@AUandAG said:
Worthy of the grade.......outstanding example. One or two little ticks does not prevent a 68.
bob
Unfortunately there are more than one or two ticks or other issues on the obverse and reverse of the coin as shown in the photographs. Some of them are in focal areas. Those don't get a pass because the rest of the coin meets 68 standards. As a 68 the coin is suppose to have great luster that is fully original. The issue isn't whether or not it's a beautiful but whether or not it meets the standards for a 68 coin.
It's really not an issue. PCGS says "yes". CAC agrees.
And PCGS and CAC are ALWAYS correct? Are you telling me you have never seen a coin graded by these companies that you didn't agree with?
That is TWO different respected opinion. Second-guessing BOTH of them based on a single picture is not reasonable.
I've seen coins with CAC approval that I don't like the look of. I've seen PCGS coins I thought were a little off on the grade. However, I've never seen a PCGS/CAC whose grade I believed to be flawed.
Remember, CAC approval means JA (very respected eyes) put it in the top 2/3 of coins for the grade. So he didn't even think it was a close call.
I saw an 1892 Nickel six or seven years ago that I didn't agree with the grade or the sticker. The grading service and CAC see more coins in a week than I've seen in my lifetime. But people do the grading and issue the opinions, and sometimes, the best make mistakes. I buy the coin, not the opinion of someone else.
And when no one on this thread has actually seen the coin?
And you disagreeing with the grade doesn't make the grade wrong. You don't have to buy it, but the market respects JA's opinion and PCGS.
@AUandAG said:
Worthy of the grade.......outstanding example. One or two little ticks does not prevent a 68.
bob
Unfortunately there are more than one or two ticks or other issues on the obverse and reverse of the coin as shown in the photographs. Some of them are in focal areas. Those don't get a pass because the rest of the coin meets 68 standards. As a 68 the coin is suppose to have great luster that is fully original. The issue isn't whether or not it's a beautiful but whether or not it meets the standards for a 68 coin.
It's really not an issue. PCGS says "yes". CAC agrees.
And PCGS and CAC are ALWAYS correct? Are you telling me you have never seen a coin graded by these companies that you didn't agree with?
PCGS and CAC guaranty, back, and stand behind the grade. It's their opinion and no one is forced to agree.
But are, if course, not necessarily obligated to verify the price of any particular sale.
Monster toned coins come to mind.
They guarantee what, that their opinion is correct or they pay you the difference in the price if they change their mind? Seriously.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
@AUandAG said:
Worthy of the grade.......outstanding example. One or two little ticks does not prevent a 68.
bob
Unfortunately there are more than one or two ticks or other issues on the obverse and reverse of the coin as shown in the photographs. Some of them are in focal areas. Those don't get a pass because the rest of the coin meets 68 standards. As a 68 the coin is suppose to have great luster that is fully original. The issue isn't whether or not it's a beautiful but whether or not it meets the standards for a 68 coin.
It's really not an issue. PCGS says "yes". CAC agrees.
And PCGS and CAC are ALWAYS correct? Are you telling me you have never seen a coin graded by these companies that you didn't agree with?
That is TWO different respected opinion. Second-guessing BOTH of them based on a single picture is not reasonable.
I've seen coins with CAC approval that I don't like the look of. I've seen PCGS coins I thought were a little off on the grade. However, I've never seen a PCGS/CAC whose grade I believed to be flawed.
Remember, CAC approval means JA (very respected eyes) put it in the top 2/3 of coins for the grade. So he didn't even think it was a close call.
I saw an 1892 Nickel six or seven years ago that I didn't agree with the grade or the sticker. The grading service and CAC see more coins in a week than I've seen in my lifetime. But people do the grading and issue the opinions, and sometimes, the best make mistakes. I buy the coin, not the opinion of someone else.
And when no one on this thread has actually seen the coin?
And you disagreeing with the grade doesn't make the grade wrong. You don't have to buy it, but the market respects JA's opinion and PCGS.
@AUandAG said:
Worthy of the grade.......outstanding example. One or two little ticks does not prevent a 68.
bob
Unfortunately there are more than one or two ticks or other issues on the obverse and reverse of the coin as shown in the photographs. Some of them are in focal areas. Those don't get a pass because the rest of the coin meets 68 standards. As a 68 the coin is suppose to have great luster that is fully original. The issue isn't whether or not it's a beautiful but whether or not it meets the standards for a 68 coin.
It's really not an issue. PCGS says "yes". CAC agrees.
And PCGS and CAC are ALWAYS correct? Are you telling me you have never seen a coin graded by these companies that you didn't agree with?
That is TWO different respected opinion. Second-guessing BOTH of them based on a single picture is not reasonable.
I've seen coins with CAC approval that I don't like the look of. I've seen PCGS coins I thought were a little off on the grade. However, I've never seen a PCGS/CAC whose grade I believed to be flawed.
Remember, CAC approval means JA (very respected eyes) put it in the top 2/3 of coins for the grade. So he didn't even think it was a close call.
I saw an 1892 Nickel six or seven years ago that I didn't agree with the grade or the sticker. The grading service and CAC see more coins in a week than I've seen in my lifetime. But people do the grading and issue the opinions, and sometimes, the best make mistakes. I buy the coin, not the opinion of someone else.
And when no one on this thread has actually seen the coin?
And you disagreeing with the grade doesn't make the grade wrong. You don't have to buy it, but the market respects JA's opinion and PCGS.
Yes, Ian. But those who dismiss PCGS and CAC will dismiss Ian since he has a financial stake.
@7Jaguars said:
Not logically connected, though the second part would have to be correct if overstated. To disagree is not to dismiss, that polarizes the issue.
Needless semantic debate. To disagree, in general, is not to dismiss. To look at a single, possibly bad photo, and not give deference to the three people who have seen it in hand is, to my mind, dismissive. However, changing the word to something else doesn't change my main point: PCGS and CAC are objective opinions while Ian could be seen as having a subjective opinion. [For the record, I think Ian is generally a straight shooter]
I understand that value is driven by the two companies with their names and opinions on the coin. After all they are the experts, most of us are not. To the people that bid this coin up to the price they did, they must of agreed with all facets of the coin to pay what they did. If you don't agree, that's okay. I don't agree on the price for this coin (I wouldn't pay $150 for this coin), but my opinion is not an expert opinion. It's solely based on me not liking the toning on this coin (or any other coin that's toned), it's not based on the grade of the coin. I value PCGS and CAC's opinion, that's why I pay up for them when their opinions are on a coin that I personally like the look of.
@divecchia said:
I understand that value is driven by the two companies with their names and opinions on the coin. After all they are the experts, most of us are not. To the people that bid this coin up to the price they did, they must of agreed with all facets of the coin to pay what they did. If you don't agree, that's okay. I don't agree on the price for this coin (I wouldn't pay $150 for this coin), but my opinion is not an expert opinion. It's solely based on me not liking the toning on this coin (or any other coin that's toned), it's not based on the grade of the coin. I value PCGS and CAC's opinion, that's why I pay up for them when their opinions are on a coin that I personally like the look of.
Donato
I agree with all of that.
Really, the people who want to change the grade on the coin are asking the wrong question. The real question is, regardless of the number, is that the FINEST. You want to call that 67, then all the lesser coins are 66s. If you want to call that a 68, then all the lesser coins are 67s. But is there a coin with a lower number that is superior? If not, it is THE FINEST. Period.
@AUandAG said:
Worthy of the grade.......outstanding example. One or two little ticks does not prevent a 68.
bob
Unfortunately there are more than one or two ticks or other issues on the obverse and reverse of the coin as shown in the photographs. Some of them are in focal areas. Those don't get a pass because the rest of the coin meets 68 standards. As a 68 the coin is suppose to have great luster that is fully original. The issue isn't whether or not it's a beautiful but whether or not it meets the standards for a 68 coin.
It's really not an issue. PCGS says "yes". CAC agrees.
