We also know that it is over graded. If a piece with big marks on Ms. Liberty’s leg is an MS-66, CAC, then this must be an MS-67.
On order to avoid possible confusion, the Farouk/Elite example is graded 65 CAC, not 66 CAC.
Whatever. It used to be in an MS-63 holder which is where it belongs. CAC could have shown some independence and declined to sticker it in its present holder.
CAC declined to sticker this coin, which is in an AU-58 holder. It has more claims to that grade than this 1933 double eagle has to MS-65. This is the finest known example of a rare Overton die variety, Overton 20.
This double eagle is graded MS-65, CAC. Is that 1933 double eagle as high grade as this one?
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
We also know that it is over graded. If a piece with big marks on Ms. Liberty’s leg is an MS-66, CAC, then this must be an MS-67.
On order to avoid possible confusion, the Farouk/Elite example is graded 65 CAC, not 66 CAC.
Whatever. It used to be in an MS-63 holder which is where it belongs. CAC could have shown some independence and declined to sticker it in its present holder.
CAC declined to sticker this coin, which is in an AU-58 holder. It has more claims to that grade than this 1933 double eagle has to MS-65. This is the finest known example of a rare Overton die variety, Overton 20.
This double eagle is graded MS-65, CAC. Is that 1933 double eagle as high grade as this one?
I've never heard of the coin being graded in a holder at a grade other than MS65. Where did your "It used to be in an MS-63 holder which is where it belongs." come from?
It's one thing to disagree with the assigned grade of a coin, but it's another to be nonchalant in misstating its grading history.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
We also know that it is over graded. If a piece with big marks on Ms. Liberty’s leg is an MS-66, CAC, then this must be an MS-67.
On order to avoid possible confusion, the Farouk/Elite example is graded 65 CAC, not 66 CAC.
Whatever. It used to be in an MS-63 holder which is where it belongs. CAC could have shown some independence and declined to sticker it in its present holder.
I was wondering about that. This looks pretty rough for a 65 to me. 63 looks more appropriate.
PCGS Price Guide is only $22.5M, so Rick was good to turn it down at $30M.
I've graded many $20 double eagles and recognize the 1933 as having super clean fields that represent minimum Gem level. The central devices, more specifically Miss Liberty's knee, abdomen, and breast show some contact marks and/or strike weakness. PCGS tends to avoid letting those high points affect the grade much if at all.
Taking a look at the reverse of the 33, it looks well deserving of the Gem grade level, with it appearing much cleaner than the @BillJones example.
Besides, 63, 64, 65... who cares... it's unique. And the CAC sticker, we all know grading and opinions go out the window when high value coins are involved (free advertising).
"But seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness and all these things shall be added unto you" Matthew 6:33. Young fellow suffering from Bust Half fever.
BHNC #AN-10
JRCS #1606
Well this is from PCGS photograde. Maybe the 1933 is 65, but it's not an A or B coin IMO. If I bought a bullion MS65 saint, I would be disappointed to receive one in that condition.
@ProofCollection I agree with you. The 1933 is an unusual case because the contact marks are all held within such a small area on the coin, drawing the eye to that area and becoming a distraction. There are more attractive, evenly circulated Gem examples out there if one is looking for a type coin.
"But seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness and all these things shall be added unto you" Matthew 6:33. Young fellow suffering from Bust Half fever.
BHNC #AN-10
JRCS #1606
I'm not sure if it's that concentrated. The gouges on the knee are fairly severe and her face is mauled. These are the more significant marks I see and I'm not sure how concentrated they are - they seem pretty spread out but you do have some pristine areas.
The notion of the Farouk example being in a 63 holder is preposterous, in my opinion. It's got gem luster, pristine fields, no rim dings, and a nice clean sun. At MINIMUM it's a 64 by 21st century standards, and with the way it faces up I'd be inclined to give it a +. So perhaps its a 64+ that got a half point smooch, who gives a hoot? It;s the only collectible 1933, and it's a gorgeous, original coin. If any of us had the coin in hand it would absolutely face up as a gem, until you loupe the front leg. For those that are outraged by the CAC sticker, are you equally critical of PCGS' grade? If not, why?
You have the coin blown up to the size of a dinner plate, and you have to show some clemency to the fact that these are heavy, soft gold coins that were often stacked on top of each other, you cant just grade the coin by the high points alone. The face on the 1933 is far from mutilated, I have seen much, much worse (decapitation/facial features unrecognizable). All of the "severe" contact marks are, for the most part, concentrated to the left leg of miss Liberty. You can go through one of my boxes of 63 and 64 saints, and I assure you none of them will look as good as that coin.
@PeakRarities said:
The notion of the Farouk example being in a 63 holder is preposterous, in my opinion. It's got gem luster, pristine fields, no rim dings, and a nice clean sun. At MINIMUM it's a 64 by 21st century standards, and with the way it faces up I'd be inclined to give it a +. So perhaps its a 64+ that got a half point smooch, who gives a hoot? It;s the only collectible 1933, and it's a gorgeous, original coin. If any of us had the coin in hand it would absolutely face up as a gem, until you loupe the front leg. For those that are outraged by the CAC sticker, are you equally critical of PCGS' grade? If not, why?
You have the coin blown up to the size of a dinner plate, and you have to show some clemency to the fact that these are heavy, soft gold coins that were often stacked on top of each other, you cant just grade the coin by the high points alone. The face on the 1933 is far from mutilated, I have seen much, much worse (decapitation/facial features unrecognizable). All of the "severe" contact marks are, for the most part, concentrated to the left leg of miss Liberty. You can go through one of my boxes of 63 and 64 saints, and I assure you none of them will look as good as that coin.
I don't think it's a 63. My contention is mostly that if it is a 65, it is a "C" coin and not worthy of a sticker. We had a discussion in another thread about whether JA would be pressured to crossover one of Hansen's collections to CACG. I think it's pretty clear from this example that JA will loosen the standards for high profile situations.
@PeakRarities said:
The notion of the Farouk example being in a 63 holder is preposterous, in my opinion. It's got gem luster, pristine fields, no rim dings, and a nice clean sun. At MINIMUM it's a 64 by 21st century standards, and with the way it faces up I'd be inclined to give it a +. So perhaps its a 64+ that got a half point smooch, who gives a hoot? It;s the only collectible 1933, and it's a gorgeous, original coin. If any of us had the coin in hand it would absolutely face up as a gem, until you loupe the front leg. For those that are outraged by the CAC sticker, are you equally critical of PCGS' grade? If not, why?
You have the coin blown up to the size of a dinner plate, and you have to show some clemency to the fact that these are heavy, soft gold coins that were often stacked on top of each other, you cant just grade the coin by the high points alone. The face on the 1933 is far from mutilated, I have seen much, much worse (decapitation/facial features unrecognizable). All of the "severe" contact marks are, for the most part, concentrated to the left leg of miss Liberty. You can go through one of my boxes of 63 and 64 saints, and I assure you none of them will look as good as that coin.
I don't think it's a 63. My contention is mostly that if it is a 65, it is a "C" coin and not worthy of a sticker. We had a discussion in another thread about whether JA would be pressured to crossover one of Hansen's collections to CACG. I think it's pretty clear from this example that JA will loosen the standards for high profile situations.
I don’t. You lost me with everything after your first sentence. Sure, it’s not super solid as a 65 but it’s got original surfaces and it faces up like a 66. You want to hold JA in contempt for mildly compromising his standards to advertise his brand on the most expensive and renowned coin in the world? The only example that’s allowed to be privately owned?
How exactly is it “pretty clear” that he would compromise his standards with the Hansen collection, based on the 1933? And I’m curious, are you equally critical of the grade assigned by PCGS, or no?
@PeakRarities said:
The notion of the Farouk example being in a 63 holder is preposterous, in my opinion. It's got gem luster, pristine fields, no rim dings, and a nice clean sun. At MINIMUM it's a 64 by 21st century standards, and with the way it faces up I'd be inclined to give it a +. So perhaps its a 64+ that got a half point smooch, who gives a hoot? It;s the only collectible 1933, and it's a gorgeous, original coin. If any of us had the coin in hand it would absolutely face up as a gem, until you loupe the front leg. For those that are outraged by the CAC sticker, are you equally critical of PCGS' grade? If not, why?
You have the coin blown up to the size of a dinner plate, and you have to show some clemency to the fact that these are heavy, soft gold coins that were often stacked on top of each other, you cant just grade the coin by the high points alone. The face on the 1933 is far from mutilated, I have seen much, much worse (decapitation/facial features unrecognizable). All of the "severe" contact marks are, for the most part, concentrated to the left leg of miss Liberty. You can go through one of my boxes of 63 and 64 saints, and I assure you none of them will look as good as that coin.
I don't think it's a 63. My contention is mostly that if it is a 65, it is a "C" coin and not worthy of a sticker. We had a discussion in another thread about whether JA would be pressured to crossover one of Hansen's collections to CACG. I think it's pretty clear from this example that JA will loosen the standards for high profile situations.
I don’t. You lost me with everything after your first sentence. Sure, it’s not super solid as a 65 but it’s got original surfaces and it faces up like a 66. You want to hold JA in contempt for mildly compromising his standards to advertise his brand on the most expensive and renowned coin in the world? The only example that’s allowed to be privately owned?
