The debate is the perfect reminder that all grading is simply an opinion at one point in time, and that learning to evaluate a coin’s merits according to one’s own standards is a key to this hobby.
Just one more point since NO ONE is addressing these coins. If I had posted these in photoshopped CACG AU58+ holders, and said that they were ex PCGS or NGC 65, every single person here who is saying that the other CACG 58+ WLH is graded accurately would be telling me that these are accurate as 58+. And before anyone uses the defense that they cannot tell whether these coins are worn or not from the photos - then it doesn’t make sense to claim that the other one is worn either.
I think you are all quick to leap on to CACG grading as accurate and consistent because of the name behind it - JA - but as far as I understand it he’s not even a grader at CACG. The graders at CACG are not some mystical remnants of an old fabled “technical” scale that never really existed. They are ex-NGC graders who worked in the late 2000s to 2010s and have been out of practice for a decade (stickering already-graded coins is pretty different from assigning new grades). And JA’s scale is not objective or technical - it’s personal to his tastes, just like at CAC.
These replies are making me lose brain cells. 99.99% of collectors don’t think for themselves and just repeat what sour boomers say.
Friction DOES NOT MEAN Wear.
It seems the majority of “numismatists” want to revert back to the days of ‘technical grading’, but what does that mean exactly? The Sheldon scale was invented soley for the purpose of market grading.
CACG has the incorrect notion that being ridiculously strict on coins somehow helps the hobby and the people buying/selling these coins.
Just because certain series display friction on the most prominent areas doesn’t change the fact that the majority of 60-64 have friction on them, and a substantial proportion of 65s as well from any series. Bust halves are the most ‘market graded’ followed by SLQs.
I think many of you should observe how coins have been graded in the past, and what the market has deemed acceptable. I’ve only observed a change in grade limiting factors and that TPGs are much less willing to net grade now than in the beginning.
@Rexford said:
Just one more point since NO ONE is addressing these coins. If I had posted these in photoshopped CACG AU58+ holders, and said that they were ex PCGS or NGC 65, every single person here who is saying that the other CACG 58+ WLH is graded accurately would be telling me that these are accurate as 58+. And before anyone uses the defense that they cannot tell whether these coins are worn or not from the photos - then it doesn’t make sense to claim that the other one is worn either.
I think you are all quick to leap on to CACG grading as accurate and consistent because of the name behind it - JA - but as far as I understand it he’s not even a grader at CACG. The graders at CACG are not some mystical remnants of an old fabled “technical” scale that never really existed. They are ex-NGC graders who worked in the late 2000s to 2010s and have been out of practice for a decade (stickering already-graded coins is pretty different from assigning new grades). And JA’s scale is not objective or technical - it’s personal to his tastes, just like at CAC.
>
.
I’m curious as to whether your “just one more point” should be taken any more seriously than your earlier “With that, I exit this discussion”?
Regardless, if you’re going to keep posting to this thread, please don’t make misstatements like the one I have copied below. Not all of the CACG graders are ex-NGC graders or have been stickering coins at all, much less, for a decade.
“The graders at CACG are not some mystical remnants of an old fabled “technical” scale that never really existed. They are ex-NGC graders who worked in the late 2000s to 2010s and have been out of practice for a decade (stickering already-graded coins is pretty different from assigning new grades”
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@bignubnumismatics1 said:
These replies are making me lose brain cells. 99.99% of collectors don’t think for themselves and just repeat what sour boomers say.
Friction DOES NOT MEAN Wear.
It seems the majority of “numismatists” want to revert back to the days of ‘technical grading’, but what does that mean exactly? The Sheldon scale was invented soley for the purpose of market grading.
CACG has the incorrect notion that being ridiculously strict on coins somehow helps the hobby and the people buying/selling these coins.
Just because certain series display friction on the most prominent areas doesn’t change the fact that the majority of 60-64 have friction on them, and a substantial proportion of 65s as well from any series. Bust halves are the most ‘market graded’ followed by SLQs.
I think many of you should observe how coins have been graded in the past, and what the market has deemed acceptable. I’ve only observed a change in grade limiting factors and that TPGs are much less willing to net grade now than in the beginning.
Friction is "wear". What else would you call rubbing a coin against an abrasive surface resulting in the removal of metal. It may not be "circulation wear" but it is wear. You're drawing a rather fine line of rubbing it against a velvet cabinet lining is different than rubbing it against your velvet pants.
@bignubnumismatics1 said:
These replies are making me lose brain cells. 99.99% of collectors don’t think for themselves and just repeat what sour boomers say.
Friction DOES NOT MEAN Wear.
It seems the majority of “numismatists” want to revert back to the days of ‘technical grading’, but what does that mean exactly? The Sheldon scale was invented soley for the purpose of market grading.
CACG has the incorrect notion that being ridiculously strict on coins somehow helps the hobby and the people buying/selling these coins.
Just because certain series display friction on the most prominent areas doesn’t change the fact that the majority of 60-64 have friction on them, and a substantial proportion of 65s as well from any series. Bust halves are the most ‘market graded’ followed by SLQs.
I think many of you should observe how coins have been graded in the past, and what the market has deemed acceptable. I’ve only observed a change in grade limiting factors and that TPGs are much less willing to net grade now than in the beginning.
I thought we were talking about friction that displays a clear change in metal color with a loss of luster. That is true high point wear or rub.
The wear you are talking about in Walkers, Saints, and SlQ are brought about by stacking and roll rub and is not the friction that is considered wear. There is a true difference that experienced professional graders see that differentiates the two. The point is BUY THE COINS WITH THE FROSTY KNEE AND FROSTY HIGH POINTS NOT THE DULL GRAY LOSS OF LUSTER LOOK.
@Rexford said:
Just one more point since NO ONE is addressing these coins. If I had posted these in photoshopped CACG AU58+ holders, and said that they were ex PCGS or NGC 65, every single person here who is saying that the other CACG 58+ WLH is graded accurately would be telling me that these are accurate as 58+. And before anyone uses the defense that they cannot tell whether these coins are worn or not from the photos - then it doesn’t make sense to claim that the other one is worn either.
I think you are all quick to leap on to CACG grading as accurate and consistent because of the name behind it - JA - but as far as I understand it he’s not even a grader at CACG. The graders at CACG are not some mystical remnants of an old fabled “technical” scale that never really existed. They are ex-NGC graders who worked in the late 2000s to 2010s and have been out of practice for a decade (stickering already-graded coins is pretty different from assigning new grades). And JA’s scale is not objective or technical - it’s personal to his tastes, just like at CAC.
>
.
I’m curious as to whether your “just one more point” should be taken any more seriously than your earlier “With that, I exit this discussion”?
Regardless, if you’re going to keep posting to this thread, please don’t make misstatements like the one I have copied below. Not all of the CACG graders are ex-NGC graders or have been stickering coins at all, much less, for a decade.
“The graders at CACG are not some mystical remnants of an old fabled “technical” scale that never really existed. They are ex-NGC graders who worked in the late 2000s to 2010s and have been out of practice for a decade (stickering already-graded coins is pretty different from assigning new grades”
I didn’t say they have all been stickering coins for a decade, I said they haven’t been grading coins for a decade. But fine, I forgot about John Butler, who is ex-PCGS and did grade more recently. And Bill Shamhart is gone now, so it’s just Butler and Ron Drzewucki. These are minor points though - they’re not part of some fabled old crowd. They were trained as “market graders”, as some in this thread would deem them.
@bignubnumismatics1 said:
These replies are making me lose brain cells. 99.99% of collectors don’t think for themselves and just repeat what sour boomers say.