And PCGS and CAC are ALWAYS correct? Are you telling me you have never seen a coin graded by these companies that you didn't agree with?
That is TWO different respected opinion. Second-guessing BOTH of them based on a single picture is not reasonable.
I've seen coins with CAC approval that I don't like the look of. I've seen PCGS coins I thought were a little off on the grade. However, I've never seen a PCGS/CAC whose grade I believed to be flawed.
Remember, CAC approval means JA (very respected eyes) put it in the top 2/3 of coins for the grade. So he didn't even think it was a close call.
I saw an 1892 Nickel six or seven years ago that I didn't agree with the grade or the sticker. The grading service and CAC see more coins in a week than I've seen in my lifetime. But people do the grading and issue the opinions, and sometimes, the best make mistakes. I buy the coin, not the opinion of someone else.
And when no one on this thread has actually seen the coin?
And you disagreeing with the grade doesn't make the grade wrong. You don't have to buy it, but the market respects JA's opinion and PCGS.
I guarantee you that whomever saw and bought that 1892 Nickel did not pay anywhere close to retail for said coin. My point is that the best of the best almost always get it right. But sometimes they don't. If you want to buy a coin because a grading service says X and JA beans it, without looking at it yourself, be my guest.
"Vou invadir o Nordeste, "Seu cabra da peste, "Sou Mangueira......."
@AUandAG said:
Worthy of the grade.......outstanding example. One or two little ticks does not prevent a 68.
bob
Unfortunately there are more than one or two ticks or other issues on the obverse and reverse of the coin as shown in the photographs. Some of them are in focal areas. Those don't get a pass because the rest of the coin meets 68 standards. As a 68 the coin is suppose to have great luster that is fully original. The issue isn't whether or not it's a beautiful but whether or not it meets the standards for a 68 coin.
It's really not an issue. PCGS says "yes". CAC agrees.
And PCGS and CAC are ALWAYS correct? Are you telling me you have never seen a coin graded by these companies that you didn't agree with?
That is TWO different respected opinion. Second-guessing BOTH of them based on a single picture is not reasonable.
I've seen coins with CAC approval that I don't like the look of. I've seen PCGS coins I thought were a little off on the grade. However, I've never seen a PCGS/CAC whose grade I believed to be flawed.
Remember, CAC approval means JA (very respected eyes) put it in the top 2/3 of coins for the grade. So he didn't even think it was a close call.
I saw an 1892 Nickel six or seven years ago that I didn't agree with the grade or the sticker. The grading service and CAC see more coins in a week than I've seen in my lifetime. But people do the grading and issue the opinions, and sometimes, the best make mistakes. I buy the coin, not the opinion of someone else.
And when no one on this thread has actually seen the coin?
And you disagreeing with the grade doesn't make the grade wrong. You don't have to buy it, but the market respects JA's opinion and PCGS.
I guarantee you that whomever saw and bought that 1892 Nickel did not pay anywhere close to retail for said coin. My point is that the best of the best almost always get it right. But sometimes they don't. If you want to buy a coin because a grading service says X and JA beans it, without looking at it yourself, be my guest.
There is a sight unseen price based on just that combination.
@divecchia said:
I understand that value is driven by the two companies with their names and opinions on the coin. After all they are the experts, most of us are not. To the people that bid this coin up to the price they did, they must of agreed with all facets of the coin to pay what they did. If you don't agree, that's okay. I don't agree on the price for this coin (I wouldn't pay $150 for this coin), but my opinion is not an expert opinion. It's solely based on me not liking the toning on this coin (or any other coin that's toned), it's not based on the grade of the coin. I value PCGS and CAC's opinion, that's why I pay up for them when their opinions are on a coin that I personally like the look of.
Donato
I agree with all of that.
Really, the people who want to change the grade on the coin are asking the wrong question. The real question is, regardless of the number, is that the FINEST. You want to call that 67, then all the lesser coins are 66s. If you want to call that a 68, then all the lesser coins are 67s. But is there a coin with a lower number that is superior? If not, it is THE FINEST. Period.
One major problem is that in the case of most coins, very few people are in a position to be able to rank them.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@divecchia said:
I understand that value is driven by the two companies with their names and opinions on the coin. After all they are the experts, most of us are not. To the people that bid this coin up to the price they did, they must of agreed with all facets of the coin to pay what they did. If you don't agree, that's okay. I don't agree on the price for this coin (I wouldn't pay $150 for this coin), but my opinion is not an expert opinion. It's solely based on me not liking the toning on this coin (or any other coin that's toned), it's not based on the grade of the coin. I value PCGS and CAC's opinion, that's why I pay up for them when their opinions are on a coin that I personally like the look of.
Donato
I agree with all of that.
Really, the people who want to change the grade on the coin are asking the wrong question. The real question is, regardless of the number, is that the FINEST. You want to call that 67, then all the lesser coins are 66s. If you want to call that a 68, then all the lesser coins are 67s. But is there a coin with a lower number that is superior? If not, it is THE FINEST. Period.
It may not be necessary to change the grades on the other coins. The issue is whether this coin merits the 68 grade.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
@divecchia said:
I understand that value is driven by the two companies with their names and opinions on the coin. After all they are the experts, most of us are not. To the people that bid this coin up to the price they did, they must of agreed with all facets of the coin to pay what they did. If you don't agree, that's okay. I don't agree on the price for this coin (I wouldn't pay $150 for this coin), but my opinion is not an expert opinion. It's solely based on me not liking the toning on this coin (or any other coin that's toned), it's not based on the grade of the coin. I value PCGS and CAC's opinion, that's why I pay up for them when their opinions are on a coin that I personally like the look of.
Donato
I agree with all of that.
Really, the people who want to change the grade on the coin are asking the wrong question. The real question is, regardless of the number, is that the FINEST. You want to call that 67, then all the lesser coins are 66s. If you want to call that a 68, then all the lesser coins are 67s. But is there a coin with a lower number that is superior? If not, it is THE FINEST. Period.
One major problem is that in the case of most coins, very few people are in a position to be able to rank them.
And even if they could, they might not agree on the ranking!
I saw the short set Lulu collection of walking liberty halves before they sold at Stacks Bower’s recently. My favorite coin in that set was the 1944 MS68 CAC. Having seen the 1946 MS68 CAC that sold last night, the 1944 is rivaled in my opinion. Having seen many incredible walkers in hand, this 1946 is one of the best I’ve ever seen, if not the best.
@divecchia said:
I understand that value is driven by the two companies with their names and opinions on the coin. After all they are the experts, most of us are not. To the people that bid this coin up to the price they did, they must of agreed with all facets of the coin to pay what they did. If you don't agree, that's okay. I don't agree on the price for this coin (I wouldn't pay $150 for this coin), but my opinion is not an expert opinion. It's solely based on me not liking the toning on this coin (or any other coin that's toned), it's not based on the grade of the coin. I value PCGS and CAC's opinion, that's why I pay up for them when their opinions are on a coin that I personally like the look of.
Donato
I agree with all of that.
Really, the people who want to change the grade on the coin are asking the wrong question. The real question is, regardless of the number, is that the FINEST. You want to call that 67, then all the lesser coins are 66s. If you want to call that a 68, then all the lesser coins are 67s. But is there a coin with a lower number that is superior? If not, it is THE FINEST. Period.
One major problem is that in the case of most coins, very few people are in a position to be able to rank them.
And which of these people are in a position to grade this coin from a single image?
@divecchia said:
I understand that value is driven by the two companies with their names and opinions on the coin. After all they are the experts, most of us are not. To the people that bid this coin up to the price they did, they must of agreed with all facets of the coin to pay what they did. If you don't agree, that's okay. I don't agree on the price for this coin (I wouldn't pay $150 for this coin), but my opinion is not an expert opinion. It's solely based on me not liking the toning on this coin (or any other coin that's toned), it's not based on the grade of the coin. I value PCGS and CAC's opinion, that's why I pay up for them when their opinions are on a coin that I personally like the look of.
