@Justacommeman said:
I miss this lady. It was part of my set
m
Oh no!!!! Is that a disturbing looking speck above the IN on the obverse??? And that spot between the eagles legs??? Oh my!
No better than a 65 in my book.
And even the scuff on the sun (which I missed on my initial viewing) is lighter in this photo.
Pretty, but by definition, only one bidder was willing to pay the top price.
I think that "market price" is a misnomer. Market price, say $8.99 for shrimp, is what the market (many people) are willing to pay. "Top price" is much more accurate. You can't always achieve "top price" and it can vary greatly at different times and venues but market price tends to be more stable, supported by many transactions which constitutes the "market".
Only one bidder was willing to pay the top price, so calling this market price is misleading as there isn't a "market" at this price. Of course, there was only one coin available, another reason why there really isn't a "market" for an item like this. A single item does not make a market. It's like taking the average of one number.
Collector and dealer in obsolete currency. Always buying all obsolete bank notes and scrip.
@sellitstore said:
And even the scuff on the sun (which I missed on my initial viewing) is lighter in this photo.
Pretty, but by definition, only one bidder was willing to pay the top price.
I think that "market price" is a misnomer. Market price, say $8.99 for shrimp, is what the market (many people) are willing to pay. "Top price" is much more accurate. You can't always achieve "top price" and it can vary greatly at different times and venues but market price tends to be more stable, supported by many transactions which constitutes the "market".
Only one bidder was willing to pay the top price, so calling this market price is misleading as there isn't a "market" at this price. Of course, there was only one coin available, another reason why there really isn't a "market" for an item like this. A single item does not make a market. It's like taking the average of one number.
"Price realized" should work.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Had this picture been available at the start of this thread, I wonder how the course of discussion would have changed. Yeah, there are a couple tiny ticks visible on the leg, but luster, color, and eye appeal are off the charts, with both sides matching in this respect. The picture is a bit contrasty, and there is a little detail lost in highlights and shadows, but the contrast is hitting home just how flashy this coin is.
Had this picture been available at the start of this thread, I wonder how the course of discussion would have changed. Yeah, there are a couple tiny ticks visible on the leg, but luster, color, and eye appeal are off the charts, with both sides matching in this respect. The picture is a bit contrasty, and there is a little detail lost in highlights and shadows, but the contrast is hitting home just how flashy this coin is.
I actually think the Trueview makes the coin look "worse" than the auction picture, with the scuffs on the middle of Miss Liberty and the disturbance or debris above "IN" of "In God We Trust". So really only those who have seen it in-hand can authoritatively assess whether it merits a 68, including PCGS, CAC, and GC. I would think the new owner (or his/her proxy) would have viewed it in-hand as well before bidding.
Now that two photos of the coin are present in this thread, for those forumites who do not agree that the coin warrants a 68 grade what grade would you give the coin (presuming you would give a grade opinion based on two photos without seeing the coin in hand)?
@sellitstore said:
And even the scuff on the sun (which I missed on my initial viewing) is lighter in this photo.
Pretty, but by definition, only one bidder was willing to pay the top price.
I think that "market price" is a misnomer. Market price, say $8.99 for shrimp, is what the market (many people) are willing to pay. "Top price" is much more accurate. You can't always achieve "top price" and it can vary greatly at different times and venues but market price tends to be more stable, supported by many transactions which constitutes the "market".
Only one bidder was willing to pay the top price, so calling this market price is misleading as there isn't a "market" at this price. Of course, there was only one coin available, another reason why there really isn't a "market" for an item like this. A single item does not make a market. It's like taking the average of one number.
Using your logic, no auction price could ever be used as the market price.
@tradedollarnut said:
Interesting the contrast in reactions to the two coins.
Correct. The previous owner tried several times for a 68+ which would have been a game changer. To me those marks "limited" it to a 68 all day everyday. Especially the most central "circle". Laura may have tried to upgrade when I auctioned this through you guys.
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......
@Gazes said: “ Using your logic, no auction price could ever be used as the market price.”
I don’t think that @sellitstore is quite saying that. He is saying that the term “market price” is hard to apply to unique items or even more common items based on a single sale.
I agree with sellitstore on this point, though I’d also observe that it would be ok to say that this WLH changed hands at “fair market value” or that the transaction gives us some indicative market value for assessing the value of the coin. Also, as @MFeld said, “price realized” should not be controversial!
@sellitstore said:
And even the scuff on the sun (which I missed on my initial viewing) is lighter in this photo.
Pretty, but by definition, only one bidder was willing to pay the top price.
I think that "market price" is a misnomer. Market price, say $8.99 for shrimp, is what the market (many people) are willing to pay. "Top price" is much more accurate. You can't always achieve "top price" and it can vary greatly at different times and venues but market price tends to be more stable, supported by many transactions which constitutes the "market".
Only one bidder was willing to pay the top price, so calling this market price is misleading as there isn't a "market" at this price. Of course, there was only one coin available, another reason why there really isn't a "market" for an item like this. A single item does not make a market. It's like taking the average of one number.
Using your logic, no auction price could ever be used as the market price.
It's a meaningless semantic debate. Whether we call it "top price" [there was a 2nd bidder one increment lower, by the way] or "price realized" or "market price" or "today's auction highlight" doesn't really matter, does it?
Of course, there is no price guide for coins such as this that is meaningful because they are so scarce and trade so infrequently. But if an open auction with multiple bidders does not set the "market value" [at least for today] then all 6 figure coins and many 5 figure coins just need to have TBD listed as their value.
