcgs-population-1469-7448-ngc-census-1210-5315-cdn-265-whsle-bid-for-problem-free-ngc-pcgs-au/a/131739-27938.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515
There's no way this is a 63 with a minor rub - IMHO
https://coins.ha.com/itm/liberty-double-eagles/double-eagles/1859-20-au58-pcgs/p/1261-1014.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515
In the 80's, I owned both the Eliasberg and Norman Stack 1795 $10's. By memory both 64.2 or 64.3. Like those are actual quantifiable grades.
They are now both in maxed-out 65 holders
Your Garrett '95 $10 is a 65+. MS68 fabric with a mark behind the head and a naked-eye scratch in front of the face. I can't call it a 66, but It would be a sin for it to be holdered a fractional point more than the two aforementioned. I adore it. The scratch is there.
The Childs-Pogue 1804 is a 66.8, not a technical 68. But surely a step above the KOS piece.
There are TPG/CAC EAC coins MS66BN that go no higher than EAC 63.
It's a market grade. It's semi-political in that when a maxi-classic goes through the grading room the condition census is often known and followed. It's been overdone. But what I hear you saying is that you want even more gradeflation. It's not a science. Grading is an art. Your idea has no connection to market realities. That ship has sailed
There is no clear answer to your conundrum. You are buying the coin, not the label. Credit others who are buying world-class quality with doing, as you have, their own due diligence, The market, which is to say maybe 5 or 6 buyers within 25%, will sort it out for themselves.
I agree with you 100%. It is the COIN that should matter and not an arbitrary number on a label, plastic, or foil sticker. I just find it ironic that some publicly claim to detest grade inflation and reject non-CAC coins that are supposedly not technically "all there" and yet openly promote the grading of coins with wear and rub as "uncirculated" or "mint state."
The specific coins discussed in this thread are irrelevant to me. Sure, I'd appreciate being able to see them in hand, but I will never own any of them.
The problem of this thread is that the same discussion applies to many of the coins which most of us can afford. Moving grading standards when your coin is graded at a specific moment in time means that before you sell a coin which you think is valuable, you need to get it regraded. This applies moreso the longer the time between when a coin was graded and when the current owner wishes to sell it.
Someone who shall remain anonymous whose name everyone should recognize, recently told me that many of the coins I own should be sent for regrading before they are sold because they would upgrade. That means an additional trip to CAC as well.
In a nutshell, this dampens my enthusiasm for the hobby. Unfortunately,, I can't offer any constructive solutions which are financially feasible for the hobby.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
@Elcontador said: "Someone who shall remain anonymous whose name everyone should recognize, recently told me that many of the coins I own should be sent for regrading before they are sold because they would upgrade. That means an additional trip to CAC as well.
In a nutshell, this dampens my enthusiasm for the hobby. Unfortunately,, I can't offer any constructive solutions which are financially feasible for the hobby."
You should be happy! More $$$ for the TPGS, more $$$ for CAC, and best of all - more $$$ for you. What difference does it make. Every coin I bought (still in original slabs) in the 1980's -1990"s has gone up in grade. The Cameo Proof Franklins are all up 2-3 grades according to TPGS graders.
I'll jump into the fray! An MS60 coin graded as such due to contact marks will never garner a 58 IMHO! If the luster is outstanding it would be a 53. If the luster is not it would be a 50.
Parenthetically, Jimmy Hayes says he's graded the '08 QE 63+ "when I was having a pretty bad day"
"I chose all my coins myself, some of them against the advice of my dealers based on my personal taste."
Hmm, who knows more, the top guys you hired or you? you've built incredible sets. however, its okay to admit not every coin is the best. a finest known coin does not mean it is properly graded. in fact a coin like the 1808 is most likely to get a push for that reason. there is no question it is the finest known-just is it really a 64 or 65?
love your 1795 $10
PLEASE explain the image you posted. The poster you quoted understands that an MS-60 coin (lots of detracting marks) cannot grade AU-58 (Choice surfaces). IMO, the coin you posted has obvious wear (AU) and is not all beat up. Therefore either AU-55-58 or MS-62-63?