Donato
I agree with all of that.
Really, the people who want to change the grade on the coin are asking the wrong question. The real question is, regardless of the number, is that the FINEST. You want to call that 67, then all the lesser coins are 66s. If you want to call that a 68, then all the lesser coins are 67s. But is there a coin with a lower number that is superior? If not, it is THE FINEST. Period.
One major problem is that in the case of most coins, very few people are in a position to be able to rank them.
And which of these people are in a position to grade this coin from a single image?
@divecchia said:
I understand that value is driven by the two companies with their names and opinions on the coin. After all they are the experts, most of us are not. To the people that bid this coin up to the price they did, they must of agreed with all facets of the coin to pay what they did. If you don't agree, that's okay. I don't agree on the price for this coin (I wouldn't pay $150 for this coin), but my opinion is not an expert opinion. It's solely based on me not liking the toning on this coin (or any other coin that's toned), it's not based on the grade of the coin. I value PCGS and CAC's opinion, that's why I pay up for them when their opinions are on a coin that I personally like the look of.
Donato
I agree with all of that.
Really, the people who want to change the grade on the coin are asking the wrong question. The real question is, regardless of the number, is that the FINEST. You want to call that 67, then all the lesser coins are 66s. If you want to call that a 68, then all the lesser coins are 67s. But is there a coin with a lower number that is superior? If not, it is THE FINEST. Period.
One major problem is that in the case of most coins, very few people are in a position to be able to rank them.
And which of these people are in a position to grade this coin from a single image?
Did I somehow give you the impression that I thought anyone was in such a position?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I understand that value is driven by the two companies with their names and opinions on the coin. After all, they are the experts. Most of us are not. To the people that bid this coin up to the price they did, they must have agreed with all facets of the coin to pay what they did. If you disagree, that's okay. I disagree with the price for this coin I wouldn't pay $150 for this coin but my opinion is not an expert opinion. It's solely based on me not liking the toning on this coin (or any other coin that's toned). It's not based on the grade of the coin. I value PCGS and CAC's opinion. That's why I pay up for them when their opinions are on a coin that I personally like the look of.
Donato
jmlanzaf:
I agree with all of that.
Really, the people who want to change the grade on the coin are asking the wrong question. The real question is, regardless of the number, is that the FINEST. You want to call that 67; then all the lesser coins are 66s. If you want to call that a 68, then all the lesser coins are 67s. But is there a coin with a lower number that is superior? If not, it is THE FINEST. Period.
You had me right up to this part of the argument. jmlanzaf- you honestly value this one under $150.00?
@divecchia said:
I understand that value is driven by the two companies with their names and opinions on the coin. After all they are the experts, most of us are not. To the people that bid this coin up to the price they did, they must of agreed with all facets of the coin to pay what they did. If you don't agree, that's okay. I don't agree on the price for this coin (I wouldn't pay $150 for this coin), but my opinion is not an expert opinion. It's solely based on me not liking the toning on this coin (or any other coin that's toned), it's not based on the grade of the coin. I value PCGS and CAC's opinion, that's why I pay up for them when their opinions are on a coin that I personally like the look of.
Donato
I agree with all of that.
Really, the people who want to change the grade on the coin are asking the wrong question. The real question is, regardless of the number, is that the FINEST. You want to call that 67, then all the lesser coins are 66s. If you want to call that a 68, then all the lesser coins are 67s. But is there a coin with a lower number that is superior? If not, it is THE FINEST. Period.
One major problem is that in the case of most coins, very few people are in a position to be able to rank them.
And which of these people are in a position to grade this coin from a single image?
Did I somehow give you the impression that I thought anyone was in such a position?
No. Did I somehow give the impression that I thought any of these people were in a position to rank all the 67s and 68s?
I just suggested they were asking the wrong question trying to nitpick it down to a 67.
@divecchia said:
I understand that value is driven by the two companies with their names and opinions on the coin. After all they are the experts, most of us are not. To the people that bid this coin up to the price they did, they must of agreed with all facets of the coin to pay what they did. If you don't agree, that's okay. I don't agree on the price for this coin (I wouldn't pay $150 for this coin), but my opinion is not an expert opinion. It's solely based on me not liking the toning on this coin (or any other coin that's toned), it's not based on the grade of the coin. I value PCGS and CAC's opinion, that's why I pay up for them when their opinions are on a coin that I personally like the look of.
Donato
I agree with all of that.
Really, the people who want to change the grade on the coin are asking the wrong question. The real question is, regardless of the number, is that the FINEST. You want to call that 67, then all the lesser coins are 66s. If you want to call that a 68, then all the lesser coins are 67s. But is there a coin with a lower number that is superior? If not, it is THE FINEST. Period.
You had me right up to this part of the argument. ** jmlanzaf-** you honestly value this one under $150.00?
sorry, no. I wasn't agreeing with that particular price point. I was just agreeing with his right to not like the coin.
I think it is a $150,000 coin and it was proven last night! [I never argue with the market. 2 people felt it was worth $140,000+ and so it is.]
@braddick said:
Ah, I felt scared!
More times than not, I'm ready to write an opinion, whereas I see you have voiced it for me.
Well, for the love of all that is Holy, lend some support! I'm getting killed in here.
True, mostly relevant story:
I've wanted a nice Fugio cent for quite a while. I'm also...er...frugal. And somewhat fussy. So many Fugios have planchet defects and the like. It seems like every time I find one with a nice planchet it is worn down or weakly struck and every time I find a nicely struck one it has a distracting planchet flaw. As a result, I have been unable to pull the trigger on one even though I've looked at maybe a couple hundred over the last two years. None of them seemed worth the expense TO ME. All of them sold for fair market value in open auctions. I would not quibble with the price that any of them achieved. But none of them were the right coin for me.
I think that's the issue here. People don't like the "milky toning" or the "dark spots" or some minor flaw. But rather than just say, nice coin but not for me, they are trying to prove the coin somehow unworthy.
@braddick said:
Ah, I felt scared!
More times than not, I'm ready to write an opinion, whereas I see you have voiced it for me.
Well, for the love of all that is Holy, lend some support! I'm getting killed in here.
True, mostly relevant story:
I've wanted a nice Fugio cent for quite a while. I'm also...er...frugal. And somewhat fussy. So many Fugios have planchet defects and the like. It seems like every time I find one with a nice planchet it is worn down or weakly struck and every time I find a nicely struck one it has a distracting planchet flaw. As a result, I have been unable to pull the trigger on one even though I've looked at maybe a couple hundred over the last two years. None of them seemed worth the expense TO ME. All of them sold for fair market value in open auctions. I would not quibble with the price that any of them achieved. But none of them were the right coin for me.
I think that's the issue here. People don't like the "milky toning" or the "dark spots" or some minor flaw. But rather than just say, nice coin but not for me, they are trying to prove the coin somehow unworthy.
One of a number of things I’ve preached more than a few times😉 - Just because, for whatever reason, someone doesn’t like a particular coin, doesn’t necessarily mean it’s over-graded.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@braddick said:
Ah, I felt scared!
More times than not, I'm ready to write an opinion, whereas I see you have voiced it for me.
Well, for the love of all that is Holy, lend some support! I'm getting killed in here.
True, mostly relevant story:
I've wanted a nice Fugio cent for quite a while. I'm also...er...frugal. And somewhat fussy. So many Fugios have planchet defects and the like. It seems like every time I find one with a nice planchet it is worn down or weakly struck and every time I find a nicely struck one it has a distracting planchet flaw. As a result, I have been unable to pull the trigger on one even though I've looked at maybe a couple hundred over the last two years. None of them seemed worth the expense TO ME. All of them sold for fair market value in open auctions. I would not quibble with the price that any of them achieved. But none of them were the right coin for me.
I think that's the issue here. People don't like the "milky toning" or the "dark spots" or some minor flaw. But rather than just say, nice coin but not for me, they are trying to prove the coin somehow unworthy.