Unless I’m mistaken all of the comments made in this tread have been made by people that haven’t seen the coin. The photographs are all we have to comment on. As for PCGS and CAC, while I respect their expertise if they graded the coin with the flaws AS SEEN IN THE PHOTOGRAPH as a 68 in my opinion that grade doesn’t line up with the ANA specifications for that grade.
Nowhere does PCGS state they grade to ANA standards. They grade to PCGS standards. Literally.
You can't read an ANA grading guide, count tic marks, and say PCGS and CAC got it wrong.
PCGS standards for a 68 are "a few tiny imperfections barely visible". The contact mark in the sun, spots around the word "IN", milky haze and darkened areas on the left wing are NOT tiny imperfections barely visible.
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
@sellitstore said:
And even the scuff on the sun (which I missed on my initial viewing) is lighter in this photo.
Pretty, but by definition, only one bidder was willing to pay the top price.
I think that "market price" is a misnomer. Market price, say $8.99 for shrimp, is what the market (many people) are willing to pay. "Top price" is much more accurate. You can't always achieve "top price" and it can vary greatly at different times and venues but market price tends to be more stable, supported by many transactions which constitutes the "market".
Only one bidder was willing to pay the top price, so calling this market price is misleading as there isn't a "market" at this price. Of course, there was only one coin available, another reason why there really isn't a "market" for an item like this. A single item does not make a market. It's like taking the average of one number.
Using your logic, no auction price could ever be used as the market price.
It's a meaningless semantic debate. Whether we call it "top price" [there was a 2nd bidder one increment lower, by the way] or "price realized" or "market price" or "today's auction highlight" doesn't really matter, does it?
Of course, there is no price guide for coins such as this that is meaningful because they are so scarce and trade so infrequently. But if an open auction with multiple bidders does not set the "market value" [at least for today] then all 6 figure coins and many 5 figure coins just need to have TBD listed as their value.
I disagree. In most instances, terms such as "market value" are ambiguous/subject to debate, while "price realized" is not.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@sellitstore said:
And even the scuff on the sun (which I missed on my initial viewing) is lighter in this photo.
Pretty, but by definition, only one bidder was willing to pay the top price.
I think that "market price" is a misnomer. Market price, say $8.99 for shrimp, is what the market (many people) are willing to pay. "Top price" is much more accurate. You can't always achieve "top price" and it can vary greatly at different times and venues but market price tends to be more stable, supported by many transactions which constitutes the "market".
Only one bidder was willing to pay the top price, so calling this market price is misleading as there isn't a "market" at this price. Of course, there was only one coin available, another reason why there really isn't a "market" for an item like this. A single item does not make a market. It's like taking the average of one number.
Using your logic, no auction price could ever be used as the market price.
It's a meaningless semantic debate. Whether we call it "top price" [there was a 2nd bidder one increment lower, by the way] or "price realized" or "market price" or "today's auction highlight" doesn't really matter, does it?
Of course, there is no price guide for coins such as this that is meaningful because they are so scarce and trade so infrequently. But if an open auction with multiple bidders does not set the "market value" [at least for today] then all 6 figure coins and many 5 figure coins just need to have TBD listed as their value.
I disagree. In most instances, terms such as "market value" are ambiguous/subject to debate, while "price realized" is not.
Price realized is less ambiguous. It doesn't imply anything about the actual value of the coin. I agree.
However, if I were trying to price a similar coin, I want to create a value estimate not just a historical reference. So, prices realized do get used to create value estimates. So, call it "suggested retail price" or "estimated market value" or whatever you want, but the debate was over whether that coin is worth $100k+. If you call it "price realized" it is essentially a "no comment" on the actual value.
@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.
@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 mistake you are making with the sun contact mark, is coin photography often picks up a very tiny mark and make it seem a lot worse than when viewed in hand. I own a beautiful ms 65 walker with a minimal tiny cut on libertys arm when viewed in hand, but when I photographed it with my camera it looks like a gouge that is unattractive!. But in reality it is close to a 66 or maybe it’s undergraded.
I understand what you're saying but I'm not in a position to assume anything with respect to what might be. I'm limited to what I can actually see in the photographs. I've taken plenty of photographs of coins and realize the limitations. Even with the best equipment and lighting it's very difficult to capture in 2D a 3D object. I'm approaching this with the idea that details you see in the photographs are actually presented as seen on the coin and saying that if those imperfections are actually on the coin the 68 grade is an overgrade based the ANA and PCGS standards I've referenced.
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
This thread has just highlighted the difference between those who grade using technical standards and how PCGS market grades. These two approaches do not always align for some coins at the very highest level like this one, either can be right or wrong depending on each individual's likes and desires. But for now the market has spoken and the price paid is the value right now, up or down in the future is impossible to know, but I'm sure that if this returns to the auction stage again soon there will be much to be said.
The one constant is that this is a very beautiful walker with a ton of flash. I'm sure that the new owner is happy with the auction result and will enjoy owning this coin, I know I would.
@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.
Unless I’m mistaken all of the comments made in this tread have been made by people that haven’t seen the coin. The photographs are all we have to comment on. As for PCGS and CAC, while I respect their expertise if they graded the coin with the flaws AS SEEN IN THE PHOTOGRAPH as a 68 in my opinion that grade doesn’t line up with the ANA specifications for that grade.
Ian Russell saw it and commented earlier in the thread and also agreed.
ANA specifications are less important than PCGS specifications in the marketplace.
Has Ian Russell said the spots shown in the photographs are actually not on the coin? Has he said the contact mark in the sun isn't really there? Has he said the darkened areas on the left wing aren't present? Has he confirmed that done of what appears to be milky haze in the coin isn't really present?