Friction DOES NOT MEAN Wear.
It seems the majority of “numismatists” want to revert back to the days of ‘technical grading’, but what does that mean exactly? The Sheldon scale was invented soley for the purpose of market grading.
CACG has the incorrect notion that being ridiculously strict on coins somehow helps the hobby and the people buying/selling these coins.
Just because certain series display friction on the most prominent areas doesn’t change the fact that the majority of 60-64 have friction on them, and a substantial proportion of 65s as well from any series. Bust halves are the most ‘market graded’ followed by SLQs.
I think many of you should observe how coins have been graded in the past, and what the market has deemed acceptable. I’ve only observed a change in grade limiting factors and that TPGs are much less willing to net grade now than in the beginning.
I thought we were talking about friction that displays a clear change in metal color with a loss of luster. That is true high point wear or rub.
The wear you are talking about in Walkers, Saints, and SlQ are brought about by stacking and roll rub and is not the friction that is considered wear. There is a true difference that experienced professional graders see that differentiates the two. The point is BUY THE COINS WITH THE FROSTY KNEE AND FROSTY HIGH POINTS NOT THE DULL GRAY LOSS OF LUSTER LOOK.
So PCGS, the experienced professional graders, got it wrong? And so extraordinarily wrong that they mistook an AU coin for a Gem coin?
Yes, you’ve clearly “spelled this out”. It’s just that, based on coins some of us have seen in hand, and images posted here, not everyone agrees with your opinions. And it’s been an interesting discussion.
Of course, all are welcome to agree or disagree with my opinions and with those of the graders who originally graded these coins. And**** since everyone in this thread is a professional grader****, we can just move on from TPGs! I don’t personally need them, so I’m very excited that we’ve all gotten to this point. This will be fun 😁
This was the best post in the whole rant. Rexford's response is to Mark Feld, the one guy on here that is indisputably a former grader.
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
Every coin in an MS66 holder and up needs to have a fully detailed strike showing all the details the sculptor carved in their design. It's that simple! Of course, for some reason or for the lack of experience or patience, this plateau of skill is not upheld by the grading companies nor the majority of collectors. The only reason I can think of why there at coins with soft details in the upper echelons of holders. I have upgraded all of mine. CACG is not going to be any different than the rest of them. Even the new guy at GC has photographed a couple of those flawed nickels. lol Let them show those coins for what they are! As long as there are inexperienced clients out there to buy them, coins with physical smudges, the World just.....keeps on turning..
Leo 😀
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
@bignubnumismatics1 said:
These replies are making me lose brain cells. 99.99% of collectors don’t think for themselves and just repeat what sour boomers say.
Friction DOES NOT MEAN Wear.
It seems the majority of “numismatists” want to revert back to the days of ‘technical grading’, but what does that mean exactly? The Sheldon scale was invented soley for the purpose of market grading.
CACG has the incorrect notion that being ridiculously strict on coins somehow helps the hobby and the people buying/selling these coins.
Just because certain series display friction on the most prominent areas doesn’t change the fact that the majority of 60-64 have friction on them, and a substantial proportion of 65s as well from any series. Bust halves are the most ‘market graded’ followed by SLQs.
I think many of you should observe how coins have been graded in the past, and what the market has deemed acceptable. I’ve only observed a change in grade limiting factors and that TPGs are much less willing to net grade now than in the beginning.
I thought we were talking about friction that displays a clear change in metal color with a loss of luster. That is true high point wear or rub.
The wear you are talking about in Walkers, Saints, and SlQ are brought about by stacking and roll rub and is not the friction that is considered wear. There is a true difference that experienced professional graders see that differentiates the two. The point is BUY THE COINS WITH THE FROSTY KNEE AND FROSTY HIGH POINTS NOT THE DULL GRAY LOSS OF LUSTER LOOK.
So PCGS, the experienced professional graders, got it wrong? And so extraordinarily wrong that they mistook an AU coin for a Gem coin?
No not necessarily they know there is a slight rub or high point friction. In most cases they NET GRADE FOR THE RUB. So the SLQ might have graded 65-66 if not for the rub, and the Walker perhaps 66-67 if not for the minute friction. I saw a different SLQ than you posted with tiny leg friction in MS 64 that ordinarily would have graded MS 66 if not for the rub
Yes, you’ve clearly “spelled this out”. It’s just that, based on coins some of us have seen in hand, and images posted here, not everyone agrees with your opinions. And it’s been an interesting discussion.
Of course, all are welcome to agree or disagree with my opinions and with those of the graders who originally graded these coins. And**** since everyone in this thread is a professional grader****, we can just move on from TPGs! I don’t personally need them, so I’m very excited that we’ve all gotten to this point. This will be fun 😁
This was the best post in the whole rant. Rexford's response is to Mark Feld, the one guy on here that is indisputably a former grader.
I am indisputably a former grader as well, and have been much more recently employed as one. But you’re missing my point, which wasn’t so much about me or Mr. Feld and more so directed at everyone else in this thread:
1) All grades granted by humans are opinions, but not opinions are equal in merit. I wouldn’t try to tell my doctor how to diagnose me after a few WebMD searches. One hundred amateur opinions does not equal one trained opinion.
2) If you are all comfortable in discerning the difference between grades well enough to discern a 65 from 64 from a 63 from a 58, using the current standards, if all lumped into the 58 grade - because I assure you, these are coins of different qualities, and are not being granted random grades within that range by PCGS and NGC - then you don’t need a TPG. And if all opinions are of the same merit, then we definitely don’t need TPGs. Right?
@jmlanzaf said:
Friction is "wear". What else would you call rubbing a coin against an abrasive surface resulting in the removal of metal. It may not be "circulation wear" but it is wear. You're drawing a rather fine line of rubbing it against a velvet cabinet lining is different than rubbing it against your velvet pants.
You can’t…which is the entire point of ‘market grading’.
Why group every single saint with rub from true 58s to 66 when there is an obvious quality and fundamental difference between them.
@bignubnumismatics1 said:
These replies are making me lose brain cells. 99.99% of collectors don’t think for themselves and just repeat what sour boomers say.
Friction DOES NOT MEAN Wear.
It seems the majority of “numismatists” want to revert back to the days of ‘technical grading’, but what does that mean exactly? The Sheldon scale was invented soley for the purpose of market grading.
CACG has the incorrect notion that being ridiculously strict on coins somehow helps the hobby and the people buying/selling these coins.
Just because certain series display friction on the most prominent areas doesn’t change the fact that the majority of 60-64 have friction on them, and a substantial proportion of 65s as well from any series. Bust halves are the most ‘market graded’ followed by SLQs.
I think many of you should observe how coins have been graded in the past, and what the market has deemed acceptable. I’ve only observed a change in grade limiting factors and that TPGs are much less willing to net grade now than in the beginning.
Friction is "wear". What else would you call rubbing a coin against an abrasive surface resulting in the removal of metal. It may not be "circulation wear" but it is wear. You're drawing a rather fine line of rubbing it against a velvet cabinet lining is different than rubbing it against your velvet pants.
The only wear that matters is if it causes gray dullness and or loss of luster in the high point area. True professional graders see these coins all the time and can distinguish between stacking and roll rub friction versus true wear( change in the metal color with loss of luster, it’s as simple as that.
The only gray area is sometimes the degree and interpretation of these factors which can at times be subjective
@MFeld I have yet to see you or anyone else comment on the WLHs I posted above. Since you were so quick to condemn the 65-to-58+ WLH as technically worn based on its CACG photos, I would love to hear your thoughts on those above based on their CACG photos.