The main problem with the AU grade was started by the ANA GRADING GUIDE. The "experts" who wrote the book combined wear AND the number of marks on a coin. An AU-58 was to be a coin with just a little wear and very clean surfaces (looks like a gem w/wear). An AU-50 (typical) was to be a coin with a little more wear and many marks - not choice.
NOTE: The technical grading system only considered the amount of detail lost from MS. So a coin with a trace of wear became an AU-58 no matter how chopped up it was (within limits as too many marks made it AU-58, Excessive Marks). Add some more circulation and it was an AU-55 and so on. So for a normally circulated coin, only the amount of wear was considered from AU-58 down to P-1.
Today, professional graders are often in a bind. Let's forget about AU's graded as Uncirculated and stick with strict grading. Now, a commercial grader needs to weigh the number of marks in addition to the amount of detail present. There are examples of coins graded AU-50's due to marks that have very little wear and examples of AU-58 coins with mark free surfaces yet more wear.
Your coin is a case in point. It can have several grades and each can be defended as accurate. Technically, it ONLY HAS ONE - AU-58. Not to worry, technical grading proved not to be acceptable in the coin market.
Edit: Wow, just saw the "S." Still AU.
None of this will matter when we switch to a 100 point grading scale.
'#triggered
Collector, occasional seller
The poster you quoted understands that an MS-60 coin (lots of detracting marks) cannot grade AU-58 (Choice surfaces).
And yet here is an MS60 coin (test marks and scratches) with a trace of high point rub in an AU58 holder
Luster doesn't seem to weigh very much with a lot of people anymore. Just an observation. Bust halves luster should weigh heavily. Other series as well, I only used that as an example.
A coin can have hardly any wear, but if it is a dead fish, I do not care what the market says. It's a pass where I come from.
@ChrisH821 said: "None of this will matter when we switch to a 100 point grading scale."
100 point, 70 + decimals, whatever. Unless, the TPGS spell out the standards, and make some changes to the way value, marks, and strike are factored, all of this will still matter and nothing will actually change.
Luster (and mint frost on the devices) is paramount
@tradedollarnut said: "...And yet here is an MS60 coin (test marks and scratches) with a trace of high point rub in an AU58 holder."
If that coin were not so famous, it would probably be in an MS-62 holder at the minimum. The way things are going, when the "right" collector buys it from you and sends it in it probably will be graded Mint State.
Unfortunately for you and the next owner, the coin is an AU. It has obvious rub, even in the image. No if's, ands, or but's. It will always be an AU no matter what the next label says down the road. I applaud PCGS for assigning that grade as they must have been under some pressure to grade it higher. I've only had well-circulated examples in hand. Yours must be the finest known?
"Talking about music is like dancing about architecture" - John Coltrane
Next, how much rub does it take to wear down a 1940-S WLH from MS69 to XF when they usually come struck in VF?
eclontador
first who says the regraded coins will CAC? that what is what happened here with private collectors $2.51808-had been a 64.
the coins will sell at the proper levels if regraded. if they are over graded they will not sell full price. if they are under graded, then they do sell for more. that is what really matters. yes grade inflation might have mad things out of whack, the market values keep things in line
your pals are wrong, pcgs does not liberally just up grade coins
These coins are notorious in the first place, as held in high esteem, CAC will know these pieces and there is little doubt in my mind that they will sticker at inflated grades.
Do you recall when the Starr 1793 S-2 was graded MS-65? Is this the coin the original poster is referring to?
It was in the Dan Holmes auction in 2009 as PCGS-63. Then the 2014 ANA as PCGS-64 CAC. PCGS CoinFacts shows it in the census as still MS-64.
**NOTE: After typing up this post, just noticed in CoinFacts your name under the unpictured MS-65 in the census. That was the 1988 Halpern coin rather than Starr, so guessing that was the one you meant which would be this one:
https://auctions.stacksbowers.com/lots/view/3-2EPGI
**
.
.