How exactly is it “pretty clear” that he would compromise his standards with the Hansen collection, based on the 1933? And I’m curious, are you equally critical of the grade assigned by PCGS, or no?
I think the PCGS grade is acceptable. It's a 64A or a 65C. Assuming the PCGS photograde example is a 65B, the 1933 is not as nice, IMO. It's clear from the comments here that it is not a 65A so the only debate really is, is it a "B" coin? Supposedly, to qualify for a sticker it must be. I think it's easy to draw the conclusion that if the standards can be bent for the 1933 that they will be bent for others. TBH I'd consider doing the same but I probably wouldn't due to the increased scrutiny for a coin like this unless I really felt it was an A or B coin lest I have a bunch of collectors debating whether the sticker is legitimate or not. A few in other threads have argued or at least suggested that JA would never compromise his standards due to impeccable character, but I'm too lazy to search and quote them. Regardless, it's not a stretch that if JA "made accommodations" for the 1933 that he won't do it in other situations. As we discussed in the other thread, even when you have a collector who buys top pops and the best coins around, what are the odds that they are all "A" and "B" coins completely free of surface issues? Certainly there are at least a few PCGS top grade pop 1 coins that Hansen owns that fall within the "C" spectrum. Is JA really going to downgrade those coins when they attempt crossing? Before I studied this 1933 I would have thought it would be more likely for JA to hold firm and downgrade, now I have the perception that he's flexible when the situation calls for it. I'm trying not to be critical as it becomes a business decision and is probably what's best for his business and investors and I can't say I wouldn't do the same. But from a core philosophy, I believe the same grade and sticker standards should apply to $5 coins as the most expensive coins and we should not justify compromises just because a coin is super famous or rare or expensive.
All of that said with the caveat that I agree grading is subjective and recognize that my grade opinions expressed here may not align with the CACG standards. If you Dan think it's a 65B I do give your grade opinions significant weight because you specialize in these coins. You've pretty much stated that you think it's a 65, but do you think it's A, B, or C?
I think it's not a good use of time to argue if this coin is a 65B or 65C coin. Grading is subjective and sometimes even depends on the mood of the grader. JA is human after all. Maybe on some days he might think it's a 65C coin and on other days he might see it as a 65B coin. It not unreasonable to think that JA did not compromise his standards when he looked at this coin in 2021 and he actually thought it deserved a CAC sticker on the 65 grade. Remember that this coin was graded by PCGS, NGC, and CAC without holdering. So there was not a huge incentive to overgrade the coin or give it a sticker because the coin would not immediately be holdered. There weren't any pictures of the coin in a holder with a CAC sticker when the coin was auctioned in 2021. I won this coin raw and decided to get it holdered by PCGS afterwards.
If this coin was dated 1924 rather than 1933, would CAC have stickered it?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
@ProofCollection said:
I'm not sure if it's that concentrated. The gouges on the knee are fairly severe and her face is mauled. These are the more significant marks I see and I'm not sure how concentrated they are - they seem pretty spread out but you do have some pristine areas.
Gotta say, the red circles all over that photo reminded me of one of my research papers after my college professor had finished with it……but I still got a 92% on it…lol
The frost on this coin is thick as pea soup! Among the other comments on this thread, I would argue that there's no such thing as a 1924 Saint with this type of frost. They don't come that way -- and if they did -- would be a gem all day. The frost invites marks that wouldn't be present/visible otherwise, like fresh snow. Regardless, if I had $30M to spare, I would def add this coin to my collection. She's a beauty and has the best story is all American numismatics, and will always be a pillar coin.
John Feigenbaum Whitman Brands: President/CEO (www.greysheet.com; www.whitman.com) PNG: Executive Director (www.pngdealers.org)
@PeakRarities said:
The notion of the Farouk example being in a 63 holder is preposterous, in my opinion. It's got gem luster, pristine fields, no rim dings, and a nice clean sun. At MINIMUM it's a 64 by 21st century standards, and with the way it faces up I'd be inclined to give it a +. So perhaps its a 64+ that got a half point smooch, who gives a hoot? It;s the only collectible 1933, and it's a gorgeous, original coin. If any of us had the coin in hand it would absolutely face up as a gem, until you loupe the front leg. For those that are outraged by the CAC sticker, are you equally critical of PCGS' grade? If not, why?
You have the coin blown up to the size of a dinner plate, and you have to show some clemency to the fact that these are heavy, soft gold coins that were often stacked on top of each other, you cant just grade the coin by the high points alone. The face on the 1933 is far from mutilated, I have seen much, much worse (decapitation/facial features unrecognizable). All of the "severe" contact marks are, for the most part, concentrated to the left leg of miss Liberty. You can go through one of my boxes of 63 and 64 saints, and I assure you none of them will look as good as that coin.
I don't think it's a 63. My contention is mostly that if it is a 65, it is a "C" coin and not worthy of a sticker. We had a discussion in another thread about whether JA would be pressured to crossover one of Hansen's collections to CACG. I think it's pretty clear from this example that JA will loosen the standards for high profile situations.
I don’t. You lost me with everything after your first sentence. Sure, it’s not super solid as a 65 but it’s got original surfaces and it faces up like a 66. You want to hold JA in contempt for mildly compromising his standards to advertise his brand on the most expensive and renowned coin in the world? The only example that’s allowed to be privately owned?
How exactly is it “pretty clear” that he would compromise his standards with the Hansen collection, based on the 1933? And I’m curious, are you equally critical of the grade assigned by PCGS, or no?
I think the PCGS grade is acceptable. It's a 64A or a 65C. Assuming the PCGS photograde example is a 65B, the 1933 is not as nice, IMO. It's clear from the comments here that it is not a 65A so the only debate really is, is it a "B" coin? Supposedly, to qualify for a sticker it must be. I think it's easy to draw the conclusion that if the standards can be bent for the 1933 that they will be bent for others. TBH I'd consider doing the same but I probably wouldn't due to the increased scrutiny for a coin like this unless I really felt it was an A or B coin lest I have a bunch of collectors debating whether the sticker is legitimate or not. A few in other threads have argued or at least suggested that JA would never compromise his standards due to impeccable character, but I'm too lazy to search and quote them. Regardless, it's not a stretch that if JA "made accommodations" for the 1933 that he won't do it in other situations. As we discussed in the other thread, even when you have a collector who buys top pops and the best coins around, what are the odds that they are all "A" and "B" coins completely free of surface issues? Certainly there are at least a few PCGS top grade pop 1 coins that Hansen owns that fall within the "C" spectrum. Is JA really going to downgrade those coins when they attempt crossing? Before I studied this 1933 I would have thought it would be more likely for JA to hold firm and downgrade, now I have the perception that he's flexible when the situation calls for it. I'm trying not to be critical as it becomes a business decision and is probably what's best for his business and investors and I can't say I wouldn't do the same. But from a core philosophy, I believe the same grade and sticker standards should apply to $5 coins as the most expensive coins and we should not justify compromises just because a coin is super famous or rare or expensive.
All of that said with the caveat that I agree grading is subjective and recognize that my grade opinions expressed here may not align with the CACG standards. If you Dan think it's a 65B I do give your grade opinions significant weight because you specialize in these coins. You've pretty much stated that you think it's a 65, but do you think it's A, B, or C?
It's disappointing this thread has turned into yet another CAC thread, particularly when it comes to such a special coin. Particularly because, as discussed ad nauseam, ABC grading isn't a real thing at CAC.
There is no such thing as a C coin. The ABC scale was an attempt to explain the process to the laymen and to not broadly insult a huge swath of coins that JA believed were incorrectly graded. (Coins not stickered by JA but that nonetheless are owned by his clients and others).
The sticker really means: this coin has not been messed with and JA would be willing to buy it sight unseen at its assigned grade (or higher in case of a gold sticker), Clearly, JA would be happy to buy this coin sight unseen. It's THE 1933 $20! So it gets a sticker.
Any other attempt to delve into the minutiae of the 64A vs 65C, etc is pointless.
@EliteCollection said:
Everything is for sale at a certain price. I won't consider selling it for under $30M at this time, but I would have to really think hard if I did get an offer over $30M.
If Congress passes new legislation in the future to tax unrealized capital appreciation of such a coin ( which I happen to think is unconstitutional) you might then prefer to publicly talk your coin down until you sell it at your price.
@EliteCollection said:
I think it's not a good use of time to argue if this coin is a 65B or 65C coin. Grading is subjective and sometimes even depends on the mood of the grader. JA is human after all. Maybe on some days he might think it's a 65C coin and on other days he might see it as a 65B coin. It not unreasonable to think that JA did not compromise his standards when he looked at this coin in 2021 and he actually thought it deserved a CAC sticker on the 65 grade. Remember that this coin was graded by PCGS, NGC, and CAC without holdering. So there was not a huge incentive to overgrade the coin or give it a sticker because the coin would not immediately be holdered. There weren't any pictures of the coin in a holder with a CAC sticker when the coin was auctioned in 2021. I won this coin raw and decided to get it holdered by PCGS afterwards.
This coin is currently one of a kind…..I look at the CAC sticker as recognizing that, not attesting the grade. It does not matter what graded slab this 1933 double eagle is in. It happens to be my favorite coin of all times.
I have seen JA sticker gold coins that have awesome luster but otherwise appear to be too heavily bagmarked to be solid for the assigned grade. He is consistent in this regard. This shows me that luster is often more important to JA.