One of a number of things I’ve preached more than a few times😉 - Just because, for whatever reason, someone doesn’t like a particular coin, doesn’t necessarily mean it’s over-graded.
Agreed...or over-priced. It's just not the coin for you.
Like I mentioned earlier, "In my IMO the coin speaks for itself".
Whoever bought this coin obviously has the financial resources and THE passion for the Walking Liberty Halves.
@braddick said:
Ah, I felt scared!
More times than not, I'm ready to write an opinion, whereas I see you have voiced it for me.
Well, for the love of all that is Holy, lend some support! I'm getting killed in here.
True, mostly relevant story:
I've wanted a nice Fugio cent for quite a while. I'm also...er...frugal. And somewhat fussy. So many Fugios have planchet defects and the like. It seems like every time I find one with a nice planchet it is worn down or weakly struck and every time I find a nicely struck one it has a distracting planchet flaw. As a result, I have been unable to pull the trigger on one even though I've looked at maybe a couple hundred over the last two years. None of them seemed worth the expense TO ME. All of them sold for fair market value in open auctions. I would not quibble with the price that any of them achieved. But none of them were the right coin for me.
I think that's the issue here. People don't like the "milky toning" or the "dark spots" or some minor flaw. But rather than just say, nice coin but not for me, they are trying to prove the coin somehow unworthy.
One of a number of things I’ve preached more than a few times😉 - Just because, for whatever reason, someone doesn’t like a particular coin, doesn’t necessarily mean it’s over-graded.
True. Just as true is just because someone thinks a coin is over graded doesn’t mean they don’t like the coin.
What I’ve tried to do is point out technological aspects seen in the photographs that in my opinion would prevent the coin from getting the 68 grade. The contact mark in the sun, the spots around the word “IN”, the milky appears of some of the toning and the dark areas on the left wing on the reverse disqualify the coin from receiving that grade.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
@braddick said:
Ah, I felt scared!
More times than not, I'm ready to write an opinion, whereas I see you have voiced it for me.
Well, for the love of all that is Holy, lend some support! I'm getting killed in here.
True, mostly relevant story:
I've wanted a nice Fugio cent for quite a while. I'm also...er...frugal. And somewhat fussy. So many Fugios have planchet defects and the like. It seems like every time I find one with a nice planchet it is worn down or weakly struck and every time I find a nicely struck one it has a distracting planchet flaw. As a result, I have been unable to pull the trigger on one even though I've looked at maybe a couple hundred over the last two years. None of them seemed worth the expense TO ME. All of them sold for fair market value in open auctions. I would not quibble with the price that any of them achieved. But none of them were the right coin for me.
I think that's the issue here. People don't like the "milky toning" or the "dark spots" or some minor flaw. But rather than just say, nice coin but not for me, they are trying to prove the coin somehow unworthy.
Actually I think that’s one of the purpose of these thread, discussing why or why not is worthy of a grade. I don’t think the purpose is supposed to be a fanboy pile on but an objective discussion of grading. None of the criticism is personal. It’s technical aspects of what are perceived flaws that would prohibit a coin from receiving a particular grade.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
@pmh1nic said:
What I’ve tried to do is point out technological aspects seen in the photographs that in my opinion would prevent the coin from getting the 68 grade. The contact mark in the sun, the spots around the word “IN”, the milky appears of some of the toning and the dark areas on the left wing on the reverse disqualify the coin from receiving that grade.
PCGS and CAC didn't see in hand what you see in the photo?
@braddick said:
Ah, I felt scared!
More times than not, I'm ready to write an opinion, whereas I see you have voiced it for me.
Well, for the love of all that is Holy, lend some support! I'm getting killed in here.
True, mostly relevant story:
I've wanted a nice Fugio cent for quite a while. I'm also...er...frugal. And somewhat fussy. So many Fugios have planchet defects and the like. It seems like every time I find one with a nice planchet it is worn down or weakly struck and every time I find a nicely struck one it has a distracting planchet flaw. As a result, I have been unable to pull the trigger on one even though I've looked at maybe a couple hundred over the last two years. None of them seemed worth the expense TO ME. All of them sold for fair market value in open auctions. I would not quibble with the price that any of them achieved. But none of them were the right coin for me.
I think that's the issue here. People don't like the "milky toning" or the "dark spots" or some minor flaw. But rather than just say, nice coin but not for me, they are trying to prove the coin somehow unworthy.
Actually I think that’s one of the purpose of these thread, discussing why or why not is worthy of a grade. I don’t think the purpose is supposed to be a fanboy pile on but an objective discussion of grading. None of the criticism is personal. It’s technical aspects of what are perceived flaws that would prohibit a coin from receiving a particular grade.
Well, if you want that to be a valuable exercise, you would be better served trying to see why that coin is a 68. Quite frankly, The Market is PCGS/CAC not any individual on this forum. Applying your own standard does nothing to advance your understanding of the slabbed coin market.
For the record, here's the PCGS photograde plate coins for MS68
The above coin appears to have used a totally different set of camera equipment, lighting, and probably meta-data, filters, and other items, than the 1946 coin under discussion.
"Vou invadir o Nordeste, "Seu cabra da peste, "Sou Mangueira......."
@braddick said:
Ah, I felt scared!
More times than not, I'm ready to write an opinion, whereas I see you have voiced it for me.
Well, for the love of all that is Holy, lend some support! I'm getting killed in here.
True, mostly relevant story:
I've wanted a nice Fugio cent for quite a while. I'm also...er...frugal. And somewhat fussy. So many Fugios have planchet defects and the like. It seems like every time I find one with a nice planchet it is worn down or weakly struck and every time I find a nicely struck one it has a distracting planchet flaw. As a result, I have been unable to pull the trigger on one even though I've looked at maybe a couple hundred over the last two years. None of them seemed worth the expense TO ME. All of them sold for fair market value in open auctions. I would not quibble with the price that any of them achieved. But none of them were the right coin for me.
I think that's the issue here. People don't like the "milky toning" or the "dark spots" or some minor flaw. But rather than just say, nice coin but not for me, they are trying to prove the coin somehow unworthy.
Actually I think that’s one of the purpose of these thread, discussing why or why not is worthy of a grade. I don’t think the purpose is supposed to be a fanboy pile on but an objective discussion of grading. None of the criticism is personal. It’s technical aspects of what are perceived flaws that would prohibit a coin from receiving a particular grade.
Well, if you want that to be a valuable exercise, you would be better served trying to see why that coin is a 68. Quite frankly, The Market is PCGS/CAC not any individual on this forum. Applying your own standard does nothing to advance your understanding of the slabbed coin market.
For the record, here's the PCGS photograde plate coins for MS68
Straw man argument. I never claimed my opinion made the market. My opinion is based on my knowledge of grading standards. If the grading stands say “no contact marks” in a prime focal area it means no contact marks. The spots around the word “IN” are in a prime focal area. Beyond that you have the milky toning and dark areas on the left wing. These issues aren’t my subjective opinion. They are shown in the photographs of the coin. You don’t minimize them by trying to ridicule me. As for who pays what for a coin that’s a total different conversation.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
@braddick said:
Ah, I felt scared!
More times than not, I'm ready to write an opinion, whereas I see you have voiced it for me.
Well, for the love of all that is Holy, lend some support! I'm getting killed in here.
True, mostly relevant story:
I've wanted a nice Fugio cent for quite a while. I'm also...er...frugal. And somewhat fussy. So many Fugios have planchet defects and the like. It seems like every time I find one with a nice planchet it is worn down or weakly struck and every time I find a nicely struck one it has a distracting planchet flaw. As a result, I have been unable to pull the trigger on one even though I've looked at maybe a couple hundred over the last two years. None of them seemed worth the expense TO ME. All of them sold for fair market value in open auctions. I would not quibble with the price that any of them achieved. But none of them were the right coin for me.