@bignubnumismatics1 said:
These replies are making me lose brain cells. 99.99% of collectors don’t think for themselves and just repeat what sour boomers say.
Friction DOES NOT MEAN Wear.
It seems the majority of “numismatists” want to revert back to the days of ‘technical grading’, but what does that mean exactly? The Sheldon scale was invented soley for the purpose of market grading.
CACG has the incorrect notion that being ridiculously strict on coins somehow helps the hobby and the people buying/selling these coins.
Just because certain series display friction on the most prominent areas doesn’t change the fact that the majority of 60-64 have friction on them, and a substantial proportion of 65s as well from any series. Bust halves are the most ‘market graded’ followed by SLQs.
I think many of you should observe how coins have been graded in the past, and what the market has deemed acceptable. I’ve only observed a change in grade limiting factors and that TPGs are much less willing to net grade now than in the beginning.
Friction is "wear". What else would you call rubbing a coin against an abrasive surface resulting in the removal of metal. It may not be "circulation wear" but it is wear. You're drawing a rather fine line of rubbing it against a velvet cabinet lining is different than rubbing it against your velvet pants.
The only wear that matters is if it causes gray dullness and or loss of luster in the high point area. True professional graders see these coins all the time and can distinguish between stacking and roll rub friction versus true wear( change in the metal color with loss of luster, it’s as simple as that.
The only gray area is sometimes the degree and interpretation of these factors which can at times be subjective
That is absolutely correct, thank you. There is a visual difference between superficial friction and true wear - the latter commonly described as having “color change”.
@bignubnumismatics1 said:
These replies are making me lose brain cells. 99.99% of collectors don’t think for themselves and just repeat what sour boomers say.
Friction DOES NOT MEAN Wear.
It seems the majority of “numismatists” want to revert back to the days of ‘technical grading’, but what does that mean exactly? The Sheldon scale was invented soley for the purpose of market grading.
CACG has the incorrect notion that being ridiculously strict on coins somehow helps the hobby and the people buying/selling these coins.
Just because certain series display friction on the most prominent areas doesn’t change the fact that the majority of 60-64 have friction on them, and a substantial proportion of 65s as well from any series. Bust halves are the most ‘market graded’ followed by SLQs.
I think many of you should observe how coins have been graded in the past, and what the market has deemed acceptable. I’ve only observed a change in grade limiting factors and that TPGs are much less willing to net grade now than in the beginning.
Friction is "wear". What else would you call rubbing a coin against an abrasive surface resulting in the removal of metal. It may not be "circulation wear" but it is wear. You're drawing a rather fine line of rubbing it against a velvet cabinet lining is different than rubbing it against your velvet pants.
The only wear that matters is if it causes gray dullness and or loss of luster in the high point area. True professional graders see these coins all the time and can distinguish between stacking and roll rub friction versus true wear( change in the metal color with loss of luster, it’s as simple as that.
The only gray area is sometimes the degree and interpretation of these factors which can at times be subjective
That is absolutely correct, thank you. There is a visual difference between superficial friction and true wear - the latter commonly described as having “color change”.
So correct me if I am wrong. None of the coins you posted meet the criteria for color change, gray dull look, and CACG got it wrong in all these coins? Every coin you post is stacking or roll rub or insignificant friction?
@bignubnumismatics1 said:
These replies are making me lose brain cells. 99.99% of collectors don’t think for themselves and just repeat what sour boomers say.
Friction DOES NOT MEAN Wear.
It seems the majority of “numismatists” want to revert back to the days of ‘technical grading’, but what does that mean exactly? The Sheldon scale was invented soley for the purpose of market grading.
CACG has the incorrect notion that being ridiculously strict on coins somehow helps the hobby and the people buying/selling these coins.
Just because certain series display friction on the most prominent areas doesn’t change the fact that the majority of 60-64 have friction on them, and a substantial proportion of 65s as well from any series. Bust halves are the most ‘market graded’ followed by SLQs.
I think many of you should observe how coins have been graded in the past, and what the market has deemed acceptable. I’ve only observed a change in grade limiting factors and that TPGs are much less willing to net grade now than in the beginning.
Friction is "wear". What else would you call rubbing a coin against an abrasive surface resulting in the removal of metal. It may not be "circulation wear" but it is wear. You're drawing a rather fine line of rubbing it against a velvet cabinet lining is different than rubbing it against your velvet pants.
The only wear that matters is if it causes gray dullness and or loss of luster in the high point area. True professional graders see these coins all the time and can distinguish between stacking and roll rub friction versus true wear( change in the metal color with loss of luster, it’s as simple as that.
The only gray area is sometimes the degree and interpretation of these factors which can at times be subjective
That is absolutely correct, thank you. There is a visual difference between superficial friction and true wear - the latter commonly described as having “color change”.
So correct me if I am wrong. None of the coins you posted meet the criteria for color change, gray dull look, and CACG got it wrong in all these coins? Every coin you post is stacking or roll rub or insignificant friction?
Do you think PCGS and NGC got it wrong on all those coins?
@bignubnumismatics1 said:
These replies are making me lose brain cells. 99.99% of collectors don’t think for themselves and just repeat what sour boomers say.
Friction DOES NOT MEAN Wear.
It seems the majority of “numismatists” want to revert back to the days of ‘technical grading’, but what does that mean exactly? The Sheldon scale was invented soley for the purpose of market grading.
CACG has the incorrect notion that being ridiculously strict on coins somehow helps the hobby and the people buying/selling these coins.
Just because certain series display friction on the most prominent areas doesn’t change the fact that the majority of 60-64 have friction on them, and a substantial proportion of 65s as well from any series. Bust halves are the most ‘market graded’ followed by SLQs.
I think many of you should observe how coins have been graded in the past, and what the market has deemed acceptable. I’ve only observed a change in grade limiting factors and that TPGs are much less willing to net grade now than in the beginning.
Friction is "wear". What else would you call rubbing a coin against an abrasive surface resulting in the removal of metal. It may not be "circulation wear" but it is wear. You're drawing a rather fine line of rubbing it against a velvet cabinet lining is different than rubbing it against your velvet pants.
The only wear that matters is if it causes gray dullness and or loss of luster in the high point area. True professional graders see these coins all the time and can distinguish between stacking and roll rub friction versus true wear( change in the metal color with loss of luster, it’s as simple as that.
The only gray area is sometimes the degree and interpretation of these factors which can at times be subjective
That is absolutely correct, thank you. There is a visual difference between superficial friction and true wear - the latter commonly described as having “color change”.
Right...I said that on the previous page of this discussion.
@DeplorableDan said:
There are different types of friction, and we wouldn’t really be able to discern between the two from images as we’re already pushing the boundaries of grading from pictures. “Stacking” friction and wear are two different things, the latter making the area dull, whereas stacking friction retains its luster.
We are at an impasse without being able to physically evaluate the coins, so we can just agree to disagree here.
My point was that perhaps CACG interpreted the rub on the 65 as "wear", whereas the other examples you posted above were interpreted to be "stacking friction" and thus retained their MS grades.
@bignubnumismatics1 said:
These replies are making me lose brain cells. 99.99% of collectors don’t think for themselves and just repeat what sour boomers say.
Friction DOES NOT MEAN Wear.
It seems the majority of “numismatists” want to revert back to the days of ‘technical grading’, but what does that mean exactly? The Sheldon scale was invented soley for the purpose of market grading.
CACG has the incorrect notion that being ridiculously strict on coins somehow helps the hobby and the people buying/selling these coins.
Just because certain series display friction on the most prominent areas doesn’t change the fact that the majority of 60-64 have friction on them, and a substantial proportion of 65s as well from any series. Bust halves are the most ‘market graded’ followed by SLQs.