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.
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.
@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 mistake you are making with the sun contact mark, is coin photography often picks up a very tiny mark and make it seem a lot worse than when viewed in hand. I own a beautiful ms 65 walker with a minimal tiny cut on libertys arm when viewed in hand, but when I photographed it with my camera it looks like a gouge that is unattractive!. But in reality it is close to a 66 or maybe it’s undergraded.
I understand what you're saying but I'm not in a position to assume anything with respect to what might be. I'm limited to what I can actually see in the photographs. I've taken plenty of photographs of coins and realize the limitations. Even with the best equipment and lighting it's very difficult to capture in 2D a 3D object. I'm approaching this with the idea that details you see in the photographs are actually presented as seen on the coin and saying that if those imperfections are actually on the coin the 68 grade is an overgrade based the ANA and PCGS standards I've referenced.
You actually have the hubris to say that PCGS doesn't understand its own standards?
@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.
Unless I’m mistaken all of the comments made in this tread have been made by people that haven’t seen the coin. The photographs are all we have to comment on. As for PCGS and CAC, while I respect their expertise if they graded the coin with the flaws AS SEEN IN THE PHOTOGRAPH as a 68 in my opinion that grade doesn’t line up with the ANA specifications for that grade.
Ian Russell saw it and commented earlier in the thread and also agreed.
ANA specifications are less important than PCGS specifications in the marketplace.
Has Ian Russell said the spots shown in the photographs are actually not on the coin? Has he said the contact mark in the sun isn't really there? Has he said the darkened areas on the left wing aren't present? Has he confirmed that done of what appears to be milky haze in the coin isn't really present?
Unless I’m mistaken all of the comments made in this tread have been made by people that haven’t seen the coin. The photographs are all we have to comment on. As for PCGS and CAC, while I respect their expertise if they graded the coin with the flaws AS SEEN IN THE PHOTOGRAPH as a 68 in my opinion that grade doesn’t line up with the ANA specifications for that grade.
Nowhere does PCGS state they grade to ANA standards. They grade to PCGS standards. Literally.
You can't read an ANA grading guide, count tic marks, and say PCGS and CAC got it wrong.
PCGS standards for a 68 are "a few tiny imperfections barely visible". The contact mark in the sun, spots around the word "IN", milky haze and darkened areas on the left wing are NOT tiny imperfections barely visible.
I don't think it's nearly as cut and dried as you make it sound.
You're looking at enlarged images, not the coin, and as a result, the flaws are being magnified, significantly.
Not having viewed the coin in hand, some of us aren't certain that the "contact mark" on the sun is, in fact, a contact mark.
The "milky haze" doesn't detract, as far as I'm concerned.
The "darkened areas on the left wing" don't either. And for all I know, that's a lighting issue.
Please define "tiny" and "barely visible" as they apply to the standards for an MS68 coin.
Also, in the event that you're unfamiliar with my posts, I'm far from a Kool-Aid drinker.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
As for PCGS and CAC, while I respect their expertise if they graded the coin with the flaws AS SEEN IN THE PHOTOGRAPH as a 68 in my opinion that grade doesn’t line up with the ANA specifications for that grade.
It's possible the coin doesn't line up with NGC specifications, either. But seeing as how it was graded by PCGS, it's PCGS's specifications that you need to be looking at.
I did look at the PCGS grading guide for MS-68 and they aren't much different than the ANA. Basically no marks (according PCGS a few tiny, barely visible imperfections). The imperfections note are visible without magnification and are in focal areas.
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:
I did look at the PCGS grading guide for MS-68 and they aren't much different than the ANA. Basically no marks (according PCGS a few tiny, barely visible imperfections).
"No marks" vs. a "few marks"? Ok. How does PCGS define and interpret "tiny, barely visible imperfections" when they grade?
@pmh1nic said:
The imperfections note are visible without magnification...
Unless I’m mistaken all of the comments made in this tread have been made by people that haven’t seen the coin. The photographs are all we have to comment on. As for PCGS and CAC, while I respect their expertise if they graded the coin with the flaws AS SEEN IN THE PHOTOGRAPH as a 68 in my opinion that grade doesn’t line up with the ANA specifications for that grade.
Nowhere does PCGS state they grade to ANA standards. They grade to PCGS standards. Literally.
You can't read an ANA grading guide, count tic marks, and say PCGS and CAC got it wrong.
PCGS standards for a 68 are "a few tiny imperfections barely visible". The contact mark in the sun, spots around the word "IN", milky haze and darkened areas on the left wing are NOT tiny imperfections barely visible.
I don't think it's nearly as cut and dried as you make it sound.
You're looking at enlarged images, not the coin, and as a result, the flaws are being magnified, significantly.
Not having viewed the coin in hand, some of us aren't certain that the "contact mark" on the sun is, in fact, a contact mark.
The "milky haze" doesn't detract, as far as I'm concerned.
The "darkened areas on the left wing" don't either. And for all I know, that's a lighting issue.
Please define "tiny" and "barely visible" as they apply to the standards for an MS68 coin.
Also, in the event that you're unfamiliar with my posts, I'm far from a Kool-Aid drinker.
Your statement "for all I know" is making an assumption that what is seen in the photographs isn't actually on the coin. That's fine but I'm not making that assumption. You'll have to ask PCGS what they mean by tiny and barely visible. Those are their words not mine. The images in the OP appear to be 2x so not significant magnification and the contact mark, spots, haze and darkened areas on the left wing are far from barely visible.