I think that's the issue here. People don't like the "milky toning" or the "dark spots" or some minor flaw. But rather than just say, nice coin but not for me, they are trying to prove the coin somehow unworthy.
Actually I think that’s one of the purpose of these thread, discussing why or why not is worthy of a grade. I don’t think the purpose is supposed to be a fanboy pile on but an objective discussion of grading. None of the criticism is personal. It’s technical aspects of what are perceived flaws that would prohibit a coin from receiving a particular grade.
Well, if you want that to be a valuable exercise, you would be better served trying to see why that coin is a 68. Quite frankly, The Market is PCGS/CAC not any individual on this forum. Applying your own standard does nothing to advance your understanding of the slabbed coin market.
For the record, here's the PCGS photograde plate coins for MS68
Straw man argument. I never claimed my opinion made the market. My opinion is based on my knowledge of grading standards. If the grading stands say “no contact marks” in a prime focal area it means no contact marks. The spots around the word “IN” are in a prime focal area. Beyond that you have the milky toning and dark areas on the left wing. These issues aren’t my subjective opinion. They are shown in the photographs of the coin. You don’t minimize them by trying to ridicule me. As for who pays what for a coin that’s a total different conversation.
When did I ever "ridicule" you. I simply feel you are starting with the wrong bias. You feel you should be trying to figure out why the CAC 68 isn't really a 68. I simply said (and repeat) that the exercise should be to figure out why two very respected independent evaluators both feel it is a solid 68.
Is there the occasional miss? Sure. But the number of PCGS/CAC coins that are in the wrong holder is a tiny percentage of the number that are in the right holder. Everyone who has seen the coin in hand is convinced that it is a 68. You have to dismiss all those opinions in favor of one picture which may not be representative.
@Elcontador said:
The above coin appears to have used a totally different set of camera equipment, lighting, and probably meta-data, filters, and other items, than the 1946 coin under discussion.
I'm sure. [Not so sure about the meta-data????] The OP is a GC image, the 1939 coin is a PCGS image.
@braddick said:
Ah, I felt scared!
More times than not, I'm ready to write an opinion, whereas I see you have voiced it for me.
Well, for the love of all that is Holy, lend some support! I'm getting killed in here.
True, mostly relevant story:
I've wanted a nice Fugio cent for quite a while. I'm also...er...frugal. And somewhat fussy. So many Fugios have planchet defects and the like. It seems like every time I find one with a nice planchet it is worn down or weakly struck and every time I find a nicely struck one it has a distracting planchet flaw. As a result, I have been unable to pull the trigger on one even though I've looked at maybe a couple hundred over the last two years. None of them seemed worth the expense TO ME. All of them sold for fair market value in open auctions. I would not quibble with the price that any of them achieved. But none of them were the right coin for me.
I think that's the issue here. People don't like the "milky toning" or the "dark spots" or some minor flaw. But rather than just say, nice coin but not for me, they are trying to prove the coin somehow unworthy.
Actually I think that’s one of the purpose of these thread, discussing why or why not is worthy of a grade. I don’t think the purpose is supposed to be a fanboy pile on but an objective discussion of grading. None of the criticism is personal. It’s technical aspects of what are perceived flaws that would prohibit a coin from receiving a particular grade.
Well, if you want that to be a valuable exercise, you would be better served trying to see why that coin is a 68. Quite frankly, The Market is PCGS/CAC not any individual on this forum. Applying your own standard does nothing to advance your understanding of the slabbed coin market.
For the record, here's the PCGS photograde plate coins for MS68
Straw man argument. I never claimed my opinion made the market. My opinion is based on my knowledge of grading standards. If the grading stands say “no contact marks” in a prime focal area it means no contact marks. The spots around the word “IN” are in a prime focal area. Beyond that you have the milky toning and dark areas on the left wing. These issues aren’t my subjective opinion. They are shown in the photographs of the coin. You don’t minimize them by trying to ridicule me. As for who pays what for a coin that’s a total different conversation.
When did I ever "ridicule" you. I simply feel you are starting with the wrong bias. You feel you should be trying to figure out why the CAC 68 isn't really a 68. I simply said (and repeat) that the exercise should be to figure out why two very respected independent evaluators both feel it is a solid 68.
Is there the occasional miss? Sure. But the number of PCGS/CAC coins that are in the wrong holder is a tiny percentage of the number that are in the right holder. Everyone who has seen the coin in hand is convinced that it is a 68. You have to dismiss all those opinions in favor of one picture which may not be representative.
I’m not trying to figure out anything. I’m stating what I see in the PHOTOGRAPHS of the coins and comparing that to MY UNDERSTANDING of what constitutes an MS-68 coin. My understanding of the grading indicates no contact marks in a prime focal area. I’d extend that to any distracting mark (spots would qualify) in a prime focal area. The darkened areas on the reverse would qualify. By definition an MS-68 coin should have blazing luster. Those marks don’t get counted out based on the luster of the coin. The milky hazy that shows through in the PICTURES of the coin would also merit as a distraction.
As for value, the current buyer announced his/her opinion of the value. Everyone else that didn’t agree with that opinion bowed out of the bidding. In my opinion the differences between any properly grade 67 and 68 coins are not worth a 10x or 20x premium but that’s just me. By definition those differences are minor, usually relegated to a few contact marks or a lighter strike.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
@braddick said:
Ah, I felt scared!
More times than not, I'm ready to write an opinion, whereas I see you have voiced it for me.
Well, for the love of all that is Holy, lend some support! I'm getting killed in here.
True, mostly relevant story:
I've wanted a nice Fugio cent for quite a while. I'm also...er...frugal. And somewhat fussy. So many Fugios have planchet defects and the like. It seems like every time I find one with a nice planchet it is worn down or weakly struck and every time I find a nicely struck one it has a distracting planchet flaw. As a result, I have been unable to pull the trigger on one even though I've looked at maybe a couple hundred over the last two years. None of them seemed worth the expense TO ME. All of them sold for fair market value in open auctions. I would not quibble with the price that any of them achieved. But none of them were the right coin for me.
I think that's the issue here. People don't like the "milky toning" or the "dark spots" or some minor flaw. But rather than just say, nice coin but not for me, they are trying to prove the coin somehow unworthy.
Actually I think that’s one of the purpose of these thread, discussing why or why not is worthy of a grade. I don’t think the purpose is supposed to be a fanboy pile on but an objective discussion of grading. None of the criticism is personal. It’s technical aspects of what are perceived flaws that would prohibit a coin from receiving a particular grade.
Well, if you want that to be a valuable exercise, you would be better served trying to see why that coin is a 68. Quite frankly, The Market is PCGS/CAC not any individual on this forum. Applying your own standard does nothing to advance your understanding of the slabbed coin market.
For the record, here's the PCGS photograde plate coins for MS68
Straw man argument. I never claimed my opinion made the market. My opinion is based on my knowledge of grading standards. If the grading stands say “no contact marks” in a prime focal area it means no contact marks. The spots around the word “IN” are in a prime focal area. Beyond that you have the milky toning and dark areas on the left wing. These issues aren’t my subjective opinion. They are shown in the photographs of the coin. You don’t minimize them by trying to ridicule me. As for who pays what for a coin that’s a total different conversation.
When did I ever "ridicule" you. I simply feel you are starting with the wrong bias. You feel you should be trying to figure out why the CAC 68 isn't really a 68. I simply said (and repeat) that the exercise should be to figure out why two very respected independent evaluators both feel it is a solid 68.
Is there the occasional miss? Sure. But the number of PCGS/CAC coins that are in the wrong holder is a tiny percentage of the number that are in the right holder. Everyone who has seen the coin in hand is convinced that it is a 68. You have to dismiss all those opinions in favor of one picture which may not be representative.
I’m not trying to figure out anything. I’m stating what I see in the PHOTOGRAPHS of the coins and comparing that to MY UNDERSTANDING of what constitutes an MS-68 coin. My understanding of the grading indicates no contact marks in a prime focal area. I’d extend that to any distracting mark (spots would qualify) in a prime focal area. The darkened areas on the reverse would qualify. By definition an MS-68 coin should have blazing luster. Those marks don’t get counted out based on the luster of the coin. The milky hazy that shows through in the PICTURES of the coin would also merit as a distraction.