I think many of you should observe how coins have been graded in the past, and what the market has deemed acceptable. I’ve only observed a change in grade limiting factors and that TPGs are much less willing to net grade now than in the beginning.
Friction is "wear". What else would you call rubbing a coin against an abrasive surface resulting in the removal of metal. It may not be "circulation wear" but it is wear. You're drawing a rather fine line of rubbing it against a velvet cabinet lining is different than rubbing it against your velvet pants.
The only wear that matters is if it causes gray dullness and or loss of luster in the high point area. True professional graders see these coins all the time and can distinguish between stacking and roll rub friction versus true wear( change in the metal color with loss of luster, it’s as simple as that.
The only gray area is sometimes the degree and interpretation of these factors which can at times be subjective
That is absolutely correct, thank you. There is a visual difference between superficial friction and true wear - the latter commonly described as having “color change”.
Right...I said that on the previous page of this discussion.
@DeplorableDan said:
There are different types of friction, and we wouldn’t really be able to discern between the two from images as we’re already pushing the boundaries of grading from pictures. “Stacking” friction and wear are two different things, the latter making the area dull, whereas stacking friction retains its luster.
We are at an impasse without being able to physically evaluate the coins, so we can just agree to disagree here.
My point was that perhaps CACG interpreted the rub on the 65 as "wear", whereas the other examples you posted above were interpreted to be "stacking friction" and thus retained their MS grades.
But that’s exactly what PCGS and NGC do as well. They deem some coins to have wear, and some to have superficial friction. So if that’s the case, then either PCGS and NGC are way off or CACG is way off. And most of the commenters here have been arguing that superficial friction is wear, and that CACG is approaching it as such.
@Rexford said: @MFeld I have yet to see you or anyone else comment on the WLHs I posted above. Since you were so quick to condemn the 65-to-58+ WLH as technically worn based on its CACG photos, I would love to hear your thoughts on those above based on their CACG photos.
Please specify the ones you’d like me to comment on and I’ll be happy to do so.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@Rexford said: @MFeld I have yet to see you or anyone else comment on the WLHs I posted above. Since you were so quick to condemn the 65-to-58+ WLH as technically worn based on its CACG photos, I would love to hear your thoughts on those above based on their CACG photos.
Please specify the ones you’d like me to comment on and I’ll be happy to do so.
I could be wrong, but the irony is many of the very coins that were once graded 63/64/65 and are now 58 have been likely graded by the very same graders in both cases! 😂
It’s been explained to me by the strongest world class graders ever to work for the grading services…. they are simply told what is expected from them at the particular job they take. At grading service “A”, these coins are 64’s, at grading service “B” these coins are 65’s and at grading service “C”, these coins are 58’s. The graders are “hired guns” - told exactly what is expected of them. It’s that simple. These graders didn’t “magically forget” how to grade a 64 or 65 and now wake up with an epiphany that they are 58’s. Did a number of these world class graders simply lie to me? Perhaps I will hear that now.
In the meantime, enjoy all the inconsistency in the coin world, buy the undergraded coins you love and simply get them into higher graded holders elsewhere. What fun!
Just my 2 cents!
Wondercoin.
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
@davewesen said:
Although I do not anticipate submitting to them, but I will surely be looking closer at their problem coins and AU58 coins that look weakly struck.
This is ultimately what comes of this approach - you need to do the work and probably see the coins in hand to determine which ones are actually nice or not (and to a much greater extent than with the current systems, since 5 or 6 grades can theoretically be grouped into 1). That defeats one of the points of grading, even if you have the ability to discern those differences for yourself: being able to buy somewhat sight unseen. I can’t say I really understand why people would want this to be the case. But as a buyer, perhaps you could make some scores since market valuation will be confusing - but only by cracking and sending to the other TPGs, where quality actually is distinguished.
@Rexford said: @MFeld I have yet to see you or anyone else comment on the WLHs I posted above. Since you were so quick to condemn the 65-to-58+ WLH as technically worn based on its CACG photos, I would love to hear your thoughts on those above based on their CACG photos.
Please specify the ones you’d like me to comment on and I’ll be happy to do so.
(First two are the same coin)
Thank you.
To me, the 1946 clearly looks to be the best of the group and the 1941, the worst.
I don’t know what the reverse of the 1943 looks like. But its obverse looks better than that of the 1941, though admittedly, it does appear to display some rub.
I don’t see rub on either side of the 1946.
While this discussion has been interesting, who knows what each participant would think if they were to view the coins in hand? Since I haven’t, all I can do is opine on the images and not get worked up about the grades of either grading company.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
This is controversial.--
Most coins in Unc holders have some wear on them or have been dipped in the 60's or70's or cleaned a 100 years years or more ago and age toned or retoned .
In the mid70's I personally witnessed dealers dipping rolls of coins dimes thru dollars by industrial operations in the back of their brick and more shops. It was acceptable back then. I have seen dealers buying detail or off quality coins in slabs cheap and cracking them out by the hundreds to sell raw at higher prices to less knowledgeable collectors. No I don't think the tags were turned in. I saw everything destroyed going into the trash can nearby.
@bignubnumismatics1 said:
These replies are making me lose brain cells. 99.99% of collectors don’t think for themselves and just repeat what sour boomers say.
Friction DOES NOT MEAN Wear.
It seems the majority of “numismatists” want to revert back to the days of ‘technical grading’, but what does that mean exactly? The Sheldon scale was invented soley for the purpose of market grading.
CACG has the incorrect notion that being ridiculously strict on coins somehow helps the hobby and the people buying/selling these coins.
Just because certain series display friction on the most prominent areas doesn’t change the fact that the majority of 60-64 have friction on them, and a substantial proportion of 65s as well from any series. Bust halves are the most ‘market graded’ followed by SLQs.
I think many of you should observe how coins have been graded in the past, and what the market has deemed acceptable. I’ve only observed a change in grade limiting factors and that TPGs are much less willing to net grade now than in the beginning.
Friction is "wear". What else would you call rubbing a coin against an abrasive surface resulting in the removal of metal. It may not be "circulation wear" but it is wear. You're drawing a rather fine line of rubbing it against a velvet cabinet lining is different than rubbing it against your velvet pants.
The only wear that matters is if it causes gray dullness and or loss of luster in the high point area. True professional graders see these coins all the time and can distinguish between stacking and roll rub friction versus true wear( change in the metal color with loss of luster, it’s as simple as that.
The only gray area is sometimes the degree and interpretation of these factors which can at times be subjective
That is absolutely correct, thank you. There is a visual difference between superficial friction and true wear - the latter commonly described as having “color change”.
So correct me if I am wrong. None of the coins you posted meet the criteria for color change, gray dull look, and CACG got it wrong in all these coins? Every coin you post is stacking or roll rub or insignificant friction?
Do you think PCGS and NGC got it wrong on all those coins?
Hard to say without seeing them in hand. I think what you’re saying is that CACG was way too hard on these coins and they didn’t deserve to be lowered all the way to 58+, so basically you feel CACG is unfairly conservative. Amount of wear, friction, luster loss grey metal is also a matter of opinion and subjective
@Rexford said: @MFeld I have yet to see you or anyone else comment on the WLHs I posted above. Since you were so quick to condemn the 65-to-58+ WLH as technically worn based on its CACG photos, I would love to hear your thoughts on those above based on their CACG photos.
Please specify the ones you’d like me to comment on and I’ll be happy to do so.
(First two are the same coin)
Thank you.
To me, the 1946 clearly looks to be the best of the group and the 1941, the worst.