But less assume these issues aren't actually on the coin. They are in the grand scheme of things minor imperfections. It seems the absence of these very minor imperfections raises the value of this coin from $10K-20K to $160K. I've seen some of the pictures posted of 67 coins. Amazing coins. The 16x premium seems like a lot of premium based on the absence of a few minor, barely perceptible imperfections.
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:
I did look at the PCGS grading guide for MS-68 and they aren't much different than the ANA. Basically no marks (according PCGS a few tiny, barely visible imperfections).
"No marks" vs. a "few marks"? Ok. How does PCGS define and interpret "tiny, barely visible imperfections" when they grade?
@pmh1nic said:
The imperfections note are visible without magnification...
You've seen the coin in person?
As mentioned, you'll have to ask PCGS what they mean by tiny and barely visible. Those are their words. The marks are clear visible under what appears to be 2x magnification. The haze and darkened on the reverse wings would be visible without any magnification.
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:
The 16x premium seems like a lot of premium based on the absence of a few minor, barely perceptible imperfections.
It would appear that the bidders in the auction did not share your assessment of value.
Yes, they are bidding at a totally different flight level than where I play. More power to them.
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
Unless I’m mistaken all of the comments made in this tread have been made by people that haven’t seen the coin. The photographs are all we have to comment on. As for PCGS and CAC, while I respect their expertise if they graded the coin with the flaws AS SEEN IN THE PHOTOGRAPH as a 68 in my opinion that grade doesn’t line up with the ANA specifications for that grade.
Nowhere does PCGS state they grade to ANA standards. They grade to PCGS standards. Literally.
You can't read an ANA grading guide, count tic marks, and say PCGS and CAC got it wrong.
PCGS standards for a 68 are "a few tiny imperfections barely visible". The contact mark in the sun, spots around the word "IN", milky haze and darkened areas on the left wing are NOT tiny imperfections barely visible.
I don't think it's nearly as cut and dried as you make it sound.
You're looking at enlarged images, not the coin, and as a result, the flaws are being magnified, significantly.
Not having viewed the coin in hand, some of us aren't certain that the "contact mark" on the sun is, in fact, a contact mark.
The "milky haze" doesn't detract, as far as I'm concerned.
The "darkened areas on the left wing" don't either. And for all I know, that's a lighting issue.
Please define "tiny" and "barely visible" as they apply to the standards for an MS68 coin.
Also, in the event that you're unfamiliar with my posts, I'm far from a Kool-Aid drinker.
Your statement "for all I know" is making an assumption that what is seen in the photographs isn't actually on the coin. That's fine but I'm not making that assumption. You'll have to ask PCGS what they mean by tiny and barely visible. Those are their words not mine. The images in the OP appear to be 2x so not significant magnification and the contact mark, spots, haze and darkened areas on the left wing are far from barely visible.
But less assume these issues aren't actually on the coin. They are in the grand scheme of things minor imperfections. It seems the absence of these very minor imperfections raises the value of this coin from $10K-20K to $160K. I've seen some of the pictures posted of 67 coins. Amazing coins. The 16x premium seems like a lot of premium based on the absence of a few minor, barely perceptible imperfections.
I didn't make an assumption. And it doesn't matter to me if it's a lighting issue or toning, because if it's the latter, I don't see it as a negative.
If you don't know what PCGS means by "tiny" and barely visible", how can you conclude that the grade of the coin is incorrect, based on their standards?
There's no doubt that the price paid represents "a lot of premium" over a coin of a lower grade. And it's up to each bidder to determine how much of a premium to bid.
I can't tell you how many times I've heard or seen bidders or bystanders comment that a price paid for a coin was crazy, insane, stupid or whatever. But that doesn't necessarily mean they were "right".
The words "for all I know" are used to emphasize you don't know something and therefore are making an assumption. Whether you see the milky hazy as a distraction is your choice but it wouldn't like up with the ANA standard of luster being "fully original". The words "tiny" and "barely" are far from being precise terminology and are indicative of the imprecision that is called coin grading.
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:
PCGS standards for a 68 are "a few tiny imperfections barely visible". The contact mark in the sun, spots around the word "IN", milky haze and darkened areas on the left wing are NOT tiny imperfections barely visible.
MFeld said:
I don't think it's nearly as cut and dried as you make it sound.
You're looking at enlarged images, not the coin, and as a result, the flaws are being magnified, significantly.
Not having viewed the coin in hand, some of us aren't certain that the "contact mark" on the sun is, in fact, a contact mark.
The "milky haze" doesn't detract, as far as I'm concerned.
The "darkened areas on the left wing" don't either. And for all I know, that's a lighting issue.
Please define "tiny" and "barely visible" as they apply to the standards for an MS68 coin.
Also, in the event that you're unfamiliar with my posts, I'm far from a Kool-Aid drinker.
pmh1nic said:
Your statement "for all I know" is making an assumption that what is seen in the photographs isn't actually on the coin. That's fine but I'm not making that assumption. You'll have to ask PCGS what they mean by tiny and barely visible. Those are their words not mine. The images in the OP appear to be 2x so not significant magnification and the contact mark, spots, haze and darkened areas on the left wing are far from barely visible.
But less assume these issues aren't actually on the coin. They are in the grand scheme of things minor imperfections. It seems the absence of these very minor imperfections raises the value of this coin from $10K-20K to $160K. I've seen some of the pictures posted of 67 coins. Amazing coins. The 16x premium seems like a lot of premium based on the absence of a few minor, barely perceptible imperfections.