As for value, the current buyer announced his/her opinion of the value. Everyone else that didn’t agree with that opinion bowed out of the bidding. In my opinion the differences between any properly grade 67 and 68 coins are not worth a 10x or 20x premium but that’s just me. By definition those differences are minor, usually relegated to a few contact marks or a lighter strike.
We can agree to disagree. But, again, the coin is a 68 based on all evidence and two respected opinions. So, respectfully, I still think you should consider why that coin is a 68 and how that might improve your understanding of what constitutes a 68 in the marketplace.
@jmlanzaf said:
But, again, the coin is a 68 based on all evidence and two respected opinions.
Likely more than two, as PCGS uses multiple graders. And those opinions are based on having held the coin in hand, not just looking at an image on the internet.
@jmlanzaf said:
But, again, the coin is a 68 based on all evidence and two respected opinions.
Likely more than two, as PCGS uses multiple graders. And those opinions are based on having held the coin in hand, not just looking at an image on the internet.
True. But the big thing to me is the second independent review. It CAC'ed which means JA doesn't even think it's a close call on the 68. That makes it very unlikely (not impossible) that the evaluation is incorrect. So, I really think the exercise should be to try and understand why it is a 68 - if you want to do too much second guessing off a photo.
I would like to see it from different angles and in hand. I would bet money that the mark in the sun is just a luster break. I would also bet those two spots near "IN" are actually much lighter in color. I would also bet that the hazy toning is lighter in color also.
@braddick said:
Ah, I felt scared!
More times than not, I'm ready to write an opinion, whereas I see you have voiced it for me.
Well, for the love of all that is Holy, lend some support! I'm getting killed in here.
True, mostly relevant story:
I've wanted a nice Fugio cent for quite a while. I'm also...er...frugal. And somewhat fussy. So many Fugios have planchet defects and the like. It seems like every time I find one with a nice planchet it is worn down or weakly struck and every time I find a nicely struck one it has a distracting planchet flaw. As a result, I have been unable to pull the trigger on one even though I've looked at maybe a couple hundred over the last two years. None of them seemed worth the expense TO ME. All of them sold for fair market value in open auctions. I would not quibble with the price that any of them achieved. But none of them were the right coin for me.
I think that's the issue here. People don't like the "milky toning" or the "dark spots" or some minor flaw. But rather than just say, nice coin but not for me, they are trying to prove the coin somehow unworthy.
Actually I think that’s one of the purpose of these thread, discussing why or why not is worthy of a grade. I don’t think the purpose is supposed to be a fanboy pile on but an objective discussion of grading. None of the criticism is personal. It’s technical aspects of what are perceived flaws that would prohibit a coin from receiving a particular grade.
Well, if you want that to be a valuable exercise, you would be better served trying to see why that coin is a 68. Quite frankly, The Market is PCGS/CAC not any individual on this forum. Applying your own standard does nothing to advance your understanding of the slabbed coin market.
For the record, here's the PCGS photograde plate coins for MS68
Straw man argument. I never claimed my opinion made the market. My opinion is based on my knowledge of grading standards. If the grading stands say “no contact marks” in a prime focal area it means no contact marks. The spots around the word “IN” are in a prime focal area. Beyond that you have the milky toning and dark areas on the left wing. These issues aren’t my subjective opinion. They are shown in the photographs of the coin. You don’t minimize them by trying to ridicule me. As for who pays what for a coin that’s a total different conversation.
When did I ever "ridicule" you. I simply feel you are starting with the wrong bias. You feel you should be trying to figure out why the CAC 68 isn't really a 68. I simply said (and repeat) that the exercise should be to figure out why two very respected independent evaluators both feel it is a solid 68.
Is there the occasional miss? Sure. But the number of PCGS/CAC coins that are in the wrong holder is a tiny percentage of the number that are in the right holder. Everyone who has seen the coin in hand is convinced that it is a 68. You have to dismiss all those opinions in favor of one picture which may not be representative.
I’m not trying to figure out anything. I’m stating what I see in the PHOTOGRAPHS of the coins and comparing that to MY UNDERSTANDING of what constitutes an MS-68 coin. My understanding of the grading indicates no contact marks in a prime focal area. I’d extend that to any distracting mark (spots would qualify) in a prime focal area. The darkened areas on the reverse would qualify. By definition an MS-68 coin should have blazing luster. Those marks don’t get counted out based on the luster of the coin. The milky hazy that shows through in the PICTURES of the coin would also merit as a distraction.
As for value, the current buyer announced his/her opinion of the value. Everyone else that didn’t agree with that opinion bowed out of the bidding. In my opinion the differences between any properly grade 67 and 68 coins are not worth a 10x or 20x premium but that’s just me. By definition those differences are minor, usually relegated to a few contact marks or a lighter strike.
We can agree to disagree. But, again, the coin is a 68 based on all evidence and two respected opinions. So, respectfully, I still think you should consider why that coin is a 68 and how that might improve your understanding of what constitutes a 68 in the marketplace.
Again you’re missing the point. I’m talking about the coin AS PHOTOGRAPHED. That image has flaws that prevent it from being classified as MS-68. If those flaws are actually on the coin I don’t care what PCGS or CAC called it doesn’t meet the standards of an MS-68 coin. If you don’t agree and the buyer doesn’t agree that’s your prerogative. Either those flaws are on the coin (as soon in the photographs) or they’re not. I can read the standards for a 68 coin. It doesn’t matter what other coins were graded 68 prior that had similar flaws. Either the coin meets the standards or it doesn’t. Referring to the pictures. Do you see the contact make in the sun? Do you see the spots around the word “IN”? Do you see the milky haze around the coin? Do you see the darkened surface on the reverse of the coin? Either these things don’t exist on the actual coin OR by definition, the definition of a 68 coin, you have to ignore some of them to give this a coin a 68 grade.
Rant over.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
@braddick said:
Ah, I felt scared!
More times than not, I'm ready to write an opinion, whereas I see you have voiced it for me.
Well, for the love of all that is Holy, lend some support! I'm getting killed in here.
True, mostly relevant story:
I've wanted a nice Fugio cent for quite a while. I'm also...er...frugal. And somewhat fussy. So many Fugios have planchet defects and the like. It seems like every time I find one with a nice planchet it is worn down or weakly struck and every time I find a nicely struck one it has a distracting planchet flaw. As a result, I have been unable to pull the trigger on one even though I've looked at maybe a couple hundred over the last two years. None of them seemed worth the expense TO ME. All of them sold for fair market value in open auctions. I would not quibble with the price that any of them achieved. But none of them were the right coin for me.
I think that's the issue here. People don't like the "milky toning" or the "dark spots" or some minor flaw. But rather than just say, nice coin but not for me, they are trying to prove the coin somehow unworthy.
Actually I think that’s one of the purpose of these thread, discussing why or why not is worthy of a grade. I don’t think the purpose is supposed to be a fanboy pile on but an objective discussion of grading. None of the criticism is personal. It’s technical aspects of what are perceived flaws that would prohibit a coin from receiving a particular grade.
Well, if you want that to be a valuable exercise, you would be better served trying to see why that coin is a 68. Quite frankly, The Market is PCGS/CAC not any individual on this forum. Applying your own standard does nothing to advance your understanding of the slabbed coin market.
For the record, here's the PCGS photograde plate coins for MS68
Straw man argument. I never claimed my opinion made the market. My opinion is based on my knowledge of grading standards. If the grading stands say “no contact marks” in a prime focal area it means no contact marks. The spots around the word “IN” are in a prime focal area. Beyond that you have the milky toning and dark areas on the left wing. These issues aren’t my subjective opinion. They are shown in the photographs of the coin. You don’t minimize them by trying to ridicule me. As for who pays what for a coin that’s a total different conversation.