I don’t know what the reverse of the 1943 looks like. But its obverse looks better than that of the 1941, though admittedly, it does appear to display some rub.
I don’t see rub on either side of the 1946.
While this discussion has been interesting, who knows what each participant would think if they were to view the coins in hand? Since I haven’t, all I can do is opine on the images and not get worked up about the grades of either grading company.
This wasn’t a question of better or worse, but rub or not rub. So if the 1943 apparently has rub, it shouldn’t be in a CACG 65 holder, but a 58/58+ holder.
I don’t find the 1943 to be markedly less “rubby” than the 1941 (CACG 58+) - you pointed out the apparent rub on the breast on the 1941 earlier, and the breast on the 1943 has essentially the same issue. In fact, there appears to me to be more of that superficial friction down the length of the gown - those darker areas - on the 1943 than on the 1941, where it essentially confined to the chest. The weakness down the length of the 1941 is due to strike. In the photos below that’s fairly apparent - there’s planchet roughness down that whole length due to metal not properly filling in the design.
We are only looking at images, but both of these coins look totally appropriate to me for the 64/65 area. They are not massively different from one another, and they are certainly not 58 and 65 different. There are many grades available between those numbers.
Now here is the first PCGS AU58 with a CAC sticker that I pulled up on eBay. Theoretically this should land in a CACG AU58 holder as well. This is a true 58 - real color change and real high-point dullness. Should this be graded a + grade below the coin above? Are they similar to one another in terms of wear? Is this coin nearer to the 1941 in quality, or the 1941 to the 1943?
@Walkerlover said:
That’s why I keep saying we need AU59 for these special cases that Rexford is pointing out but JA says no way
It’s not really a special case. A big chunk of the Walkers in the low MS to low Gem have this issue, just like Saints do in grades up to 66. If those are all combined into one grade due to “rub”, then you have a whole lot of massively different quality coins occupying that grade, whether it be 58+ or 59. There would be PCGS 62s and PCGS 65s in that grade. Are collectors expected to distinguish those conditions within that single grade? At that point we would all need to be our own graders, and CACG would be providing a somewhat useless service. Or should a 62 become a 58++ and a 65 be a 58+++++? Should we keep adding grades?
@Rexford said: @MFeld I have yet to see you or anyone else comment on the WLHs I posted above. Since you were so quick to condemn the 65-to-58+ WLH as technically worn based on its CACG photos, I would love to hear your thoughts on those above based on their CACG photos.
Please specify the ones you’d like me to comment on and I’ll be happy to do so.
(First two are the same coin)
Thank you.
To me, the 1946 clearly looks to be the best of the group and the 1941, the worst.
I don’t know what the reverse of the 1943 looks like. But its obverse looks better than that of the 1941, though admittedly, it does appear to display some rub.
I don’t see rub on either side of the 1946.
While this discussion has been interesting, who knows what each participant would think if they were to view the coins in hand? Since I haven’t, all I can do is opine on the images and not get worked up about the grades of either grading company.
This wasn’t a question of better or worse, but rub or not rub. So if the 1943 apparently has rub, it shouldn’t be in a CACG 65 holder, but a 58/58+ holder.
I don’t find the 1943 to be markedly less “rubby” than the 1941 (CACG 58+) - you pointed out the apparent rub on the breast on the 1941 earlier, and the breast on the 1946 has essentially the same issue. In fact, there appears to me to be more of that superficial friction down the length of the gown - those darker areas - on the 1946 than on the 1941, where it essentially confined to the chest. The weakness down the length of the 1941 is due to strike. In the photos below that’s fairly apparent - there’s planchet roughness down that whole length due to metal not properly filling in the design.
We are only looking at images, but both of these coins look totally appropriate to me for the 64/65 area. They are not massively different from one another, and they are certainly not 58 and 65 different. There are many grades available between those numbers.
Now here is the first PCGS AU58 with a CAC sticker that I pulled up on eBay. Theoretically this should land in a CACG AU58 holder as well. This is a true 58 - real color change and real high-point dullness. Should this be graded a + grade below the coin above? Are they similar to one another in terms of wear? Is this coin nearer to the 1941 in quality, or the 1941 to the 1943?
Obviously, we disagree about the coins, based on our assessments of the images.
You’re free to be as bothered as you please about CACG’s grading (and the fact that some of us have different opinions from yours). But I choose not to be bothered by the grading or differing opinions.
And now, I’ll exit this discussion. When I say that, I abide by it, so please don’t hold your breath waiting for me to post to this thread again.😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@Walkerlover said:
That’s why I keep saying we need AU59 for these special cases that Rexford is pointing out but JA says no way
It’s not really a special case. A big chunk of the Walkers in the low MS to low Gem have this issue, just like Saints do in grades up to 66. If those are all combined into one grade due to “rub”, then you have a whole lot of massively different quality coins occupying that grade, whether it be 58+ or 59. There would be PCGS 62s and PCGS 65s in that grade. Are collectors expected to distinguish those conditions within that single grade? At that point we would all need to be our own graders, and CACG would be providing a somewhat useless service. Or should a 62 become a 58++ and a 65 be a 58+++++? Should we keep adding grades?
There always has been a wide variance of quality among the coins occupying a specific grade level, especially AU58. Some AU58s will have actual circulation wear, others will be sliders that have the overall appearance of a gem, and then a bunch of examples in between. TPG assigns the grade, and collectors can discriminate between them and assign a value, via their wallet. That scenario makes more sense to me than the reverse, in which the TPG decides that an AU58 should be worth more than the other AU58s, and holder it as a 63 despite the high point wear. I see no good reason that a stellar 58, such as the first coin you posted, should trade for any less money than a ratty 62 or a mediocre 63, regardless of what the price guide says it should be worth.
@Walkerlover said:
That’s why I keep saying we need AU59 for these special cases that Rexford is pointing out but JA says no way
It’s not really a special case. A big chunk of the Walkers in the low MS to low Gem have this issue, just like Saints do in grades up to 66. If those are all combined into one grade due to “rub”, then you have a whole lot of massively different quality coins occupying that grade, whether it be 58+ or 59. There would be PCGS 62s and PCGS 65s in that grade. Are collectors expected to distinguish those conditions within that single grade? At that point we would all need to be our own graders, and CACG would be providing a somewhat useless service. Or should a 62 become a 58++ and a 65 be a 58+++++? Should we keep adding grades?
There always has been a wide variance of quality among the coins occupying a specific grade level, especially AU58. Some AU58s will have actual circulation wear, others will be sliders that have the overall appearance of a gem, and then a bunch of examples in between. TPG assigns the grade, and collectors can discriminate between them and assign a value, via their wallet. That scenario makes more sense to me than the reverse, in which the TPG decides that an AU58 should be worth more than the other AU58s, and holder it as a 63 despite the high point wear. I see no good reason that a stellar 58, such as the first coin you posted, should trade for any less money than a ratty 62 or a mediocre 63, regardless of what the price guide says it should be worth.
Yes, exactly. The range for the 58 grade is already wide enough, and there is already enough variance in price and condition within the grades with the current scale. The “stellar 58” I posted is the ex-PCGS MS65 example, so it falls well, well outside of that wide 58 range on the PCGS scale. It seems that people are in support of that range extending even further, to encompass examples from the current 61 to 65 grades as well. That makes very little sense.
This doesn't exactly solve all problems but I think it's better than the 59 solution.
What about allowing grades 60-64 to be either MS or AU? That way deserving coins with a little bit of rub can have the higher numeric grade they deserve without encroaching on true mint state coins (even if the MS are uglier coins).