MFeld said:
I didn't make an assumption. Even if the "darkened areas" are toning, I don't see them as a negative.
If you don't know what PCGS means by "tiny" and barely visible" how can you conclude that they didn't grade the coin according to their standards?
Yes, the premium paid was "a lot of premium" over the price of a lower grad example. It's up to each bidder to decide what amount of premium, if any, to bid on a given coin and most everyone draws the line in a different place.
I can't tell you how many times I've heard a bidder or complete bystander state that a price realized for a particular coin was crazy, stupid, etc. But that doesn't necessarily mean they were "right".
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@Baley said:
The Fact that eye appeal can sometimes more than make up for marks is often a difficult concept to grasp.
Not really that difficult to understand. Any coin that gets a 68 grade by definition has to have an excellent strike and amazing luster. It's going to have tremendous eye appeal. What separates a 67 from a 68 are contact marks, spots and anything that detracts from the luster of the coin. If you wanted to go to the extreme no toned coin could receive the 68 grade because at least according to the ANA standards the grade requires a coin having fully original mint luster. The picture shows a coin with a contact mark in a prime focal area, spots in a prime focal area, an aspect of toning I don't find appealing and darkened areas on the eagle's wing on the reverse.
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
@Baley said:
The Fact that eye appeal can sometimes more than make up for marks is often a difficult concept to grasp.
Not really that difficult to understand. Any coin that gets a 68 grade by definition has to have an excellent strike and amazing luster. It's going to have tremendous eye appeal. What separates a 67 from a 68 are contact marks, spots and anything that detracts from the luster of the coin. If you wanted to go to the extreme no toned coin could receive the 68 grade because at least according to the ANA standards the grade requires a coin having fully original mint luster. The picture shows a coin with a contact mark in a prime focal area, spots in a prime focal area, an aspect of toning I don't find appealing and darkened areas on the eagle's wing on the reverse.
Here's a question: why can't a toned coin have full original mint luster? Luster is not a color.
Unless I’m mistaken all of the comments made in this tread have been made by people that haven’t seen the coin. The photographs are all we have to comment on. As for PCGS and CAC, while I respect their expertise if they graded the coin with the flaws AS SEEN IN THE PHOTOGRAPH as a 68 in my opinion that grade doesn’t line up with the ANA specifications for that grade.
Nowhere does PCGS state they grade to ANA standards. They grade to PCGS standards. Literally.
You can't read an ANA grading guide, count tic marks, and say PCGS and CAC got it wrong.
PCGS standards for a 68 are "a few tiny imperfections barely visible". The contact mark in the sun, spots around the word "IN", milky haze and darkened areas on the left wing are NOT tiny imperfections barely visible.
Toning isn't an imperfection. This spots near "IN" are not imperfections.
@pmh1nic said:
I did look at the PCGS grading guide for MS-68 and they aren't much different than the ANA. Basically no marks (according PCGS a few tiny, barely visible imperfections).
"No marks" vs. a "few marks"? Ok. How does PCGS define and interpret "tiny, barely visible imperfections" when they grade?
@pmh1nic said:
The imperfections note are visible without magnification...
You've seen the coin in person?
As mentioned, you'll have to ask PCGS what they mean by tiny and barely visible. Those are their words. The marks are clear visible under what appears to be 2x magnification. The haze and darkened on the reverse wings would be visible without any magnification.
What about Marks coin, the toner, which is also a 68 CAC?
@Baley said:
The Fact that eye appeal can sometimes more than make up for marks is often a difficult concept to grasp.
Not really that difficult to understand. Any coin that gets a 68 grade by definition has to have an excellent strike and amazing luster. It's going to have tremendous eye appeal. What separates a 67 from a 68 are contact marks, spots and anything that detracts from the luster of the coin. If you wanted to go to the extreme no toned coin could receive the 68 grade because at least according to the ANA standards the grade requires a coin having fully original mint luster. The picture shows a coin with a contact mark in a prime focal area, spots in a prime focal area, an aspect of toning I don't find appealing and darkened areas on the eagle's wing on the reverse.
Here's a question: why can't a toned coin have full original mint luster? Luster is not a color.
The ANA description regard luster for an MS-68 coin is "fully original". Toning is not the original state of the coins luster when it was originally struck. A chemical transformation has occurred. It might be a beautiful transformation but it's not the original luster.
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
@Baley said:
The Fact that eye appeal can sometimes more than make up for marks is often a difficult concept to grasp.
Not really that difficult to understand. Any coin that gets a 68 grade by definition has to have an excellent strike and amazing luster. It's going to have tremendous eye appeal. What separates a 67 from a 68 are contact marks, spots and anything that detracts from the luster of the coin. If you wanted to go to the extreme no toned coin could receive the 68 grade because at least according to the ANA standards the grade requires a coin having fully original mint luster. The picture shows a coin with a contact mark in a prime focal area, spots in a prime focal area, an aspect of toning I don't find appealing and darkened areas on the eagle's wing on the reverse.
Here's a question: why can't a toned coin have full original mint luster? Luster is not a color.
The ANA description regard luster for an MS-68 coin is "fully original". Toning is not the original state of the coins luster when it was originally struck. A chemical transformation has occurred. It might be a beautiful transformation but it's not the original luster.
Then you truly don't understand the grading guidelines. I dare say most 68s are toned in some way. "Original" means not doctored. It doesn't typically mean "not toned".
Look at the rainbow toned walker in the 68 CAC holder displayed in this thread. Look at the PCGS photograde coin on their website. Not blast white.