@EliteCollection said:
I think it's not a good use of time to argue if this coin is a 65B or 65C coin. Grading is subjective and sometimes even depends on the mood of the grader. JA is human after all. Maybe on some days he might think it's a 65C coin and on other days he might see it as a 65B coin. It not unreasonable to think that JA did not compromise his standards when he looked at this coin in 2021 and he actually thought it deserved a CAC sticker on the 65 grade. Remember that this coin was graded by PCGS, NGC, and CAC without holdering. So there was not a huge incentive to overgrade the coin or give it a sticker because the coin would not immediately be holdered. There weren't any pictures of the coin in a holder with a CAC sticker when the coin was auctioned in 2021. I won this coin raw and decided to get it holdered by PCGS afterwards.
This coin is currently one of a kind…..I look at the CAC sticker as recognizing that, not attesting the grade. It does not matter what graded slab this 1933 double eagle is in. It happens to be my favorite coin of all times.
I can't wait to buy at the Oreville safe deposit box fire sale as you sell everything off to raise $30,000,001! Dibs on any no motto branch mint gold!
@EliteCollection said:
I think it's not a good use of time to argue if this coin is a 65B or 65C coin. Grading is subjective and sometimes even depends on the mood of the grader. JA is human after all. Maybe on some days he might think it's a 65C coin and on other days he might see it as a 65B coin. It not unreasonable to think that JA did not compromise his standards when he looked at this coin in 2021 and he actually thought it deserved a CAC sticker on the 65 grade. Remember that this coin was graded by PCGS, NGC, and CAC without holdering. So there was not a huge incentive to overgrade the coin or give it a sticker because the coin would not immediately be holdered. There weren't any pictures of the coin in a holder with a CAC sticker when the coin was auctioned in 2021. I won this coin raw and decided to get it holdered by PCGS afterwards.
This coin is currently one of a kind…..I look at the CAC sticker as recognizing that, not attesting the grade. It does not matter what graded slab this 1933 double eagle is in. It happens to be my favorite coin of all times.
I can't wait to buy at the Oreville safe deposit box fire sale as you sell everything off to raise $30,000,001! Dibs on any no motto branch mint gold!
@EliteCollection said:
I think it's not a good use of time to argue if this coin is a 65B or 65C coin. Grading is subjective and sometimes even depends on the mood of the grader. JA is human after all. Maybe on some days he might think it's a 65C coin and on other days he might see it as a 65B coin. It not unreasonable to think that JA did not compromise his standards when he looked at this coin in 2021 and he actually thought it deserved a CAC sticker on the 65 grade. Remember that this coin was graded by PCGS, NGC, and CAC without holdering. So there was not a huge incentive to overgrade the coin or give it a sticker because the coin would not immediately be holdered. There weren't any pictures of the coin in a holder with a CAC sticker when the coin was auctioned in 2021. I won this coin raw and decided to get it holdered by PCGS afterwards.
This coin is currently one of a kind…..I look at the CAC sticker as recognizing that, not attesting the grade. It does not matter what graded slab this 1933 double eagle is in. It happens to be my favorite coin of all times.
I can't wait to buy at the Oreville safe deposit box fire sale as you sell everything off to raise $30,000,001! Dibs on any no motto branch mint gold!
This is not a coin to compare to an earlier date of Saint - compare it to a 1932 - as the luster/frost on the coin is very similar to 1932-dated examples. The luster is thick in my opinion (and the opinion of many who viewed the coin at the ANA a few years ago), and it looks uber fresh. I remember one grader commented "oh, I heard about the knee, but they left out how the rest of the coin looks - it's fresh and has not been messed with".
I also think some images make it look worse than it is with how the lighting was done. I do think that it's easy to find a fault on any coin if you're wanting to. Especially if you haven't seen in-hand.
We're aiming to display this coin next year at a major show - so please all come and see it!
Frankly a lot of people here are starstruck, if you will... and are being intellectually dishonest with themselves on this coin just because it is a mega rarity. Pick any other date in this series with all other things being exactly equal to the appearance of this coin and there is little to no chance you'd agree with the grade or sticker. There's a difference between frost breaks and scrapes. This coin has both along with multiple tiny ticks. And yes I've seen it in person. I'm not ripping on it out of hand mind you, but imo condition is condition- and rarity, previous ownership, a good backstory, and publicity stunts don't magically make marks disappear. Value? Heck yeah, that's different. But not grade. jmho
@ianrussell said:
This is not a coin to compare to an earlier date of Saint - compare it to a 1932 - as the luster/frost on the coin is very similar to 1932-dated examples. The luster is thick in my opinion (and the opinion of many who viewed the coin at the ANA a few years ago), and it looks uber fresh. I remember one grader commented "oh, I heard about the knee, but they left out how the rest of the coin looks - it's fresh and has not been messed with".
I also think some images make it look worse than it is with how the lighting was done. I do think that it's easy to find a fault on any coin if you're wanting to. Especially if you haven't seen in-hand.
We're aiming to display this coin next year at a major show - so please all come and see it!
Ian
Thanks for making the coin accessible and for getting EC to participate in the show. I think anything that tells the history of our hobby is a plus. You did a great job on the show, Ian, thanks !!
@EliteCollection said:
I think it's not a good use of time to argue if this coin is a 65B or 65C coin. Grading is subjective and sometimes even depends on the mood of the grader. JA is human after all. Maybe on some days he might think it's a 65C coin and on other days he might see it as a 65B coin. It not unreasonable to think that JA did not compromise his standards when he looked at this coin in 2021 and he actually thought it deserved a CAC sticker on the 65 grade. Remember that this coin was graded by PCGS, NGC, and CAC without holdering. So there was not a huge incentive to overgrade the coin or give it a sticker because the coin would not immediately be holdered. There weren't any pictures of the coin in a holder with a CAC sticker when the coin was auctioned in 2021. I won this coin raw and decided to get it holdered by PCGS afterwards.
This coin is currently one of a kind…..I look at the CAC sticker as recognizing that, not attesting the grade. It does not matter what graded slab this 1933 double eagle is in. It happens to be my favorite coin of all times.
In that case I would argue that CAC needs to update their website which currently says:
If you wish to see whether your third-party graded coin meets or exceeds CAC standards for the grade, submit to our stickering service. Our graders will review the coin(s) and return each with a green sticker (for meeting expectations), a gold sticker (for exceeding expectations), or without a sticker (for not meeting expectations).
to also say "...and to recognize one of a kind coins." To which I would respond, 'why does CAC need to recognize them?' This coin and other one-of-a-kinders don't really benefit from or "need" recognition by CAC or anyone else. I would be surprised to learn that CAC has "secret" additional criteria for awarding stickers.
@telephoto1 said:
Frankly a lot of people here are starstruck, if you will... and are being intellectually dishonest with themselves on this coin just because it is a mega rarity. Pick any other date in this series with all other things being exactly equal to the appearance of this coin and there is little to no chance you'd agree with the grade or sticker. There's a difference between frost breaks and scrapes. This coin has both along with multiple tiny ticks. And yes I've seen it in person. I'm not ripping on it out of hand mind you, but imo condition is condition- and rarity, previous ownership, a good backstory, and publicity stunts don't magically make marks disappear. Value? Heck yeah, that's different. But not grade. jmho
@EliteCollection said:
I think it's not a good use of time to argue if this coin is a 65B or 65C coin. Grading is subjective and sometimes even depends on the mood of the grader. JA is human after all. Maybe on some days he might think it's a 65C coin and on other days he might see it as a 65B coin. It not unreasonable to think that JA did not compromise his standards when he looked at this coin in 2021 and he actually thought it deserved a CAC sticker on the 65 grade. Remember that this coin was graded by PCGS, NGC, and CAC without holdering. So there was not a huge incentive to overgrade the coin or give it a sticker because the coin would not immediately be holdered. There weren't any pictures of the coin in a holder with a CAC sticker when the coin was auctioned in 2021. I won this coin raw and decided to get it holdered by PCGS afterwards.
This coin is currently one of a kind…..I look at the CAC sticker as recognizing that, not attesting the grade. It does not matter what graded slab this 1933 double eagle is in. It happens to be my favorite coin of all times.
In that case I would argue that CAC needs to update their website which currently says:
If you wish to see whether your third-party graded coin meets or exceeds CAC standards for the grade, submit to our stickering service. Our graders will review the coin(s) and return each with a green sticker (for meeting expectations), a gold sticker (for exceeding expectations), or without a sticker (for not meeting expectations).
to also say "...and to recognize one of a kind coins." To which I would respond, 'why does CAC need to recognize them?' This coin and other one-of-a-kinders don't really benefit from or "need" recognition by CAC or anyone else. I would be surprised to learn that CAC has "secret" additional criteria for awarding stickers.
I don't know why you insist on being obtuse, I know that you are a reasonably informed individual and you understand the value in advertising. It's called brand recognition. Take a guess at how many laymen and non collectors may stumble across an article or a slab photo of the 1933 with the CAC sticker. Even many laymen are aware of PCGS or NGC, but how many do you think may have seen the CAC sticker for the first time, and subsequently learned about CAC and the meaning of the sticker? The real estate on that label is worth it's weight in gold, and do you know what CAC had to pay for it? Nothing. Exposure to thousands, if not tens of thousands of people who had no idea what CAC was until they saw the little green sticker on the 1933.