When did I ever "ridicule" you. I simply feel you are starting with the wrong bias. You feel you should be trying to figure out why the CAC 68 isn't really a 68. I simply said (and repeat) that the exercise should be to figure out why two very respected independent evaluators both feel it is a solid 68.
Is there the occasional miss? Sure. But the number of PCGS/CAC coins that are in the wrong holder is a tiny percentage of the number that are in the right holder. Everyone who has seen the coin in hand is convinced that it is a 68. You have to dismiss all those opinions in favor of one picture which may not be representative.
I’m not trying to figure out anything. I’m stating what I see in the PHOTOGRAPHS of the coins and comparing that to MY UNDERSTANDING of what constitutes an MS-68 coin. My understanding of the grading indicates no contact marks in a prime focal area. I’d extend that to any distracting mark (spots would qualify) in a prime focal area. The darkened areas on the reverse would qualify. By definition an MS-68 coin should have blazing luster. Those marks don’t get counted out based on the luster of the coin. The milky hazy that shows through in the PICTURES of the coin would also merit as a distraction.
As for value, the current buyer announced his/her opinion of the value. Everyone else that didn’t agree with that opinion bowed out of the bidding. In my opinion the differences between any properly grade 67 and 68 coins are not worth a 10x or 20x premium but that’s just me. By definition those differences are minor, usually relegated to a few contact marks or a lighter strike.
We can agree to disagree. But, again, the coin is a 68 based on all evidence and two respected opinions. So, respectfully, I still think you should consider why that coin is a 68 and how that might improve your understanding of what constitutes a 68 in the marketplace.
Again you’re missing the point. I’m talking about the coin AS PHOTOGRAPHED. That image has flaws that prevent it from being classified as MS-68. If those flaws are actually on the coin I don’t care what PCGS or CAC called it doesn’t meet the standards of an MS-68 coin. If you don’t agree and the buyer doesn’t agree that’s your prerogative. Either those flaws are on the coin (as soon in the photographs) or they’re not. I can read the standards for a 68 coin. It doesn’t matter what other coins were graded 68 prior that had similar flaws. Either the coin meets the standards or it doesn’t. Referring to the pictures. Do you see the contact make in the sun? Do you see the spots around the word “IN”? Do you see the milky haze around the coin? Do you see the darkened surface on the reverse of the coin? Either these things don’t exist on the actual coin OR by definition, the definition of a 68 coin, you have to ignore some of them to give this a coin a 68 grade.
Rant over.
I'm not missing anything. Yes you're talking about the picture.
But here's the thing: if what you see actually is in the coin, it is still a 68. The two most respected voices are that it is a68 and per CAC a solid 68.
Last time I checked MS70 was perfect and NOT MS68. If that coin was graded 67 you'd be hearing a different kind of rant.
Eye appeal is a major part of the grade and this one is the definition.
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
@Justacommeman said:
Grading by picture has always been a fools errand
m
Maybe so but there are distinct characteristics you can see in the pic that tells me this one is a screamer.
Check out Coin Facts' 67+'s and then look at this one again.
Whenever a True Viwe photo of the half dollar is posted I expect to see multiple replies to this thread that state in summary that:
"One cannot properly assess and evaluate the coin from a True View photo (i.e
because it is a glamour shot; and/or you cannot see hairlines in a photo), thus the 68 grade is doubtful".
@Justacommeman said:
Grading by picture has always been a fools errand
m
Maybe so but there are distinct characteristics you can see in the pic that tells me this one is a screamer.
Check out Coin Facts' 67+'s and then look at this one again.
I agree it looks to be a magnificent coin. I was referring to technical grading based on a flat blown up image.
The most beautiful women in the world look near flawless until you're two inches away with a magnifying glass. A coin in hand has a different orientation and presence then that of a blown up one dimensional image. Grades are given in hand not on pics especially marginal ones
m
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Comments
And when no one on this thread has actually seen the coin?
And you disagreeing with the grade doesn't make the grade wrong. You don't have to buy it, but the market respects JA's opinion and PCGS.
They guarantee what, that their opinion is correct or they pay you the difference in the price if they change their mind? Seriously.
Hmmm, There is a poster who has!
Yes, Ian. But those who dismiss PCGS and CAC will dismiss Ian since he has a financial stake.
Not logically connected, though the second part would have to be correct if overstated. To disagree is not to dismiss, that polarizes the issue.
Well, just Love coins, period.
Needless semantic debate. To disagree, in general, is not to dismiss. To look at a single, possibly bad photo, and not give deference to the three people who have seen it in hand is, to my mind, dismissive. However, changing the word to something else doesn't change my main point: PCGS and CAC are objective opinions while Ian could be seen as having a subjective opinion. [For the record, I think Ian is generally a straight shooter]
Definitely a Wow coin! It’s going for $150k trumps it all.
A general statement to assist with living a joyful life:
"You don't have to blow out someone else's candle to make yours shine brighter."
A general statement relative to this coin board:
"You don't have to mock someone else's coin to make yours shine brighter."
peacockcoins
I understand that value is driven by the two companies with their names and opinions on the coin. After all they are the experts, most of us are not. To the people that bid this coin up to the price they did, they must of agreed with all facets of the coin to pay what they did. If you don't agree, that's okay. I don't agree on the price for this coin (I wouldn't pay $150 for this coin), but my opinion is not an expert opinion. It's solely based on me not liking the toning on this coin (or any other coin that's toned), it's not based on the grade of the coin. I value PCGS and CAC's opinion, that's why I pay up for them when their opinions are on a coin that I personally like the look of.
Donato
Donato's Complete US Type Set ---- Donato's Dansco 7070 Modified Type Set ---- Donato's Basic U.S. Coin Design Set
Successful transactions: Shrub68 (Jim), MWallace (Mike)
I agree with all of that.
Really, the people who want to change the grade on the coin are asking the wrong question. The real question is, regardless of the number, is that the FINEST. You want to call that 67, then all the lesser coins are 66s. If you want to call that a 68, then all the lesser coins are 67s. But is there a coin with a lower number that is superior? If not, it is THE FINEST. Period.
I guarantee you that whomever saw and bought that 1892 Nickel did not pay anywhere close to retail for said coin. My point is that the best of the best almost always get it right. But sometimes they don't. If you want to buy a coin because a grading service says X and JA beans it, without looking at it yourself, be my guest.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
There is a sight unseen price based on just that combination.
One major problem is that in the case of most coins, very few people are in a position to be able to rank them.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
It may not be necessary to change the grades on the other coins. The issue is whether this coin merits the 68 grade.
And even if they could, they might not agree on the ranking!
I saw the short set Lulu collection of walking liberty halves before they sold at Stacks Bower’s recently. My favorite coin in that set was the 1944 MS68 CAC. Having seen the 1946 MS68 CAC that sold last night, the 1944 is rivaled in my opinion. Having seen many incredible walkers in hand, this 1946 is one of the best I’ve ever seen, if not the best.
And which of these people are in a position to grade this coin from a single image?
OY VEY this one never stops.
The one with the fattest wallet 😉
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
And once the TV pops up, it'll start over again.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
Did I somehow give you the impression that I thought anyone was in such a position?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I understand that value is driven by the two companies with their names and opinions on the coin. After all, they are the experts. Most of us are not. To the people that bid this coin up to the price they did, they must have agreed with all facets of the coin to pay what they did. If you disagree, that's okay. I disagree with the price for this coin I wouldn't pay $150 for this coin but my opinion is not an expert opinion. It's solely based on me not liking the toning on this coin (or any other coin that's toned). It's not based on the grade of the coin. I value PCGS and CAC's opinion. That's why I pay up for them when their opinions are on a coin that I personally like the look of.
Donato
jmlanzaf:
Really, the people who want to change the grade on the coin are asking the wrong question. The real question is, regardless of the number, is that the FINEST. You want to call that 67; then all the lesser coins are 66s. If you want to call that a 68, then all the lesser coins are 67s. But is there a coin with a lower number that is superior? If not, it is THE FINEST. Period.