@bignubnumismatics1 said:
These replies are making me lose brain cells. 99.99% of collectors don’t think for themselves and just repeat what sour boomers say.
Friction DOES NOT MEAN Wear.
It seems the majority of “numismatists” want to revert back to the days of ‘technical grading’, but what does that mean exactly? The Sheldon scale was invented soley for the purpose of market grading.
CACG has the incorrect notion that being ridiculously strict on coins somehow helps the hobby and the people buying/selling these coins.
Just because certain series display friction on the most prominent areas doesn’t change the fact that the majority of 60-64 have friction on them, and a substantial proportion of 65s as well from any series. Bust halves are the most ‘market graded’ followed by SLQs.
I think many of you should observe how coins have been graded in the past, and what the market has deemed acceptable. I’ve only observed a change in grade limiting factors and that TPGs are much less willing to net grade now than in the beginning.
Friction is "wear". What else would you call rubbing a coin against an abrasive surface resulting in the removal of metal. It may not be "circulation wear" but it is wear. You're drawing a rather fine line of rubbing it against a velvet cabinet lining is different than rubbing it against your velvet pants.
The only wear that matters is if it causes gray dullness and or loss of luster in the high point area. True professional graders see these coins all the time and can distinguish between stacking and roll rub friction versus true wear( change in the metal color with loss of luster, it’s as simple as that.
The only gray area is sometimes the degree and interpretation of these factors which can at times be subjective
That is absolutely correct, thank you. There is a visual difference between superficial friction and true wear - the latter commonly described as having “color change”.
So correct me if I am wrong. None of the coins you posted meet the criteria for color change, gray dull look, and CACG got it wrong in all these coins? Every coin you post is stacking or roll rub or insignificant friction?
Do you think PCGS and NGC got it wrong on all those coins?
@lermish said:
This doesn't exactly solve all problems but I think it's better than the 59 solution.
What about allowing grades 60-64 to be either MS or AU? That way deserving coins with a little bit of rub can have the higher numeric grade they deserve without encroaching on true mint state coins (even if the MS are uglier coins).
JA has often stated he feels there are already too many AU grades. 🙂
@Walkerlover said:
Calling Mr. Butler CACG Please Weigh In
I'm not sure if he'll respond to your bat signal, but perhaps if we tag him he might decide to chime in if he feels so inclined🙂. @JohnBCoins
Okay sounds good please tag him I would but don’t know how. Maybe there is a way to transfer this thread in essence to CAC forum with Mr. Rexfords coins he posted
@lermish said:
This doesn't exactly solve all problems but I think it's better than the 59 solution.
What about allowing grades 60-64 to be either MS or AU? That way deserving coins with a little bit of rub can have the higher numeric grade they deserve without encroaching on true mint state coins (even if the MS are uglier coins).
I like your solution as it would denote those coins that are so close to true 100% uncirculated
@Walkerlover said:
That’s why I keep saying we need AU59 for these special cases that Rexford is pointing out but JA says no way
It’s not really a special case. A big chunk of the Walkers in the low MS to low Gem have this issue, just like Saints do in grades up to 66. If those are all combined into one grade due to “rub”, then you have a whole lot of massively different quality coins occupying that grade, whether it be 58+ or 59. There would be PCGS 62s and PCGS 65s in that grade. Are collectors expected to distinguish those conditions within that single grade? At that point we would all need to be our own graders, and CACG would be providing a somewhat useless service. Or should a 62 become a 58++ and a 65 be a 58+++++? Should we keep adding grades?
There always has been a wide variance of quality among the coins occupying a specific grade level, especially AU58. Some AU58s will have actual circulation wear, others will be sliders that have the overall appearance of a gem, and then a bunch of examples in between. TPG assigns the grade, and collectors can discriminate between them and assign a value, via their wallet. That scenario makes more sense to me than the reverse, in which the TPG decides that an AU58 should be worth more than the other AU58s, and holder it as a 63 despite the high point wear. I see no good reason that a stellar 58, such as the first coin you posted, should trade for any less money than a ratty 62 or a mediocre 63, regardless of what the price guide says it should be worth.
Yes, exactly. The range for the 58 grade is already wide enough, and there is already enough variance in price and condition within the grades with the current scale. The “stellar 58” I posted is the ex-PCGS MS65 example, so it falls well, well outside of that wide 58 range on the PCGS scale. It seems that people are in support of that range extending even further, to encompass examples from the current 61 to 65 grades as well. That makes very little sense.
I do think this is no good for the hobby to have one prestigious grading service label this coin gem MS 65 and the other prestigious grading service to label the same coin AU 58+
. I think in this case JA and CACG needs to explain to us why he feels the coin should be downgraded to AU 58+ so we can understand their position. This is very important to know the divergence in grades. Maybe someone who is influential can contact him.
@Walkerlover said:
That’s why I keep saying we need AU59 for these special cases that Rexford is pointing out but JA says no way
It’s not really a special case. A big chunk of the Walkers in the low MS to low Gem have this issue, just like Saints do in grades up to 66. If those are all combined into one grade due to “rub”, then you have a whole lot of massively different quality coins occupying that grade, whether it be 58+ or 59. There would be PCGS 62s and PCGS 65s in that grade. Are collectors expected to distinguish those conditions within that single grade? At that point we would all need to be our own graders, and CACG would be providing a somewhat useless service. Or should a 62 become a 58++ and a 65 be a 58+++++? Should we keep adding grades?
There always has been a wide variance of quality among the coins occupying a specific grade level, especially AU58. Some AU58s will have actual circulation wear, others will be sliders that have the overall appearance of a gem, and then a bunch of examples in between. TPG assigns the grade, and collectors can discriminate between them and assign a value, via their wallet. That scenario makes more sense to me than the reverse, in which the TPG decides that an AU58 should be worth more than the other AU58s, and holder it as a 63 despite the high point wear. I see no good reason that a stellar 58, such as the first coin you posted, should trade for any less money than a ratty 62 or a mediocre 63, regardless of what the price guide says it should be worth.
Yes, exactly. The range for the 58 grade is already wide enough, and there is already enough variance in price and condition within the grades with the current scale. The “stellar 58” I posted is the ex-PCGS MS65 example, so it falls well, well outside of that wide 58 range on the PCGS scale. It seems that people are in support of that range extending even further, to encompass examples from the current 61 to 65 grades as well. That makes very little sense.
I do think this is no good for the hobby to have one prestigious grading service label this coin gem MS 65 and the other prestigious grading service to label the same coin AU 58+
. I think in this case JA and CACG needs to explain to us why he feels the coin should be downgraded to AU 58+ so we can understand their position. This is very important to know the divergence in grades. Maybe someone who is influential can contact him.
At least the technical vs. market grading standard has already been explained.
I don’t see a problem with some TPGs using market grading and others using technical grading, as long as it’s understood.
Even before CACG was an idea, there were numerous people here that were proponents of technical grading.
Comments
So pcgs graded it wrong?
Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value. Zero. Voltaire. Ebay coinbowlllc
I love the contention in this thread.
The debate is the perfect reminder that all grading is simply an opinion at one point in time, and that learning to evaluate a coin’s merits according to one’s own standards is a key to this hobby.
Nothing is as expensive as free money.
Just one more point since NO ONE is addressing these coins. If I had posted these in photoshopped CACG AU58+ holders, and said that they were ex PCGS or NGC 65, every single person here who is saying that the other CACG 58+ WLH is graded accurately would be telling me that these are accurate as 58+. And before anyone uses the defense that they cannot tell whether these coins are worn or not from the photos - then it doesn’t make sense to claim that the other one is worn either.