Unless I’m mistaken all of the comments made in this tread have been made by people that haven’t seen the coin. The photographs are all we have to comment on. As for PCGS and CAC, while I respect their expertise if they graded the coin with the flaws AS SEEN IN THE PHOTOGRAPH as a 68 in my opinion that grade doesn’t line up with the ANA specifications for that grade.
Nowhere does PCGS state they grade to ANA standards. They grade to PCGS standards. Literally.
You can't read an ANA grading guide, count tic marks, and say PCGS and CAC got it wrong.
PCGS standards for a 68 are "a few tiny imperfections barely visible". The contact mark in the sun, spots around the word "IN", milky haze and darkened areas on the left wing are NOT tiny imperfections barely visible.
Toning isn't an imperfection. This spots near "IN" are not imperfections.
Have you looked at the True View?
Toning is an alteration of the coins original surfaces. The spots are imperfections that in that they were not the original condition of the coin when struck. They are alterations and imperfections that have developed over time. They are a distraction. I haven't seen the true view and regarding this discussion seeing the true view is non sequitur. The discussion has been about the coin as seen in the photographs in the OP.
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
@Baley said:
The Fact that eye appeal can sometimes more than make up for marks is often a difficult concept to grasp.
Not really that difficult to understand. Any coin that gets a 68 grade by definition has to have an excellent strike and amazing luster. It's going to have tremendous eye appeal. What separates a 67 from a 68 are contact marks, spots and anything that detracts from the luster of the coin. If you wanted to go to the extreme no toned coin could receive the 68 grade because at least according to the ANA standards the grade requires a coin having fully original mint luster. The picture shows a coin with a contact mark in a prime focal area, spots in a prime focal area, an aspect of toning I don't find appealing and darkened areas on the eagle's wing on the reverse.
Here's a question: why can't a toned coin have full original mint luster? Luster is not a color.
The ANA description regard luster for an MS-68 coin is "fully original". Toning is not the original state of the coins luster when it was originally struck. A chemical transformation has occurred. It might be a beautiful transformation but it's not the original luster.
@Baley said:
The Fact that eye appeal can sometimes more than make up for marks is often a difficult concept to grasp.
Not really that difficult to understand. Any coin that gets a 68 grade by definition has to have an excellent strike and amazing luster. It's going to have tremendous eye appeal. What separates a 67 from a 68 are contact marks, spots and anything that detracts from the luster of the coin. If you wanted to go to the extreme no toned coin could receive the 68 grade because at least according to the ANA standards the grade requires a coin having fully original mint luster. The picture shows a coin with a contact mark in a prime focal area, spots in a prime focal area, an aspect of toning I don't find appealing and darkened areas on the eagle's wing on the reverse.
Here's a question: why can't a toned coin have full original mint luster? Luster is not a color.
The ANA description regard luster for an MS-68 coin is "fully original". Toning is not the original state of the coins luster when it was originally struck. A chemical transformation has occurred. It might be a beautiful transformation but it's not the original luster.
Under your interpretation, a coin with any degree of toning would be disqualified from a grade of 68 or higher. If that’s what the description actually means - and I don’t believe that it does - PCGS clearly hasn’t adopted it.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Dipping this coin would not result in a 68 or 69 coin, more likely 67 or 66.
A large part of the perceived grade/ value is that it's credible original untouched in-a- roll- for-decades surfaces. No one has tried to remove the spots, or thumb the sun, or otherwize futz with it.
The ANA description regard luster for an MS-68 coin is "fully original". Toning is not the original state of the coins luster when it was originally struck. A chemical transformation has occurred. It might be a beautiful transformation but it's not the original luster.
@Baley said:
The Fact that eye appeal can sometimes more than make up for marks is often a difficult concept to grasp.
Not really that difficult to understand. Any coin that gets a 68 grade by definition has to have an excellent strike and amazing luster. It's going to have tremendous eye appeal. What separates a 67 from a 68 are contact marks, spots and anything that detracts from the luster of the coin. If you wanted to go to the extreme no toned coin could receive the 68 grade because at least according to the ANA standards the grade requires a coin having fully original mint luster. The picture shows a coin with a contact mark in a prime focal area, spots in a prime focal area, an aspect of toning I don't find appealing and darkened areas on the eagle's wing on the reverse.
Here's a question: why can't a toned coin have full original mint luster? Luster is not a color.
The ANA description regard luster for an MS-68 coin is "fully original". Toning is not the original state of the coins luster when it was originally struck. A chemical transformation has occurred. It might be a beautiful transformation but it's not the original luster.
Under your interpretation, a coin with any degree of toning would be disqualified from a grade of 68 or higher. If that’s what the description actually means - and I don’t believe that it does - PCGS clearly hasn’t adopted it.
Not only have they not adopted it (has anyone?), but attractive toning can enhance the grade not detract from it.
Which brings me back to the more valuable exercise for those who don't think the coin is a 68 to stop and ask why PCGS and CAC say that it is. They don't have to apply the standard to their personal choices. But you can't understand the coin market unless you understand how the market leaders designate the grade.
Comments
To convince the rest of us that we should feel the same way. Or maybe> @daltex said:
Lol. Assuming the US digital currency doesn't arrive.
Oh no!!!! Is that a disturbing looking speck above the IN on the obverse??? And that spot between the eagles legs??? Oh my!
No better than a 65 in my book.
10-4,
My Instagram picturesErik
My registry sets
That’s a nice WLH!
And even the scuff on the sun (which I missed on my initial viewing) is lighter in this photo.
Pretty, but by definition, only one bidder was willing to pay the top price.