Dan Holmes auction in 2009 as PCGS-63:
images.goldbergauctions.com/php/lot_auc.php?site=1&sale=54&lot=3&lang=1
2014 ANA as PCGS-64 CAC:
https://coins.ha.com/itm/large-cents/1793-1c-chain-america-s-2-b-2-high-r4-ms64-brown-pcgs-secure-cac/a/1208-5518.s?hdnJumpToLot=1x=0&y=0
PCGS CoinFacts:
pcgscoinfacts.com/Coin/Detail/1341
"To Be Esteemed Be Useful" - 1792 Birch Cent --- "I personally think we developed language because of our deep need to complain." - Lily Tomlin
The regraded coins will CAC if they come back in the same grade + holders from PCGS, as CAC does not recognize the +. If the coins go up a full grade - a few might - then who knows.
Secondly, nowhere did I say PCGS liberally upgrades coins. You did. My source is impeccable. No one here, or anywhere else, will disagree with my source. They know better.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
I never said anything about liberally upgrading anything. I am happy for you and your source. I think you should consider my comment an opinion on the integrity of all. Including you.
"> @Soldi said:
They are famous now, They will be infamous if upgraded.
I cannot imagine any possible scenario in which it would to be to CAC's advantage to re-sticker at a higher grade.
The rationale behind your "little doubt" is......?
Dear @Soldi
You seem like a very knowledgeable collector/dealer so will you please state what you disagreed with in @Elcontador's post? I wish to learn from your extensive experience submitting coins to CAC.
Where did I disagree? I am at a loss as to the problem here. Are we not talking about some very high end rarities that would be held up to a very high standard? As they cost a lot of money. Yes, No? Where did I go wrong with an opinion on this type of coin?
I wrote in ERROR I meant to say "THEY WILL NOT STICKER AT INFLATED GRADES" MY APOLOGIES
Sol, makes mistakes too.
Some of his pals spend $5K-$10K monthly on grading, so they've calibrated the cost/benefit ratios and the odds.
Not liberally, but often enough.
CAC may not consider the plus in its pricing, but enough others will.
$500 on a Morgan going from 67 to 67+
$1000 -1818-S 5c "B" lustre, strong head/shoulder from 63->64
$750 -1926-D 5c "A" lustre, mushy head/shoulder from 63->-64.
$1000 on a small-size Bust 10c (B+ eye appeal) going from 64 to 64+.
$1500 on the same quality Bust 5oc.
Grading fee: $32 each if valued under $3000
$2000 on a MCMVII going from CAC 62+ to NGC non-CAC 63
grading fee: Walkthrough of $100 if valued over $10K
$15000 on a MCMVII going from 66 to 66+
Grading fee: $125 if valued under $100K.
Not liberally, but often enough
That lovely coin sure doesn't seem to meet the parameters of what I was talking about!
__ My source is impeccable. No one here, or anywhere else, will disagree with my source. They know better. My source is impeccable. __
Sorry guy the top graders in the world do not deal w/the public. Hate to hit you with reality. yes, I would disagree with your source. most dealers today are plastic babies and only know if a coin looks good, they do not know how to grade. the internet has made many dealers look smarter then they are
not every thing from the past upgrades
back at ya colonel
If you disagree with my source(s), you're simply wrong. Period. If you don't want to believe me, it's no skin off my nose. I am not talking about most dealers. My sources are a few levels on the food chain higher than that. They teach dealers how to grade, among other things.
The internet has nothing to do with it, and I'd be happy to sell ocean front property in Kansas to people who look at coins on the internet and think they can grade them properly. All the internet has done is make more coins available to more people. You need to look at coins in your hands if you want to grade them properly with more consistency than by using any other method.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
Nothing more to teach that I didn't cover at ANA Summer Seminar.
Nothing more to respond that wouldn't be trolling myself
The point has been made to the lurkers,
Has anyone mentioned the Eliasberg 1804 $ ?
I was at the Eliasberg sale and saw the coin which was circulated with rub on it.