I think you are all quick to leap on to CACG grading as accurate and consistent because of the name behind it - JA - but as far as I understand it he’s not even a grader at CACG. The graders at CACG are not some mystical remnants of an old fabled “technical” scale that never really existed. They are ex-NGC graders who worked in the late 2000s to 2010s and have been out of practice for a decade (stickering already-graded coins is pretty different from assigning new grades). And JA’s scale is not objective or technical - it’s personal to his tastes, just like at CAC.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
These replies are making me lose brain cells. 99.99% of collectors don’t think for themselves and just repeat what sour boomers say.
Friction DOES NOT MEAN Wear.
It seems the majority of “numismatists” want to revert back to the days of ‘technical grading’, but what does that mean exactly? The Sheldon scale was invented soley for the purpose of market grading.
CACG has the incorrect notion that being ridiculously strict on coins somehow helps the hobby and the people buying/selling these coins.
Just because certain series display friction on the most prominent areas doesn’t change the fact that the majority of 60-64 have friction on them, and a substantial proportion of 65s as well from any series. Bust halves are the most ‘market graded’ followed by SLQs.
I think many of you should observe how coins have been graded in the past, and what the market has deemed acceptable. I’ve only observed a change in grade limiting factors and that TPGs are much less willing to net grade now than in the beginning.
Here is a Saint that was originally graded 64 by NGC, it is now in a CACG 58.
There’s no wear, only friction from stacking etc. I’m inclined to be close to 4 but it’s a shade too rubby.
>
I’m curious as to whether your “just one more point” should be taken any more seriously than your earlier “With that, I exit this discussion”?
Regardless, if you’re going to keep posting to this thread, please don’t make misstatements like the one I have copied below. Not all of the CACG graders are ex-NGC graders or have been stickering coins at all, much less, for a decade.
“The graders at CACG are not some mystical remnants of an old fabled “technical” scale that never really existed. They are ex-NGC graders who worked in the late 2000s to 2010s and have been out of practice for a decade (stickering already-graded coins is pretty different from assigning new grades”
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Friction is "wear". What else would you call rubbing a coin against an abrasive surface resulting in the removal of metal. It may not be "circulation wear" but it is wear. You're drawing a rather fine line of rubbing it against a velvet cabinet lining is different than rubbing it against your velvet pants.
I thought we were talking about friction that displays a clear change in metal color with a loss of luster. That is true high point wear or rub.
The wear you are talking about in Walkers, Saints, and SlQ are brought about by stacking and roll rub and is not the friction that is considered wear. There is a true difference that experienced professional graders see that differentiates the two. The point is BUY THE COINS WITH THE FROSTY KNEE AND FROSTY HIGH POINTS NOT THE DULL GRAY LOSS OF LUSTER LOOK.
I didn’t say they have all been stickering coins for a decade, I said they haven’t been grading coins for a decade. But fine, I forgot about John Butler, who is ex-PCGS and did grade more recently. And Bill Shamhart is gone now, so it’s just Butler and Ron Drzewucki. These are minor points though - they’re not part of some fabled old crowd. They were trained as “market graders”, as some in this thread would deem them.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
So PCGS, the experienced professional graders, got it wrong? And so extraordinarily wrong that they mistook an AU coin for a Gem coin?
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
This was the best post in the whole rant. Rexford's response is to Mark Feld, the one guy on here that is indisputably a former grader.
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
Every coin in an MS66 holder and up needs to have a fully detailed strike showing all the details the sculptor carved in their design. It's that simple! Of course, for some reason or for the lack of experience or patience, this plateau of skill is not upheld by the grading companies nor the majority of collectors. The only reason I can think of why there at coins with soft details in the upper echelons of holders. I have upgraded all of mine. CACG is not going to be any different than the rest of them. Even the new guy at GC has photographed a couple of those flawed nickels. lol Let them show those coins for what they are! As long as there are inexperienced clients out there to buy them, coins with physical smudges, the World just.....keeps on turning..
Leo 😀
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
No not necessarily they know there is a slight rub or high point friction. In most cases they NET GRADE FOR THE RUB. So the SLQ might have graded 65-66 if not for the rub, and the Walker perhaps 66-67 if not for the minute friction. I saw a different SLQ than you posted with tiny leg friction in MS 64 that ordinarily would have graded MS 66 if not for the rub
I am indisputably a former grader as well, and have been much more recently employed as one. But you’re missing my point, which wasn’t so much about me or Mr. Feld and more so directed at everyone else in this thread:
1) All grades granted by humans are opinions, but not opinions are equal in merit. I wouldn’t try to tell my doctor how to diagnose me after a few WebMD searches. One hundred amateur opinions does not equal one trained opinion.
2) If you are all comfortable in discerning the difference between grades well enough to discern a 65 from 64 from a 63 from a 58, using the current standards, if all lumped into the 58 grade - because I assure you, these are coins of different qualities, and are not being granted random grades within that range by PCGS and NGC - then you don’t need a TPG. And if all opinions are of the same merit, then we definitely don’t need TPGs. Right?
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
You can’t…which is the entire point of ‘market grading’.
Why group every single saint with rub from true 58s to 66 when there is an obvious quality and fundamental difference between them.
The only wear that matters is if it causes gray dullness and or loss of luster in the high point area. True professional graders see these coins all the time and can distinguish between stacking and roll rub friction versus true wear( change in the metal color with loss of luster, it’s as simple as that.
The only gray area is sometimes the degree and interpretation of these factors which can at times be subjective
@MFeld I have yet to see you or anyone else comment on the WLHs I posted above. Since you were so quick to condemn the 65-to-58+ WLH as technically worn based on its CACG photos, I would love to hear your thoughts on those above based on their CACG photos.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
That is absolutely correct, thank you. There is a visual difference between superficial friction and true wear - the latter commonly described as having “color change”.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
So correct me if I am wrong. None of the coins you posted meet the criteria for color change, gray dull look, and CACG got it wrong in all these coins? Every coin you post is stacking or roll rub or insignificant friction?
Do you think PCGS and NGC got it wrong on all those coins?
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
And do you think CACG got it right on the CACG MS coins I posted later in the thread? Do those coins look better in appearance than the other WLH?
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
Right...I said that on the previous page of this discussion.
My point was that perhaps CACG interpreted the rub on the 65 as "wear", whereas the other examples you posted above were interpreted to be "stacking friction" and thus retained their MS grades.
Type Collector of U.S. Pre-33 Gold https://instagram.com/deplorable_dan Successful transactions with- @drfish, @Cladiator, @johnny010, @Pedzola, @PerryHall, @2windy2fish, @Ike1964, @JohnThePainter, @rpmsrpms, @REALGATOR
But that’s exactly what PCGS and NGC do as well. They deem some coins to have wear, and some to have superficial friction. So if that’s the case, then either PCGS and NGC are way off or CACG is way off. And most of the commenters here have been arguing that superficial friction is wear, and that CACG is approaching it as such.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
Please specify the ones you’d like me to comment on and I’ll be happy to do so.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
(First two are the same coin)
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
Although I do not anticipate submitting to them, but I will surely be looking closer at their problem coins and AU58 coins that look weakly struck.
I could be wrong, but the irony is many of the very coins that were once graded 63/64/65 and are now 58 have been likely graded by the very same graders in both cases! 😂
It’s been explained to me by the strongest world class graders ever to work for the grading services…. they are simply told what is expected from them at the particular job they take. At grading service “A”, these coins are 64’s, at grading service “B” these coins are 65’s and at grading service “C”, these coins are 58’s. The graders are “hired guns” - told exactly what is expected of them. It’s that simple. These graders didn’t “magically forget” how to grade a 64 or 65 and now wake up with an epiphany that they are 58’s. Did a number of these world class graders simply lie to me? Perhaps I will hear that now.