I think that "market price" is a misnomer. Market price, say $8.99 for shrimp, is what the market (many people) are willing to pay. "Top price" is much more accurate. You can't always achieve "top price" and it can vary greatly at different times and venues but market price tends to be more stable, supported by many transactions which constitutes the "market".
Only one bidder was willing to pay the top price, so calling this market price is misleading as there isn't a "market" at this price. Of course, there was only one coin available, another reason why there really isn't a "market" for an item like this. A single item does not make a market. It's like taking the average of one number.
"Price realized" should work.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Had this picture been available at the start of this thread, I wonder how the course of discussion would have changed. Yeah, there are a couple tiny ticks visible on the leg, but luster, color, and eye appeal are off the charts, with both sides matching in this respect. The picture is a bit contrasty, and there is a little detail lost in highlights and shadows, but the contrast is hitting home just how flashy this coin is.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
I actually think the Trueview makes the coin look "worse" than the auction picture, with the scuffs on the middle of Miss Liberty and the disturbance or debris above "IN" of "In God We Trust". So really only those who have seen it in-hand can authoritatively assess whether it merits a 68, including PCGS, CAC, and GC. I would think the new owner (or his/her proxy) would have viewed it in-hand as well before bidding.
Interesting the contrast in reactions to the two coins.
Now that two photos of the coin are present in this thread, for those forumites who do not agree that the coin warrants a 68 grade what grade would you give the coin (presuming you would give a grade opinion based on two photos without seeing the coin in hand)?
Using your logic, no auction price could ever be used as the market price.
Correct. The previous owner tried several times for a 68+ which would have been a game changer. To me those marks "limited" it to a 68 all day everyday. Especially the most central "circle". Laura may have tried to upgrade when I auctioned this through you guys.
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......
@Gazes said: “ Using your logic, no auction price could ever be used as the market price.”
I don’t think that @sellitstore is quite saying that. He is saying that the term “market price” is hard to apply to unique items or even more common items based on a single sale.
I agree with sellitstore on this point, though I’d also observe that it would be ok to say that this WLH changed hands at “fair market value” or that the transaction gives us some indicative market value for assessing the value of the coin. Also, as @MFeld said, “price realized” should not be controversial!
It's a meaningless semantic debate. Whether we call it "top price" [there was a 2nd bidder one increment lower, by the way] or "price realized" or "market price" or "today's auction highlight" doesn't really matter, does it?
Of course, there is no price guide for coins such as this that is meaningful because they are so scarce and trade so infrequently. But if an open auction with multiple bidders does not set the "market value" [at least for today] then all 6 figure coins and many 5 figure coins just need to have TBD listed as their value.
PCGS standards for a 68 are "a few tiny imperfections barely visible". The contact mark in the sun, spots around the word "IN", milky haze and darkened areas on the left wing are NOT tiny imperfections barely visible.
I disagree. In most instances, terms such as "market value" are ambiguous/subject to debate, while "price realized" is not.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Price realized is less ambiguous. It doesn't imply anything about the actual value of the coin. I agree.
However, if I were trying to price a similar coin, I want to create a value estimate not just a historical reference. So, prices realized do get used to create value estimates. So, call it "suggested retail price" or "estimated market value" or whatever you want, but the debate was over whether that coin is worth $100k+. If you call it "price realized" it is essentially a "no comment" on the actual value.
I understand what you're saying but I'm not in a position to assume anything with respect to what might be. I'm limited to what I can actually see in the photographs. I've taken plenty of photographs of coins and realize the limitations. Even with the best equipment and lighting it's very difficult to capture in 2D a 3D object. I'm approaching this with the idea that details you see in the photographs are actually presented as seen on the coin and saying that if those imperfections are actually on the coin the 68 grade is an overgrade based the ANA and PCGS standards I've referenced.
This thread has just highlighted the difference between those who grade using technical standards and how PCGS market grades. These two approaches do not always align for some coins at the very highest level like this one, either can be right or wrong depending on each individual's likes and desires. But for now the market has spoken and the price paid is the value right now, up or down in the future is impossible to know, but I'm sure that if this returns to the auction stage again soon there will be much to be said.
The one constant is that this is a very beautiful walker with a ton of flash. I'm sure that the new owner is happy with the auction result and will enjoy owning this coin, I know I would.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
Has Ian Russell said the spots shown in the photographs are actually not on the coin? Has he said the contact mark in the sun isn't really there? Has he said the darkened areas on the left wing aren't present? Has he confirmed that done of what appears to be milky haze in the coin isn't really present?
You actually have the hubris to say that PCGS doesn't understand its own standards?
Actually, look at the True View.
I don't think it's nearly as cut and dried as you make it sound.
You're looking at enlarged images, not the coin, and as a result, the flaws are being magnified, significantly.
Not having viewed the coin in hand, some of us aren't certain that the "contact mark" on the sun is, in fact, a contact mark.
The "milky haze" doesn't detract, as far as I'm concerned.
The "darkened areas on the left wing" don't either. And for all I know, that's a lighting issue.
Please define "tiny" and "barely visible" as they apply to the standards for an MS68 coin.
Also, in the event that you're unfamiliar with my posts, I'm far from a Kool-Aid drinker.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I did look at the PCGS grading guide for MS-68 and they aren't much different than the ANA. Basically no marks (according PCGS a few tiny, barely visible imperfections). The imperfections note are visible without magnification and are in focal areas.
"No marks" vs. a "few marks"? Ok. How does PCGS define and interpret "tiny, barely visible imperfections" when they grade?