However it was an 1804 $
Spectrum Numismatics ( Greg Roberts) who is now the principal at Stacks/Bowers
Bought it at the time for inclusion in a very spectacular type set
PCGS graded the coin Proof or Sp 65
Even the damaged 1804 $ Trade Dollar Nut owns is light years finer in quality
But now both coins are in 65 holders
So as Colonel Jessup said " Buy the Coin and not the holder "
I say grade the coin in $ and not what the grading company writes on the paper insert
Andy, was this the same coin TonyT had in a 63 holder at the Philly ANA in 2000? Just trying to keep my facts straight.
My 1866 Philly Mint Set
>
Oops. Good catch! Yes, I was talking about the Beckwith-Halpern S-2, not the Starr coin.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
@specialist said: "...Sorry guy, the top graders in the world do not deal w/the public."
Please take this as a "poke" in the side from a poster without a life as I disagree with this statement.
I hate to be picky - just looking for further clarification as your statement depends completely on your definition of "the public" and "top grader." Are you referring to folks like John Albanese as a "top grader?" You'll get no argument on that from me yet one new poster here (soldi) who is a member of the public, has claimed in a PM to me that he has been a regular visitor to CAC, had coins stickered for free, and is pals with JA. What about Mark Salzberg and Randy Campbell? While the latter may not be a MS or JA, both of these folks deal with the public and give authentication/grading opinions at shows. Same for all the ANA instructors in their classes!
I like to think "top graders" should include more that TPGS owners and employers. Many of the folks here on CU are dealers and collectors who rate that distinction and many of them would probably take a pay cut if they joined the "top graders" at a major TPGS. They deal with the public too.
"Deal with the public" = sell coins retail. But otherwise a nice rant - do carry on...
Yikes! Does that mean I cannot consider that you may be one of the "top graders" anymore?
I'm one of the top collector graders. Which may sneak me into the top 1,000 graders in the country. The real graders just laugh at those of us posting here
I thought so! I consider myself just a student (with a very bad attitude) on the way to becoming a grading "expert *** in my own mind", sometime before I die.
The "real graders" probably don't have the time to post. I'll also agree that all but a few real graders don't give a rat's you-know-what about coin forums or the opinions expressed. Let them laugh. As I posted before, IMO lots of folks here could step into a grading room and get with the "internal program standards" in a few days.
IMO, it's too bad TPGS graders don't post here - they probably should. We could see a different side of the table and learn even more. However, a great effort is made by TPGS to keep the grading as consistent as possible and only allow change at the discretion from the top. What goes on outside the grading room with both correct or misguided and ignorant opinions may have an undesirable effect on a professional grader. I do know that TPGS's constantly take "outside-the-room" heat about their grading from their largest customers. No point adding "inside-the-room" discussion to the subjectivity of the system.
*** Expert: "Ex" = From or out of. "Pert" = A little "drip" under pressure.
But are you sure no graders read, or post here?
@stman said: "But are you sure no graders read, or post here?"
I don't consider anyone who just reads posts as relevant as they are not adding to the discussion. That said, I'm 100% sure some past and present TPGS do actually post here. I can think of at least three. Oh, I just thought of at least one TPGS consultant who also posts here. So, IMHO, I'll bet the number of TPGS graders, authenticators, and consultants may be over a dozen. Remember, when PCGS and NGC were started they had dozens of part-time graders working. I'll bet many are now dealers who post here.
PS @stman I'm going to guess you may be one of them that is not known to me!
sorry guys, you all have no clue who the top graders are today. they do nothing but submit and blow coins out via auction or wholesale. no mess, no fuss. they spend hundreds of thousands per year on grading fees.
the dirty little secret is most dealers are just marketed names who deal w/the public. only a handful are have a clue.
in a way I am glad this thread got derailed. private collector was not fully correct in the premise he was trying to have his way on. yet, he refuses to acknowledge his 1808 $2.5 was a 64 then upgraded.
sadly grading evolved too much. not everything is bad tho. now that things are pretty much maxed out, we can kinda of set the restart clock.
I have dyslexia and seldom post and when I do its normally
a one liner........
Time for a wine.
Some of the CAC graders definitely post here. Mark Feld previously posted until banned over a misunderstanding.