@telephoto1 said:
Frankly a lot of people here are starstruck, if you will... and are being intellectually dishonest with themselves on this coin just because it is a mega rarity. Pick any other date in this series with all other things being exactly equal to the appearance of this coin and there is little to no chance you'd agree with the grade or sticker. There's a difference between frost breaks and scrapes. This coin has both along with multiple tiny ticks. And yes I've seen it in person. I'm not ripping on it out of hand mind you, but imo condition is condition- and rarity, previous ownership, a good backstory, and publicity stunts don't magically make marks disappear. Value? Heck yeah, that's different. But not grade. jmho
I was going to leave this thread be, but since four others have now agreed with your comment, I'll ask a couple questions that anyone is welcomed to answer.
What is your point?
I've made no observation of anyone in the thread who's being "starstruck" or "intellectually dishonest". I stated that I would likely grade the coin 64+, though I don't take issue with the current grade. Ian quoted a grader as saying "Oh, I've heard about the knee, but they left out how the rest of the coin looks!". That pretty much summarizes the grade of this coin, and you can visit photograde or any reference and see that the coin would be at least a 64 at any TPG.
With that being said, do you all think that JA should have "held the line", and squandered an invaluable advertising opportunity in the name of "strict grading"? Why should he be the martyr who publicly opposes the grade given by PCGS, the most respected grading company in the world? I would agree that if it was any other saint, it probably wouldn't have stickered as a 65, but the fact is that it's not just "any other saint". It's the only legal example, and squabbling over the highly irrelevant grade is a complete waste of time, when any of us would be happy to plop down 30m for it if we were billionaires. Would a potential buyer argue that the coin is only worth 15 mil because its not "solid for the grade"? Come on now.
"However, on Monday, June 10, 2002, the 1933 Double Eagle was examined by Professional Coin Grading Service [PCGS] grading experts, including PCGS founders David Hall and John Dannreuther, at Sotheby's office in Beverly Hills. As related by David Hall on the PCGS website: "Before the Steven Fenton coin was sold by Sotheby's, it was displayed in Beveryly Hills. PCGS made arrangements to have the PCGS graders view the coin. Sotheby's was very accommodating and allowed us to view the coin out of the holder in good lighting conditions. The coin was the creamy luster you see on late date Saints and though there are a few minor marks, it would grade a solid MS 65 at PCGS." Most recently, on March 18, 2021, Brett Charville, President of PCGS, re-examined the coin at Sotheby's New York, and certified the coin as MS 65 (PCGS certification number: 42095232)"
I think arguing whether or not PCGS gave a pass to this coin is pointless. Is it possible they did for an ultra rarity? Sure, most people would agree that all the 1804 proof dollars are over graded. And PCGS may have done the same here. But it's also possible that they didn't and truly felt the coin deserved a gem grade. As Ian has said, when compared to the luster of a 1932, this coin's luster is thick and that may have pushed it over the edge.
As for the CAC sticker, without JA coming in this thread to explain his reasoning, I think we should give him benefit of the doubt. Remember that this coin was graded and stickered out of the holder. So there was no expectations of having photos of the coin in a holder with a CAC sticker. There was some PR benefit to have CAC mentioned on the Sotheby's auction site and articles about the coin and auction. But given what I know of JA, I can't imagine he would compromise his standards and integrity just for this tiny bit of PR. And he didn't sticker any of the 1804 $1s. So why would he compromise for this coin. Very silly to argue JA compromised his integrity based on your subjective opinion of the grade of the coin from images.
@EliteCollection said:
I think it's not a good use of time to argue if this coin is a 65B or 65C coin. Grading is subjective and sometimes even depends on the mood of the grader. JA is human after all. Maybe on some days he might think it's a 65C coin and on other days he might see it as a 65B coin. It not unreasonable to think that JA did not compromise his standards when he looked at this coin in 2021 and he actually thought it deserved a CAC sticker on the 65 grade. Remember that this coin was graded by PCGS, NGC, and CAC without holdering. So there was not a huge incentive to overgrade the coin or give it a sticker because the coin would not immediately be holdered. There weren't any pictures of the coin in a holder with a CAC sticker when the coin was auctioned in 2021. I won this coin raw and decided to get it holdered by PCGS afterwards.
This coin is currently one of a kind…..I look at the CAC sticker as recognizing that, not attesting the grade. It does not matter what graded slab this 1933 double eagle is in. It happens to be my favorite coin of all times.
In that case I would argue that CAC needs to update their website which currently says:
If you wish to see whether your third-party graded coin meets or exceeds CAC standards for the grade, submit to our stickering service. Our graders will review the coin(s) and return each with a green sticker (for meeting expectations), a gold sticker (for exceeding expectations), or without a sticker (for not meeting expectations).
to also say "...and to recognize one of a kind coins." To which I would respond, 'why does CAC need to recognize them?' This coin and other one-of-a-kinders don't really benefit from or "need" recognition by CAC or anyone else. I would be surprised to learn that CAC has "secret" additional criteria for awarding stickers.
I don't know why you insist on being obtuse, I know that you are a reasonably informed individual and you understand the value in advertising. It's called brand recognition. Take a guess at how many laymen and non collectors may stumble across an article or a slab photo of the 1933 with the CAC sticker. Even many laymen are aware of PCGS or NGC, but how many do you think may have seen the CAC sticker for the first time, and subsequently learned about CAC and the meaning of the sticker? The real estate on that label is worth it's weight in gold, and do you know what CAC had to pay for it? Nothing. Exposure to thousands, if not tens of thousands of people who had no idea what CAC was until they saw the little green sticker on the 1933.
Yeah, but you can damage the brand by showing compromised standards. I admitted I would consider it to if that was my business.
@PeakRarities said:
With that being said, do you all think that JA should have "held the line", and squandered an invaluable advertising opportunity in the name of "strict grading"? Why should he be the martyr who publicly opposes the grade given by PCGS, the most respected grading company in the world? I would agree that if it was any other saint, it probably wouldn't have stickered as a 65, but the fact is that it's not just "any other saint". It's the only legal example, and squabbling over the highly irrelevant grade is a complete waste of time, when any of us would be happy to plop down 30m for it if we were billionaires. Would a potential buyer argue that the coin is only worth 15 mil because its not "solid for the grade"? Come on now.
In line with my previous comment, it wouldn't be a squandered opportunity so much as protecting the brand/reputation. It could also be seen as an opportunity to demonstrate uncompromising standards by letting it be known that it did not qualify. And further, to not mislead customers who may have PCGS MS65 common date Saints with similar surfaces into submitting them for CAC stickers expecting to get them. A bit of a stretch I admit because it would be impossible to definitively have an equivalent comparable coin, but still. And yes, on a Pop 1 only unique piece the grade is irrelevant to its value, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be accurate and doesn't make for a lively discussion.
@EliteCollection said:
As for the CAC sticker, without JA coming in this thread to explain his reasoning, I think we should give him benefit of the doubt. Remember that this coin was graded and stickered out of the holder. So there was no expectations of having photos of the coin in a holder with a CAC sticker. There was some PR benefit to have CAC mentioned on the Sotheby's auction site and articles about the coin and auction. But given what I know of JA, I can't imagine he would compromise his standards and integrity just for this tiny bit of PR. And he didn't sticker any of the 1804 $1s. So why would he compromise for this coin. Very silly to argue JA compromised his integrity based on your subjective opinion of the grade of the coin from images.
Good points, EC. What I wonder is....did JA NET GRADE the coin ?
If you've read the interviews that he's given with a few publications, he talks about holding the line at gradeflation and net-grading during rising price periods. It's POSSIBLE that the uniqueness of the 1933 Double Eagle was such that the blazing luster and other qualities (that nobody that hasn't seen it in-hand could see) merited the 65 CAC grade.
Remember what he told Maurice Rosen in 2008: CAC signifies STRONG for the grade. Well, he must feel that this is STRONG for the 65 grade for the 1933 coin.
1933 coin....NOT coins, plural. Since this is a one-of-a-kind coin, it's not stretching the grade to say that it should be graded similarly. Call it "grading on a curve" if you will.
@telephoto1 said:
Frankly a lot of people here are starstruck, if you will... and are being intellectually dishonest with themselves on this coin just because it is a mega rarity. Pick any other date in this series with all other things being exactly equal to the appearance of this coin and there is little to no chance you'd agree with the grade or sticker. There's a difference between frost breaks and scrapes. This coin has both along with multiple tiny ticks. And yes I've seen it in person. I'm not ripping on it out of hand mind you, but imo condition is condition- and rarity, previous ownership, a good backstory, and publicity stunts don't magically make marks disappear. Value? Heck yeah, that's different. But not grade. jmho
I was going to leave this thread be, but since four others have now agreed with your comment, I'll ask a couple questions that anyone is welcomed to answer.
What is your point?
I've made no observation of anyone in the thread who's being "starstruck" or "intellectually dishonest". I stated that I would likely grade the coin 64+, though I don't take issue with the current grade. Ian quoted a grader as saying "Oh, I've heard about the knee, but they left out how the rest of the coin looks!". That pretty much summarizes the grade of this coin, and you can visit photograde or any reference and see that the coin would be at least a 64 at any TPG.