In the meantime, enjoy all the inconsistency in the coin world, buy the undergraded coins you love and simply get them into higher graded holders elsewhere. What fun!
Just my 2 cents!
Wondercoin.
This is ultimately what comes of this approach - you need to do the work and probably see the coins in hand to determine which ones are actually nice or not (and to a much greater extent than with the current systems, since 5 or 6 grades can theoretically be grouped into 1). That defeats one of the points of grading, even if you have the ability to discern those differences for yourself: being able to buy somewhat sight unseen. I can’t say I really understand why people would want this to be the case. But as a buyer, perhaps you could make some scores since market valuation will be confusing - but only by cracking and sending to the other TPGs, where quality actually is distinguished.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
Thank you.
To me, the 1946 clearly looks to be the best of the group and the 1941, the worst.
I don’t know what the reverse of the 1943 looks like. But its obverse looks better than that of the 1941, though admittedly, it does appear to display some rub.
I don’t see rub on either side of the 1946.
While this discussion has been interesting, who knows what each participant would think if they were to view the coins in hand? Since I haven’t, all I can do is opine on the images and not get worked up about the grades of either grading company.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
This is controversial.--
Most coins in Unc holders have some wear on them or have been dipped in the 60's or70's or cleaned a 100 years years or more ago and age toned or retoned .
In the mid70's I personally witnessed dealers dipping rolls of coins dimes thru dollars by industrial operations in the back of their brick and more shops. It was acceptable back then. I have seen dealers buying detail or off quality coins in slabs cheap and cracking them out by the hundreds to sell raw at higher prices to less knowledgeable collectors. No I don't think the tags were turned in. I saw everything destroyed going into the trash can nearby.
Hard to say without seeing them in hand. I think what you’re saying is that CACG was way too hard on these coins and they didn’t deserve to be lowered all the way to 58+, so basically you feel CACG is unfairly conservative. Amount of wear, friction, luster loss grey metal is also a matter of opinion and subjective
This wasn’t a question of better or worse, but rub or not rub. So if the 1943 apparently has rub, it shouldn’t be in a CACG 65 holder, but a 58/58+ holder.
I don’t find the 1943 to be markedly less “rubby” than the 1941 (CACG 58+) - you pointed out the apparent rub on the breast on the 1941 earlier, and the breast on the 1943 has essentially the same issue. In fact, there appears to me to be more of that superficial friction down the length of the gown - those darker areas - on the 1943 than on the 1941, where it essentially confined to the chest. The weakness down the length of the 1941 is due to strike. In the photos below that’s fairly apparent - there’s planchet roughness down that whole length due to metal not properly filling in the design.
We are only looking at images, but both of these coins look totally appropriate to me for the 64/65 area. They are not massively different from one another, and they are certainly not 58 and 65 different. There are many grades available between those numbers.
Now here is the first PCGS AU58 with a CAC sticker that I pulled up on eBay. Theoretically this should land in a CACG AU58 holder as well. This is a true 58 - real color change and real high-point dullness. Should this be graded a + grade below the coin above? Are they similar to one another in terms of wear? Is this coin nearer to the 1941 in quality, or the 1941 to the 1943?
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
That’s why I keep saying we need AU59 for these special cases that Rexford is pointing out but JA says no way
It’s not really a special case. A big chunk of the Walkers in the low MS to low Gem have this issue, just like Saints do in grades up to 66. If those are all combined into one grade due to “rub”, then you have a whole lot of massively different quality coins occupying that grade, whether it be 58+ or 59. There would be PCGS 62s and PCGS 65s in that grade. Are collectors expected to distinguish those conditions within that single grade? At that point we would all need to be our own graders, and CACG would be providing a somewhat useless service. Or should a 62 become a 58++ and a 65 be a 58+++++? Should we keep adding grades?
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
Obviously, we disagree about the coins, based on our assessments of the images.
You’re free to be as bothered as you please about CACG’s grading (and the fact that some of us have different opinions from yours). But I choose not to be bothered by the grading or differing opinions.
And now, I’ll exit this discussion. When I say that, I abide by it, so please don’t hold your breath waiting for me to post to this thread again.😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
There always has been a wide variance of quality among the coins occupying a specific grade level, especially AU58. Some AU58s will have actual circulation wear, others will be sliders that have the overall appearance of a gem, and then a bunch of examples in between. TPG assigns the grade, and collectors can discriminate between them and assign a value, via their wallet. That scenario makes more sense to me than the reverse, in which the TPG decides that an AU58 should be worth more than the other AU58s, and holder it as a 63 despite the high point wear. I see no good reason that a stellar 58, such as the first coin you posted, should trade for any less money than a ratty 62 or a mediocre 63, regardless of what the price guide says it should be worth.
Type Collector of U.S. Pre-33 Gold https://instagram.com/deplorable_dan Successful transactions with- @drfish, @Cladiator, @johnny010, @Pedzola, @PerryHall, @2windy2fish, @Ike1964, @JohnThePainter, @rpmsrpms, @REALGATOR
Yes, exactly. The range for the 58 grade is already wide enough, and there is already enough variance in price and condition within the grades with the current scale. The “stellar 58” I posted is the ex-PCGS MS65 example, so it falls well, well outside of that wide 58 range on the PCGS scale. It seems that people are in support of that range extending even further, to encompass examples from the current 61 to 65 grades as well. That makes very little sense.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
This doesn't exactly solve all problems but I think it's better than the 59 solution.
What about allowing grades 60-64 to be either MS or AU? That way deserving coins with a little bit of rub can have the higher numeric grade they deserve without encroaching on true mint state coins (even if the MS are uglier coins).
Chopmarked Trade Dollar Registry Set --- US Gold Showcase --- World Gold Showcase --- World Chopmark Showcase
"Wrong" is not the correct adjective.
Calling Mr. Butler CACG Please Weigh In
I'm not sure if he'll respond to your bat signal, but perhaps if we tag him he might decide to chime in if he feels so inclined🙂. @JohnBCoins
Type Collector of U.S. Pre-33 Gold https://instagram.com/deplorable_dan Successful transactions with- @drfish, @Cladiator, @johnny010, @Pedzola, @PerryHall, @2windy2fish, @Ike1964, @JohnThePainter, @rpmsrpms, @REALGATOR
JA has often stated he feels there are already too many AU grades. 🙂
‘’Calling Mr. Butler CACG Please Weigh In’’
A “hired gun” that switched grading services going to weigh in. This place gets more ridiculous every day! 😂
Wondercoin.
This
Is
All
You
Need
To
Know
Okay sounds good please tag him I would but don’t know how. Maybe there is a way to transfer this thread in essence to CAC forum with Mr. Rexfords coins he posted
.
I like your solution as it would denote those coins that are so close to true 100% uncirculated
I do think this is no good for the hobby to have one prestigious grading service label this coin gem MS 65 and the other prestigious grading service to label the same coin AU 58+
. I think in this case JA and CACG needs to explain to us why he feels the coin should be downgraded to AU 58+ so we can understand their position. This is very important to know the divergence in grades. Maybe someone who is influential can contact him.
We have a poll here for you which might help change JA's mind if we get enough votes
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1099039/should-there-be-au59-and-au59-grades#latest
At least the technical vs. market grading standard has already been explained.
I don’t see a problem with some TPGs using market grading and others using technical grading, as long as it’s understood.
Even before CACG was an idea, there were numerous people here that were proponents of technical grading.