You've seen the coin in person?
Grading remains subjective and there are better opinions than others.
This is an amazing coin that brought an equally amazing price.
Seems a Readers' Digest condensed summary was needed for those that tuned in late or just decided to tune out.
Its time to move on...
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Your statement "for all I know" is making an assumption that what is seen in the photographs isn't actually on the coin. That's fine but I'm not making that assumption. You'll have to ask PCGS what they mean by tiny and barely visible. Those are their words not mine. The images in the OP appear to be 2x so not significant magnification and the contact mark, spots, haze and darkened areas on the left wing are far from barely visible.
But less assume these issues aren't actually on the coin. They are in the grand scheme of things minor imperfections. It seems the absence of these very minor imperfections raises the value of this coin from $10K-20K to $160K. I've seen some of the pictures posted of 67 coins. Amazing coins. The 16x premium seems like a lot of premium based on the absence of a few minor, barely perceptible imperfections.
It would appear that the bidders in the auction did not share your assessment of value.
As mentioned, you'll have to ask PCGS what they mean by tiny and barely visible. Those are their words. The marks are clear visible under what appears to be 2x magnification. The haze and darkened on the reverse wings would be visible without any magnification.
Yes, they are bidding at a totally different flight level than where I play. More power to them.
The words "for all I know" are used to emphasize you don't know something and therefore are making an assumption. Whether you see the milky hazy as a distraction is your choice but it wouldn't like up with the ANA standard of luster being "fully original". The words "tiny" and "barely" are far from being precise terminology and are indicative of the imprecision that is called coin grading.
pmh1nic said:
PCGS standards for a 68 are "a few tiny imperfections barely visible". The contact mark in the sun, spots around the word "IN", milky haze and darkened areas on the left wing are NOT tiny imperfections barely visible.
MFeld said:
pmh1nic said:
MFeld said:
I didn't make an assumption. Even if the "darkened areas" are toning, I don't see them as a negative.
If you don't know what PCGS means by "tiny" and barely visible" how can you conclude that they didn't grade the coin according to their standards?
Yes, the premium paid was "a lot of premium" over the price of a lower grad example. It's up to each bidder to decide what amount of premium, if any, to bid on a given coin and most everyone draws the line in a different place.
I can't tell you how many times I've heard a bidder or complete bystander state that a price realized for a particular coin was crazy, stupid, etc. But that doesn't necessarily mean they were "right".
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
The Fact that eye appeal can sometimes more than make up for marks is often a difficult concept to grasp.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Not really that difficult to understand. Any coin that gets a 68 grade by definition has to have an excellent strike and amazing luster. It's going to have tremendous eye appeal. What separates a 67 from a 68 are contact marks, spots and anything that detracts from the luster of the coin. If you wanted to go to the extreme no toned coin could receive the 68 grade because at least according to the ANA standards the grade requires a coin having fully original mint luster. The picture shows a coin with a contact mark in a prime focal area, spots in a prime focal area, an aspect of toning I don't find appealing and darkened areas on the eagle's wing on the reverse.
Here's a question: why can't a toned coin have full original mint luster? Luster is not a color.
Toning isn't an imperfection. This spots near "IN" are not imperfections.
Have you looked at the True View?
What about Marks coin, the toner, which is also a 68 CAC?
The ANA description regard luster for an MS-68 coin is "fully original". Toning is not the original state of the coins luster when it was originally struck. A chemical transformation has occurred. It might be a beautiful transformation but it's not the original luster.
Then you truly don't understand the grading guidelines. I dare say most 68s are toned in some way. "Original" means not doctored. It doesn't typically mean "not toned".
Look at the rainbow toned walker in the 68 CAC holder displayed in this thread. Look at the PCGS photograde coin on their website. Not blast white.
https://pcgs.com/news/originality-and-toning
Toning is an alteration of the coins original surfaces. The spots are imperfections that in that they were not the original condition of the coin when struck. They are alterations and imperfections that have developed over time. They are a distraction. I haven't seen the true view and regarding this discussion seeing the true view is non sequitur. The discussion has been about the coin as seen in the photographs in the OP.
Also see the following
https://www.pcgs.com/eyeappeal
Under your interpretation, a coin with any degree of toning would be disqualified from a grade of 68 or higher. If that’s what the description actually means - and I don’t believe that it does - PCGS clearly hasn’t adopted it.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
From the ANA website:
Apparently, the ANA is okay with toning on MS67 coins.
Dipping this coin would not result in a 68 or 69 coin, more likely 67 or 66.
A large part of the perceived grade/ value is that it's credible original untouched in-a- roll- for-decades surfaces. No one has tried to remove the spots, or thumb the sun, or otherwize futz with it.
Agree or not, that's how it is.
Edit:imo
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
The ANA description regard luster for an MS-68 coin is "fully original". Toning is not the original state of the coins luster when it was originally struck. A chemical transformation has occurred. It might be a beautiful transformation but it's not the original luster.
Ok now this is just getting dumb
Not only have they not adopted it (has anyone?), but attractive toning can enhance the grade not detract from it.
Which brings me back to the more valuable exercise for those who don't think the coin is a 68 to stop and ask why PCGS and CAC say that it is. They don't have to apply the standard to their personal choices. But you can't understand the coin market unless you understand how the market leaders designate the grade.
YOU ADDED THAT!
Or we finally determined the source of the discrepancy. [Someone needs to look at more slabbed coins, methinks.]
Oh good! Please say something smart TDN, help us understand
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
There's also this:
https://www.pcgs.com/news/how-united-states-coins-are-graded