With that being said, do you all think that JA should have "held the line", and squandered an invaluable advertising opportunity in the name of "strict grading"? Why should he be the martyr who publicly opposes the grade given by PCGS, the most respected grading company in the world? I would agree that if it was any other saint, it probably wouldn't have stickered as a 65, but the fact is that it's not just "any other saint". It's the only legal example, and squabbling over the highly irrelevant grade is a complete waste of time, when any of us would be happy to plop down 30m for it if we were billionaires. Would a potential buyer argue that the coin is only worth 15 mil because its not "solid for the grade"? Come on now.
My point is fairly obvious and clearly stated. Many coins get a pass from people who would otherwise acknowledge an obvious overgrade were it not a high-profile rarity, which is intellectually dishonest imo because they know better. You yourself said above that if it were any other Saint you wouldn't agree with the grade and also called it a 64+. My statement dealt strictly with grading and not value so your strawman question about whether a buyer would only offer 15 mil is silly. This coin would no doubt bring the same amount in a 64 holder.
@EliteCollection said:
As for the CAC sticker, without JA coming in this thread to explain his reasoning, I think we should give him benefit of the doubt. Remember that this coin was graded and stickered out of the holder. So there was no expectations of having photos of the coin in a holder with a CAC sticker. There was some PR benefit to have CAC mentioned on the Sotheby's auction site and articles about the coin and auction. But given what I know of JA, I can't imagine he would compromise his standards and integrity just for this tiny bit of PR. And he didn't sticker any of the 1804 $1s. So why would he compromise for this coin. Very silly to argue JA compromised his integrity based on your subjective opinion of the grade of the coin from images.
Good points, EC. What I wonder is....did JA NET GRADE the coin ?
If you've read the interviews that he's given with a few publications, he talks about holding the line at gradeflation and net-grading during rising price periods. It's POSSIBLE that the uniqueness of the 1933 Double Eagle was such that the blazing luster and other qualities (that nobody that hasn't seen it in-hand could see) merited the 65 CAC grade.
Remember what he told Maurice Rosen in 2008: CAC signifies STRONG for the grade. Well, he must feel that this is STRONG for the 65 grade for the 1933 coin.
1933 coin....NOT coins, plural. Since this is a one-of-a-kind coin, it's not stretching the grade to say that it should be graded similarly. Call it "grading on a curve" if you will.
Anyway, JMHO.
BTW, I like the Elite Collection label.
It sounds like you were talking about "market grading" not "net grading".
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
We also know that it is over graded. If a piece with big marks on Ms. Liberty’s leg is an MS-66, CAC, then this must be an MS-67.
On order to avoid possible confusion, the Farouk/Elite example is graded 65 CAC, not 66 CAC.
Whatever. It used to be in an MS-63 holder which is where it belongs. CAC could have shown some independence and declined to sticker it in its present holder.
CAC declined to sticker this coin, which is in an AU-58 holder. It has more claims to that grade than this 1933 double eagle has to MS-65. This is the finest known example of a rare Overton die variety, Overton 20.
This double eagle is graded MS-65, CAC. Is that 1933 double eagle as high grade as this one?
I've never heard of the coin being graded in a holder at a grade other than MS65. Where did your "It used to be in an MS-63 holder which is where it belongs." come from?
It's one thing to disagree with the assigned grade of a coin, but it's another to be nonchalant in misstating its grading history.
I absolutely agree. This coin was never in a 63 holder. I remember when it was graded as a 65 without ever having been seen in hand.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
@EliteCollection said:
I think it's not a good use of time to argue if this coin is a 65B or 65C coin. Grading is subjective and sometimes even depends on the mood of the grader. JA is human after all. Maybe on some days he might think it's a 65C coin and on other days he might see it as a 65B coin. It not unreasonable to think that JA did not compromise his standards when he looked at this coin in 2021 and he actually thought it deserved a CAC sticker on the 65 grade. Remember that this coin was graded by PCGS, NGC, and CAC without holdering. So there was not a huge incentive to overgrade the coin or give it a sticker because the coin would not immediately be holdered. There weren't any pictures of the coin in a holder with a CAC sticker when the coin was auctioned in 2021. I won this coin raw and decided to get it holdered by PCGS afterwards.
This coin is currently one of a kind…..I look at the CAC sticker as recognizing that, not attesting the grade. It does not matter what graded slab this 1933 double eagle is in. It happens to be my favorite coin of all times.
In that case I would argue that CAC needs to update their website which currently says:
If you wish to see whether your third-party graded coin meets or exceeds CAC standards for the grade, submit to our stickering service. Our graders will review the coin(s) and return each with a green sticker (for meeting expectations), a gold sticker (for exceeding expectations), or without a sticker (for not meeting expectations).
to also say "...and to recognize one of a kind coins." To which I would respond, 'why does CAC need to recognize them?' This coin and other one-of-a-kinders don't really benefit from or "need" recognition by CAC or anyone else. I would be surprised to learn that CAC has "secret" additional criteria for awarding stickers.
I don't know why you insist on being obtuse, I know that you are a reasonably informed individual and you understand the value in advertising. It's called brand recognition. Take a guess at how many laymen and non collectors may stumble across an article or a slab photo of the 1933 with the CAC sticker. Even many laymen are aware of PCGS or NGC, but how many do you think may have seen the CAC sticker for the first time, and subsequently learned about CAC and the meaning of the sticker? The real estate on that label is worth it's weight in gold, and do you know what CAC had to pay for it? Nothing. Exposure to thousands, if not tens of thousands of people who had no idea what CAC was until they saw the little green sticker on the 1933.
Yeah, but you can damage the brand by showing compromised standards. I admitted I would consider it to if that was my business.
@PeakRarities said:
With that being said, do you all think that JA should have "held the line", and squandered an invaluable advertising opportunity in the name of "strict grading"? Why should he be the martyr who publicly opposes the grade given by PCGS, the most respected grading company in the world? I would agree that if it was any other saint, it probably wouldn't have stickered as a 65, but the fact is that it's not just "any other saint". It's the only legal example, and squabbling over the highly irrelevant grade is a complete waste of time, when any of us would be happy to plop down 30m for it if we were billionaires. Would a potential buyer argue that the coin is only worth 15 mil because its not "solid for the grade"? Come on now.
In line with my previous comment, it wouldn't be a squandered opportunity so much as protecting the brand/reputation. It could also be seen as an opportunity to demonstrate uncompromising standards by letting it be known that it did not qualify. And further, to not mislead customers who may have PCGS MS65 common date Saints with similar surfaces into submitting them for CAC stickers expecting to get them. A bit of a stretch I admit because it would be impossible to definitively have an equivalent comparable coin, but still. And yes, on a Pop 1 only unique piece the grade is irrelevant to its value, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be accurate and doesn't make for a lively discussion.
The statement I made bold is perhaps the only potential negative I could see coming from the situation. Our fundamental disagreement is based off of our interpretation of what CAC is.
If you asked me a few years ago, my position might have been the same as yours now. Since then, my understanding of CAC has evolved. I dont see it as A/B/C or "solid for the grade", despite whats said in interviews. My understanding is that at a basal ;level, CAC means that JA would buy the coin, sight unseen, for CAC money. In this case since theres only one, I understand why the coin would receive a sticker despite possibly being weak for the grade. I see it as a business decision, and instead of appeasing the few of us geeks who inhabit the forums, he chose to extend an olive branch to the thousands of laymen who might have never otherwise been exposed to CAC. You make some valid points, but it just doesnt bother me when I consider all the benefits of stickering the coin, instead of some virtuous decision to hold the line.
We also know that it is over graded. If a piece with big marks on Ms. Liberty’s leg is an MS-66, CAC, then this must be an MS-67.
On order to avoid possible confusion, the Farouk/Elite example is graded 65 CAC, not 66 CAC.
Whatever. It used to be in an MS-63 holder which is where it belongs. CAC could have shown some independence and declined to sticker it in its present holder.
CAC declined to sticker this coin, which is in an AU-58 holder. It has more claims to that grade than this 1933 double eagle has to MS-65. This is the finest known example of a rare Overton die variety, Overton 20.
This double eagle is graded MS-65, CAC. Is that 1933 double eagle as high grade as this one?
I've never heard of the coin being graded in a holder at a grade other than MS65. Where did your "It used to be in an MS-63 holder which is where it belongs." come from?
It's one thing to disagree with the assigned grade of a coin, but it's another to be nonchalant in misstating its grading history.
I absolutely agree. This coin was never in a 63 holder. I remember when it was graded as a 65 without ever having been seen in hand.
I thought that the coin was sold in an MS-63 holder when it was sold the first time. Looking back, it seems that it was sold raw, which has to be a record price for a non TPG coin. My mistake.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
@MFeld said:
It sounds like you were talking about "market grading" not "net grading".
I think I did mis-type, thanks Mark. Yeah, market grading....but in this case "net grading" the coin because maybe without that knee gash the coin is in such great condition and has great luster that it otherwise would be an MS-67 ? 67+ ? 68 ?
So....whereas the knee gash might justify a 64 or 64+ based strictly on technical by-the-book grading, it gets the 65 (and CAC) with a bit of market grading of a Pop 1 coin helping ther grade.
BTW....for those of you saying "if this were any other coin...." -- but it's NOT !! So given a pop of 1 (one), it's considered differently than 1924 Saints or 1932 Saints. There's only 1....it's got a knee gash that many of you cite that should merit a lower grade (1 increment lower) and probably would if there were a much larger population, IMO.