You had me right up to this part of the argument. jmlanzaf- you honestly value this one under $150.00?
peacockcoins
No. Did I somehow give the impression that I thought any of these people were in a position to rank all the 67s and 68s?
I just suggested they were asking the wrong question trying to nitpick it down to a 67.
sorry, no. I wasn't agreeing with that particular price point. I was just agreeing with his right to not like the coin.
I think it is a $150,000 coin and it was proven last night!
[I never argue with the market. 2 people felt it was worth $140,000+ and so it is.]
Ah, I felt scared!
More times than not, I'm ready to write an opinion, whereas I see you have voiced it for me.
peacockcoins
Well, for the love of all that is Holy, lend some support! I'm getting killed in here.
True, mostly relevant story:
I've wanted a nice Fugio cent for quite a while. I'm also...er...frugal. And somewhat fussy. So many Fugios have planchet defects and the like. It seems like every time I find one with a nice planchet it is worn down or weakly struck and every time I find a nicely struck one it has a distracting planchet flaw. As a result, I have been unable to pull the trigger on one even though I've looked at maybe a couple hundred over the last two years. None of them seemed worth the expense TO ME. All of them sold for fair market value in open auctions. I would not quibble with the price that any of them achieved. But none of them were the right coin for me.
I think that's the issue here. People don't like the "milky toning" or the "dark spots" or some minor flaw. But rather than just say, nice coin but not for me, they are trying to prove the coin somehow unworthy.
One of a number of things I’ve preached more than a few times😉 - Just because, for whatever reason, someone doesn’t like a particular coin, doesn’t necessarily mean it’s over-graded.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Agreed...or over-priced. It's just not the coin for you.
Like I mentioned earlier, "In my IMO the coin speaks for itself".
Whoever bought this coin obviously has the financial resources and THE passion for the Walking Liberty Halves.
True. Just as true is just because someone thinks a coin is over graded doesn’t mean they don’t like the coin.
What I’ve tried to do is point out technological aspects seen in the photographs that in my opinion would prevent the coin from getting the 68 grade. The contact mark in the sun, the spots around the word “IN”, the milky appears of some of the toning and the dark areas on the left wing on the reverse disqualify the coin from receiving that grade.
Actually I think that’s one of the purpose of these thread, discussing why or why not is worthy of a grade. I don’t think the purpose is supposed to be a fanboy pile on but an objective discussion of grading. None of the criticism is personal. It’s technical aspects of what are perceived flaws that would prohibit a coin from receiving a particular grade.
PCGS and CAC didn't see in hand what you see in the photo?
Well, if you want that to be a valuable exercise, you would be better served trying to see why that coin is a 68. Quite frankly, The Market is PCGS/CAC not any individual on this forum. Applying your own standard does nothing to advance your understanding of the slabbed coin market.
For the record, here's the PCGS photograde plate coins for MS68
The above coin appears to have used a totally different set of camera equipment, lighting, and probably meta-data, filters, and other items, than the 1946 coin under discussion.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
Straw man argument. I never claimed my opinion made the market. My opinion is based on my knowledge of grading standards. If the grading stands say “no contact marks” in a prime focal area it means no contact marks. The spots around the word “IN” are in a prime focal area. Beyond that you have the milky toning and dark areas on the left wing. These issues aren’t my subjective opinion. They are shown in the photographs of the coin. You don’t minimize them by trying to ridicule me. As for who pays what for a coin that’s a total different conversation.
When did I ever "ridicule" you. I simply feel you are starting with the wrong bias. You feel you should be trying to figure out why the CAC 68 isn't really a 68. I simply said (and repeat) that the exercise should be to figure out why two very respected independent evaluators both feel it is a solid 68.
Is there the occasional miss? Sure. But the number of PCGS/CAC coins that are in the wrong holder is a tiny percentage of the number that are in the right holder. Everyone who has seen the coin in hand is convinced that it is a 68. You have to dismiss all those opinions in favor of one picture which may not be representative.
I'm sure. [Not so sure about the meta-data????] The OP is a GC image, the 1939 coin is a PCGS image.
I’m not trying to figure out anything. I’m stating what I see in the PHOTOGRAPHS of the coins and comparing that to MY UNDERSTANDING of what constitutes an MS-68 coin. My understanding of the grading indicates no contact marks in a prime focal area. I’d extend that to any distracting mark (spots would qualify) in a prime focal area. The darkened areas on the reverse would qualify. By definition an MS-68 coin should have blazing luster. Those marks don’t get counted out based on the luster of the coin. The milky hazy that shows through in the PICTURES of the coin would also merit as a distraction.
As for value, the current buyer announced his/her opinion of the value. Everyone else that didn’t agree with that opinion bowed out of the bidding. In my opinion the differences between any properly grade 67 and 68 coins are not worth a 10x or 20x premium but that’s just me. By definition those differences are minor, usually relegated to a few contact marks or a lighter strike.
We can agree to disagree. But, again, the coin is a 68 based on all evidence and two respected opinions. So, respectfully, I still think you should consider why that coin is a 68 and how that might improve your understanding of what constitutes a 68 in the marketplace.
Likely more than two, as PCGS uses multiple graders. And those opinions are based on having held the coin in hand, not just looking at an image on the internet.
True. But the big thing to me is the second independent review. It CAC'ed which means JA doesn't even think it's a close call on the 68. That makes it very unlikely (not impossible) that the evaluation is incorrect. So, I really think the exercise should be to try and understand why it is a 68 - if you want to do too much second guessing off a photo.
I would like to see it from different angles and in hand. I would bet money that the mark in the sun is just a luster break. I would also bet those two spots near "IN" are actually much lighter in color. I would also bet that the hazy toning is lighter in color also.
That coin is gorgeous!
Again you’re missing the point. I’m talking about the coin AS PHOTOGRAPHED. That image has flaws that prevent it from being classified as MS-68. If those flaws are actually on the coin I don’t care what PCGS or CAC called it doesn’t meet the standards of an MS-68 coin. If you don’t agree and the buyer doesn’t agree that’s your prerogative. Either those flaws are on the coin (as soon in the photographs) or they’re not. I can read the standards for a 68 coin. It doesn’t matter what other coins were graded 68 prior that had similar flaws. Either the coin meets the standards or it doesn’t. Referring to the pictures. Do you see the contact make in the sun? Do you see the spots around the word “IN”? Do you see the milky haze around the coin? Do you see the darkened surface on the reverse of the coin? Either these things don’t exist on the actual coin OR by definition, the definition of a 68 coin, you have to ignore some of them to give this a coin a 68 grade.
Rant over.
All I see in the photograph of the subject coin is the desire to see a good photograph of the subject coin.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
I'm not missing anything. Yes you're talking about the picture.
But here's the thing: if what you see actually is in the coin, it is still a 68. The two most respected voices are that it is a68 and per CAC a solid 68.
Last time I checked MS70 was perfect and NOT MS68. If that coin was graded 67 you'd be hearing a different kind of rant.
Eye appeal is a major part of the grade and this one is the definition.
Grading by picture has always been a fools errand
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Maybe so but there are distinct characteristics you can see in the pic that tells me this one is a screamer.
Check out Coin Facts' 67+'s and then look at this one again.
Whenever a True Viwe photo of the half dollar is posted I expect to see multiple replies to this thread that state in summary that:
"One cannot properly assess and evaluate the coin from a True View photo (i.e
because it is a glamour shot; and/or you cannot see hairlines in a photo), thus the 68 grade is doubtful".
I agree it looks to be a magnificent coin. I was referring to technical grading based on a flat blown up image.
The most beautiful women in the world look near flawless until you're two inches away with a magnifying glass. A coin in hand has a different orientation and presence then that of a blown up one dimensional image. Grades are given in hand not on pics especially marginal ones
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......