@MFeld said:
It sounds like you were talking about "market grading" not "net grading".
I think I did mis-type, thanks Mark. Yeah, market grading....but in this case "net grading" the coin because maybe without that knee gash the coin is in such great condition and has great luster that it otherwise would be an MS-67 ? 67+ ? 68 ?
So....whereas the knee gash might justify a 64 or 64+ based strictly on technical by-the-book grading, it gets the 65 (and CAC) with a bit of market grading of a Pop 1 coin helping ther grade.
BTW....for those of you saying "if this were any other coin...." -- but it's NOT !! So given a pop of 1 (one), it's considered differently than 1924 Saints or 1932 Saints. There's only 1....it's got a knee gash that many of you cite that should merit a lower grade (1 increment lower) and probably would if there were a much larger population, IMO.
I haven’t seen the coin in hand so I’m not going to offer an opinion as to grade. However, no coin should grade higher than it otherwise would just because it has a low population.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@MFeld said:
It sounds like you were talking about "market grading" not "net grading".
I think I did mis-type, thanks Mark. Yeah, market grading....but in this case "net grading" the coin because maybe without that knee gash the coin is in such great condition and has great luster that it otherwise would be an MS-67 ? 67+ ? 68 ?
So....whereas the knee gash might justify a 64 or 64+ based strictly on technical by-the-book grading, it gets the 65 (and CAC) with a bit of market grading of a Pop 1 coin helping ther grade.
BTW....for those of you saying "if this were any other coin...." -- but it's NOT !! So given a pop of 1 (one), it's considered differently than 1924 Saints or 1932 Saints. There's only 1....it's got a knee gash that many of you cite that should merit a lower grade (1 increment lower) and probably would if there were a much larger population, IMO.
If you take that front leg out of the equation, I could see see the coin as a 66, but I definitely can't make it to 67. If the PCGS graders' opinion was along those lines, perhaps they thought that netting it one point because of the leg was fair, and thats how they arrived at 65.
I have a question for you though @GoldFinger1969 - How would you define "Market Grading" in your own words, without pulling a definition from elsewhere?
@MFeld said:
It sounds like you were talking about "market grading" not "net grading".
I think I did mis-type, thanks Mark. Yeah, market grading....but in this case "net grading" the coin because maybe without that knee gash the coin is in such great condition and has great luster that it otherwise would be an MS-67 ? 67+ ? 68 ?
So....whereas the knee gash might justify a 64 or 64+ based strictly on technical by-the-book grading, it gets the 65 (and CAC) with a bit of market grading of a Pop 1 coin helping ther grade.
BTW....for those of you saying "if this were any other coin...." -- but it's NOT !! So given a pop of 1 (one), it's considered differently than 1924 Saints or 1932 Saints. There's only 1....it's got a knee gash that many of you cite that should merit a lower grade (1 increment lower) and probably would if there were a much larger population, IMO.
I haven’t seen the coin in hand so I’m not going to offer an opinion as to grade. However, no coin should grade higher than it otherwise would just because it has a low population.
I agree with you in principle Mark, and I completely understand your reservations to offer a grading opinion. For the sake of conversation, lets assume that you saw it in hand and you would opine that it was a 64+. Would a 65 grade bother you?
I would be bothered if I thought the coin was a 63, or a 58. I was slightly perturbed with the grade awrded to the 1870-s $3, but again the argument can be made that it's unique, so it's rather irrelevant. I'd even agree that most, if not all of the 1804 dollars are overgraded. The general consensus seems to be that "at least theyre in order", which, if true (I haven't done enough research to opine on that), honestly is the most important factor. Despite dampening our appreciation because of the overgrade, I'd admit that it's a victimless "crime" because the market values are all where they should be. As long as the overgrading is consistenly applied, no one gets hurt.
For me, the problem arises when any TPG wants to flip flop between market and technical grading. I'll elect not to go into detail, but it's is something I've observed fairly recently. For a long stretch of time, a rare (R5-R6) issue/series of coin is market graded, or given a lot of leeway in the grading room. Then, all of the sudden, it appears that this approach is no longer applied, technical standards enter the room again. This is the most damaging form of market grading, in my opinion. The market-graded eamples of yesteryear would not grade the same if submitted raw today, and current submissions are held to a much tighter standard. There are significant financial implications for both the current day submitters, and the future buyers of the yesteryear graded coins.
Recall that previous to the 2002 sale, David Hall and a couple of his top eyes visited the auction site and assigned the Gem grade, as the current owner has noted. Much disagreement re the grade followed on this forum. I am in the 63 to 64 camp, but the coin is unique and let the sponsors have their fun.
@PeakRarities said:
If you take that front leg out of the equation, I could see see the coin as a 66, but I definitely can't make it to 67. If >the PCGS graders' opinion was along those lines, perhaps they thought that netting it one point because of the leg >was fair, and thats how they arrived at 65.
You're probably right, PR. I think I recall earlier in the thread someone mentioning to me it had blazing luster that wasn't captured in the pictures and you had to have it in hand. But 67 probably is a stretch, agreed.
I have a question for you though @GoldFinger1969 - How would you define "Market Grading" in your own words, >without pulling a definition from elsewhere?
Ooh, tough question. I would define it as a combination of technical grading but also incorporating various prices (market values) for coins in a rising price environment. Net grading to me is a sub-set of market grading because if you go "strictly by the book" and adhere to a pure technical grading standard some coins will be graded LOWER even though the market accords them a HIGHER grade via a HIGHER price because various factors (i.e., luster, strike, clean fields, detail, etc.) are at the high end.
The "slide" to market grading is most prevalant during rising price periods because the market tends to emphasize the PLUSSES of various coins leading to these factors driving a higher price associated with a higher grade, even though 1 or 2 demerits might mandate a lower grade irrespective of other factors that are more subjective or aesthetic. This is the essence to me of net grading.
Sorry for being so verbose, it's tough to explain.
@PeakRarities said:
For me, the problem arises when any TPG wants to flip flop between market and technical grading. I'll elect not to >go into detail, but it's is something I've observed fairly recently. For a long stretch of time, a rare (R5-R6) issue/series >of coin is market graded, or given a lot of leeway in the grading room. Then, all of the sudden, it appears that this >approach is no longer applied, technical standards enter the room again. This is the most damaging form of >market grading, in my opinion. The market-graded eamples of yesteryear would not grade the same if submitted >raw today, and current submissions are held to a much tighter standard. There are significant financial implications >for both the current day submitters, and the future buyers of the yesteryear graded coins.
I think this is the current debate (fear ?) with CACG, right ? Not only dropping numerical grades, but also going from the MS to the AU bucket.
I believe I posted it somewhere else here, but JA's comments about some gold coins in a big bull market in price in 1985 was very instructive on market vs. technical grading.
@ProofCollection said:
I'm not sure if it's that concentrated. The gouges on the knee are fairly severe and her face is mauled. These are the >more significant marks I see and I'm not sure how concentrated they are - they seem pretty spread out but you do >have some pristine areas.
We know intuitively that the 1933 did not circulate....so it's Mint State....but looking at it without seeing 1933.... if it was any other dated Saint, what would tell you that the high-point marks and/or discoloration are NOT evidence of circulation and hence deserving of an AU grade ?
Comments
Whatever. It used to be in an MS-63 holder which is where it belongs. CAC could have shown some independence and declined to sticker it in its present holder.
CAC declined to sticker this coin, which is in an AU-58 holder. It has more claims to that grade than this 1933 double eagle has to MS-65. This is the finest known example of a rare Overton die variety, Overton 20.
This double eagle is graded MS-65, CAC. Is that 1933 double eagle as high grade as this one?
I've never heard of the coin being graded in a holder at a grade other than MS65. Where did your "It used to be in an MS-63 holder which is where it belongs." come from?
It's one thing to disagree with the assigned grade of a coin, but it's another to be nonchalant in misstating its grading history.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I was wondering about that. This looks pretty rough for a 65 to me. 63 looks more appropriate.
PCGS Price Guide is only $22.5M, so Rick was good to turn it down at $30M.
I've graded many $20 double eagles and recognize the 1933 as having super clean fields that represent minimum Gem level. The central devices, more specifically Miss Liberty's knee, abdomen, and breast show some contact marks and/or strike weakness. PCGS tends to avoid letting those high points affect the grade much if at all.
Taking a look at the reverse of the 33, it looks well deserving of the Gem grade level, with it appearing much cleaner than the @BillJones example.
Besides, 63, 64, 65... who cares... it's unique. And the CAC sticker, we all know grading and opinions go out the window when high value coins are involved (free advertising).
"But seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness and all these things shall be added unto you" Matthew 6:33. Young fellow suffering from Bust Half fever.
BHNC #AN-10
JRCS #1606
Well this is from PCGS photograde. Maybe the 1933 is 65, but it's not an A or B coin IMO. If I bought a bullion MS65 saint, I would be disappointed to receive one in that condition.
@ProofCollection I agree with you. The 1933 is an unusual case because the contact marks are all held within such a small area on the coin, drawing the eye to that area and becoming a distraction. There are more attractive, evenly circulated Gem examples out there if one is looking for a type coin.
"But seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness and all these things shall be added unto you" Matthew 6:33. Young fellow suffering from Bust Half fever.
BHNC #AN-10
JRCS #1606
I'm not sure if it's that concentrated. The gouges on the knee are fairly severe and her face is mauled. These are the more significant marks I see and I'm not sure how concentrated they are - they seem pretty spread out but you do have some pristine areas.
The notion of the Farouk example being in a 63 holder is preposterous, in my opinion. It's got gem luster, pristine fields, no rim dings, and a nice clean sun. At MINIMUM it's a 64 by 21st century standards, and with the way it faces up I'd be inclined to give it a +. So perhaps its a 64+ that got a half point smooch, who gives a hoot? It;s the only collectible 1933, and it's a gorgeous, original coin. If any of us had the coin in hand it would absolutely face up as a gem, until you loupe the front leg. For those that are outraged by the CAC sticker, are you equally critical of PCGS' grade? If not, why?
@ProofCollection -
You have the coin blown up to the size of a dinner plate, and you have to show some clemency to the fact that these are heavy, soft gold coins that were often stacked on top of each other, you cant just grade the coin by the high points alone. The face on the 1933 is far from mutilated, I have seen much, much worse (decapitation/facial features unrecognizable). All of the "severe" contact marks are, for the most part, concentrated to the left leg of miss Liberty. You can go through one of my boxes of 63 and 64 saints, and I assure you none of them will look as good as that coin.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
I don't think it's a 63. My contention is mostly that if it is a 65, it is a "C" coin and not worthy of a sticker. We had a discussion in another thread about whether JA would be pressured to crossover one of Hansen's collections to CACG. I think it's pretty clear from this example that JA will loosen the standards for high profile situations.
I don’t. You lost me with everything after your first sentence. Sure, it’s not super solid as a 65 but it’s got original surfaces and it faces up like a 66. You want to hold JA in contempt for mildly compromising his standards to advertise his brand on the most expensive and renowned coin in the world? The only example that’s allowed to be privately owned?
How exactly is it “pretty clear” that he would compromise his standards with the Hansen collection, based on the 1933? And I’m curious, are you equally critical of the grade assigned by PCGS, or no?
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
I think the PCGS grade is acceptable. It's a 64A or a 65C. Assuming the PCGS photograde example is a 65B, the 1933 is not as nice, IMO. It's clear from the comments here that it is not a 65A so the only debate really is, is it a "B" coin? Supposedly, to qualify for a sticker it must be. I think it's easy to draw the conclusion that if the standards can be bent for the 1933 that they will be bent for others. TBH I'd consider doing the same but I probably wouldn't due to the increased scrutiny for a coin like this unless I really felt it was an A or B coin lest I have a bunch of collectors debating whether the sticker is legitimate or not. A few in other threads have argued or at least suggested that JA would never compromise his standards due to impeccable character, but I'm too lazy to search and quote them. Regardless, it's not a stretch that if JA "made accommodations" for the 1933 that he won't do it in other situations. As we discussed in the other thread, even when you have a collector who buys top pops and the best coins around, what are the odds that they are all "A" and "B" coins completely free of surface issues? Certainly there are at least a few PCGS top grade pop 1 coins that Hansen owns that fall within the "C" spectrum. Is JA really going to downgrade those coins when they attempt crossing? Before I studied this 1933 I would have thought it would be more likely for JA to hold firm and downgrade, now I have the perception that he's flexible when the situation calls for it. I'm trying not to be critical as it becomes a business decision and is probably what's best for his business and investors and I can't say I wouldn't do the same. But from a core philosophy, I believe the same grade and sticker standards should apply to $5 coins as the most expensive coins and we should not justify compromises just because a coin is super famous or rare or expensive.
All of that said with the caveat that I agree grading is subjective and recognize that my grade opinions expressed here may not align with the CACG standards. If you Dan think it's a 65B I do give your grade opinions significant weight because you specialize in these coins. You've pretty much stated that you think it's a 65, but do you think it's A, B, or C?
I think it's not a good use of time to argue if this coin is a 65B or 65C coin. Grading is subjective and sometimes even depends on the mood of the grader. JA is human after all. Maybe on some days he might think it's a 65C coin and on other days he might see it as a 65B coin. It not unreasonable to think that JA did not compromise his standards when he looked at this coin in 2021 and he actually thought it deserved a CAC sticker on the 65 grade. Remember that this coin was graded by PCGS, NGC, and CAC without holdering. So there was not a huge incentive to overgrade the coin or give it a sticker because the coin would not immediately be holdered. There weren't any pictures of the coin in a holder with a CAC sticker when the coin was auctioned in 2021. I won this coin raw and decided to get it holdered by PCGS afterwards.
Follow me on MyCollect!
If this coin was dated 1924 rather than 1933, would CAC have stickered it?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
Gotta say, the red circles all over that photo reminded me of one of my research papers after my college professor had finished with it……but I still got a 92% on it…lol
The frost on this coin is thick as pea soup! Among the other comments on this thread, I would argue that there's no such thing as a 1924 Saint with this type of frost. They don't come that way -- and if they did -- would be a gem all day. The frost invites marks that wouldn't be present/visible otherwise, like fresh snow. Regardless, if I had $30M to spare, I would def add this coin to my collection. She's a beauty and has the best story is all American numismatics, and will always be a pillar coin.
Whitman Brands: President/CEO (www.greysheet.com; www.whitman.com)
PNG: Executive Director (www.pngdealers.org)
It's disappointing this thread has turned into yet another CAC thread, particularly when it comes to such a special coin. Particularly because, as discussed ad nauseam, ABC grading isn't a real thing at CAC.
There is no such thing as a C coin. The ABC scale was an attempt to explain the process to the laymen and to not broadly insult a huge swath of coins that JA believed were incorrectly graded. (Coins not stickered by JA but that nonetheless are owned by his clients and others).
The sticker really means: this coin has not been messed with and JA would be willing to buy it sight unseen at its assigned grade (or higher in case of a gold sticker), Clearly, JA would be happy to buy this coin sight unseen. It's THE 1933 $20! So it gets a sticker.
Any other attempt to delve into the minutiae of the 64A vs 65C, etc is pointless.
Chopmarked Trade Dollar Registry Set --- US & World Gold Showcase --- World Chopmark Showcase
If Congress passes new legislation in the future to tax unrealized capital appreciation of such a coin ( which I happen to think is unconstitutional) you might then prefer to publicly talk your coin down until you sell it at your price.
This coin is currently one of a kind…..I look at the CAC sticker as recognizing that, not attesting the grade. It does not matter what graded slab this 1933 double eagle is in. It happens to be my favorite coin of all times.
I have seen JA sticker gold coins that have awesome luster but otherwise appear to be too heavily bagmarked to be solid for the assigned grade. He is consistent in this regard. This shows me that luster is often more important to JA.
I can't wait to buy at the Oreville safe deposit box fire sale as you sell everything off to raise $30,000,001! Dibs on any no motto branch mint gold!
Chopmarked Trade Dollar Registry Set --- US & World Gold Showcase --- World Chopmark Showcase
Not going to happen.
Chopmarked Trade Dollar Registry Set --- US & World Gold Showcase --- World Chopmark Showcase
This is not a coin to compare to an earlier date of Saint - compare it to a 1932 - as the luster/frost on the coin is very similar to 1932-dated examples. The luster is thick in my opinion (and the opinion of many who viewed the coin at the ANA a few years ago), and it looks uber fresh. I remember one grader commented "oh, I heard about the knee, but they left out how the rest of the coin looks - it's fresh and has not been messed with".
I also think some images make it look worse than it is with how the lighting was done. I do think that it's easy to find a fault on any coin if you're wanting to. Especially if you haven't seen in-hand.
We're aiming to display this coin next year at a major show - so please all come and see it!
Owner/Founder GreatCollections
GreatCollections Coin Auctions - Certified Coin Auctions Every Week - Rare Coins & Coin Values
Frankly a lot of people here are starstruck, if you will... and are being intellectually dishonest with themselves on this coin just because it is a mega rarity. Pick any other date in this series with all other things being exactly equal to the appearance of this coin and there is little to no chance you'd agree with the grade or sticker. There's a difference between frost breaks and scrapes. This coin has both along with multiple tiny ticks. And yes I've seen it in person. I'm not ripping on it out of hand mind you, but imo condition is condition- and rarity, previous ownership, a good backstory, and publicity stunts don't magically make marks disappear. Value? Heck yeah, that's different. But not grade. jmho
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
Thanks for making the coin accessible and for getting EC to participate in the show. I think anything that tells the history of our hobby is a plus. You did a great job on the show, Ian, thanks !!
In that case I would argue that CAC needs to update their website which currently says:
to also say "...and to recognize one of a kind coins." To which I would respond, 'why does CAC need to recognize them?' This coin and other one-of-a-kinders don't really benefit from or "need" recognition by CAC or anyone else. I would be surprised to learn that CAC has "secret" additional criteria for awarding stickers.
I agree.
I don't know why you insist on being obtuse, I know that you are a reasonably informed individual and you understand the value in advertising. It's called brand recognition. Take a guess at how many laymen and non collectors may stumble across an article or a slab photo of the 1933 with the CAC sticker. Even many laymen are aware of PCGS or NGC, but how many do you think may have seen the CAC sticker for the first time, and subsequently learned about CAC and the meaning of the sticker? The real estate on that label is worth it's weight in gold, and do you know what CAC had to pay for it? Nothing. Exposure to thousands, if not tens of thousands of people who had no idea what CAC was until they saw the little green sticker on the 1933.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
I was going to leave this thread be, but since four others have now agreed with your comment, I'll ask a couple questions that anyone is welcomed to answer.
What is your point?
I've made no observation of anyone in the thread who's being "starstruck" or "intellectually dishonest". I stated that I would likely grade the coin 64+, though I don't take issue with the current grade. Ian quoted a grader as saying "Oh, I've heard about the knee, but they left out how the rest of the coin looks!". That pretty much summarizes the grade of this coin, and you can visit photograde or any reference and see that the coin would be at least a 64 at any TPG.
With that being said, do you all think that JA should have "held the line", and squandered an invaluable advertising opportunity in the name of "strict grading"? Why should he be the martyr who publicly opposes the grade given by PCGS, the most respected grading company in the world? I would agree that if it was any other saint, it probably wouldn't have stickered as a 65, but the fact is that it's not just "any other saint". It's the only legal example, and squabbling over the highly irrelevant grade is a complete waste of time, when any of us would be happy to plop down 30m for it if we were billionaires. Would a potential buyer argue that the coin is only worth 15 mil because its not "solid for the grade"? Come on now.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
"However, on Monday, June 10, 2002, the 1933 Double Eagle was examined by Professional Coin Grading Service [PCGS] grading experts, including PCGS founders David Hall and John Dannreuther, at Sotheby's office in Beverly Hills. As related by David Hall on the PCGS website: "Before the Steven Fenton coin was sold by Sotheby's, it was displayed in Beveryly Hills. PCGS made arrangements to have the PCGS graders view the coin. Sotheby's was very accommodating and allowed us to view the coin out of the holder in good lighting conditions. The coin was the creamy luster you see on late date Saints and though there are a few minor marks, it would grade a solid MS 65 at PCGS." Most recently, on March 18, 2021, Brett Charville, President of PCGS, re-examined the coin at Sotheby's New York, and certified the coin as MS 65 (PCGS certification number: 42095232)"
https://www.pcgs.com/auctionprices/item/1933-20/9195/7781305912275707553
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
I think arguing whether or not PCGS gave a pass to this coin is pointless. Is it possible they did for an ultra rarity? Sure, most people would agree that all the 1804 proof dollars are over graded. And PCGS may have done the same here. But it's also possible that they didn't and truly felt the coin deserved a gem grade. As Ian has said, when compared to the luster of a 1932, this coin's luster is thick and that may have pushed it over the edge.
As for the CAC sticker, without JA coming in this thread to explain his reasoning, I think we should give him benefit of the doubt. Remember that this coin was graded and stickered out of the holder. So there was no expectations of having photos of the coin in a holder with a CAC sticker. There was some PR benefit to have CAC mentioned on the Sotheby's auction site and articles about the coin and auction. But given what I know of JA, I can't imagine he would compromise his standards and integrity just for this tiny bit of PR. And he didn't sticker any of the 1804 $1s. So why would he compromise for this coin. Very silly to argue JA compromised his integrity based on your subjective opinion of the grade of the coin from images.
Follow me on MyCollect!
Yeah, but you can damage the brand by showing compromised standards. I admitted I would consider it to if that was my business.
In line with my previous comment, it wouldn't be a squandered opportunity so much as protecting the brand/reputation. It could also be seen as an opportunity to demonstrate uncompromising standards by letting it be known that it did not qualify. And further, to not mislead customers who may have PCGS MS65 common date Saints with similar surfaces into submitting them for CAC stickers expecting to get them. A bit of a stretch I admit because it would be impossible to definitively have an equivalent comparable coin, but still. And yes, on a Pop 1 only unique piece the grade is irrelevant to its value, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be accurate and doesn't make for a lively discussion.
Good points, EC. What I wonder is....did JA NET GRADE the coin ?
If you've read the interviews that he's given with a few publications, he talks about holding the line at gradeflation and net-grading during rising price periods. It's POSSIBLE that the uniqueness of the 1933 Double Eagle was such that the blazing luster and other qualities (that nobody that hasn't seen it in-hand could see) merited the 65 CAC grade.
Remember what he told Maurice Rosen in 2008: CAC signifies STRONG for the grade. Well, he must feel that this is STRONG for the 65 grade for the 1933 coin.
1933 coin....NOT coins, plural. Since this is a one-of-a-kind coin, it's not stretching the grade to say that it should be graded similarly. Call it "grading on a curve" if you will.
Anyway, JMHO.
BTW, I like the Elite Collection label.
Thanks! Ian and I worked on it quite a bit to get to the final label.
Follow me on MyCollect!
My point is fairly obvious and clearly stated. Many coins get a pass from people who would otherwise acknowledge an obvious overgrade were it not a high-profile rarity, which is intellectually dishonest imo because they know better. You yourself said above that if it were any other Saint you wouldn't agree with the grade and also called it a 64+. My statement dealt strictly with grading and not value so your strawman question about whether a buyer would only offer 15 mil is silly. This coin would no doubt bring the same amount in a 64 holder.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
It sounds like you were talking about "market grading" not "net grading".
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I absolutely agree. This coin was never in a 63 holder. I remember when it was graded as a 65 without ever having been seen in hand.
The statement I made bold is perhaps the only potential negative I could see coming from the situation. Our fundamental disagreement is based off of our interpretation of what CAC is.
If you asked me a few years ago, my position might have been the same as yours now. Since then, my understanding of CAC has evolved. I dont see it as A/B/C or "solid for the grade", despite whats said in interviews. My understanding is that at a basal ;level, CAC means that JA would buy the coin, sight unseen, for CAC money. In this case since theres only one, I understand why the coin would receive a sticker despite possibly being weak for the grade. I see it as a business decision, and instead of appeasing the few of us geeks who inhabit the forums, he chose to extend an olive branch to the thousands of laymen who might have never otherwise been exposed to CAC. You make some valid points, but it just doesnt bother me when I consider all the benefits of stickering the coin, instead of some virtuous decision to hold the line.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
it looked gemmy in the video, frost is boss
I thought that the coin was sold in an MS-63 holder when it was sold the first time. Looking back, it seems that it was sold raw, which has to be a record price for a non TPG coin. My mistake.
I think I did mis-type, thanks Mark. Yeah, market grading....but in this case "net grading" the coin because maybe without that knee gash the coin is in such great condition and has great luster that it otherwise would be an MS-67 ? 67+ ? 68 ?
So....whereas the knee gash might justify a 64 or 64+ based strictly on technical by-the-book grading, it gets the 65 (and CAC) with a bit of market grading of a Pop 1 coin helping ther grade.
BTW....for those of you saying "if this were any other coin...." -- but it's NOT !! So given a pop of 1 (one), it's considered differently than 1924 Saints or 1932 Saints. There's only 1....it's got a knee gash that many of you cite that should merit a lower grade (1 increment lower) and probably would if there were a much larger population, IMO.
@braddick
LA Thunderbirds… Dick Lane… KTLA channel 5… Roller Derby- best part of the thread
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
DDDJ and KISS FM along with KEZY AM (back when AM was cool).
peacockcoins
KEZY… I think that was 1190… I remember that as well as KEarth 101 but thought that was FM.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
I haven’t seen the coin in hand so I’m not going to offer an opinion as to grade. However, no coin should grade higher than it otherwise would just because it has a low population.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
If you take that front leg out of the equation, I could see see the coin as a 66, but I definitely can't make it to 67. If the PCGS graders' opinion was along those lines, perhaps they thought that netting it one point because of the leg was fair, and thats how they arrived at 65.
I have a question for you though @GoldFinger1969 - How would you define "Market Grading" in your own words, without pulling a definition from elsewhere?
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
I agree with you in principle Mark, and I completely understand your reservations to offer a grading opinion. For the sake of conversation, lets assume that you saw it in hand and you would opine that it was a 64+. Would a 65 grade bother you?
I would be bothered if I thought the coin was a 63, or a 58. I was slightly perturbed with the grade awrded to the 1870-s $3, but again the argument can be made that it's unique, so it's rather irrelevant. I'd even agree that most, if not all of the 1804 dollars are overgraded. The general consensus seems to be that "at least theyre in order", which, if true (I haven't done enough research to opine on that), honestly is the most important factor. Despite dampening our appreciation because of the overgrade, I'd admit that it's a victimless "crime" because the market values are all where they should be. As long as the overgrading is consistenly applied, no one gets hurt.
For me, the problem arises when any TPG wants to flip flop between market and technical grading. I'll elect not to go into detail, but it's is something I've observed fairly recently. For a long stretch of time, a rare (R5-R6) issue/series of coin is market graded, or given a lot of leeway in the grading room. Then, all of the sudden, it appears that this approach is no longer applied, technical standards enter the room again. This is the most damaging form of market grading, in my opinion. The market-graded eamples of yesteryear would not grade the same if submitted raw today, and current submissions are held to a much tighter standard. There are significant financial implications for both the current day submitters, and the future buyers of the yesteryear graded coins.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Flip it in the holder and problem solved.
Recall that previous to the 2002 sale, David Hall and a couple of his top eyes visited the auction site and assigned the Gem grade, as the current owner has noted. Much disagreement re the grade followed on this forum. I am in the 63 to 64 camp, but the coin is unique and let the sponsors have their fun.
Here’s the PCGS photograde example of a Saint in MS-63.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
You're probably right, PR. I think I recall earlier in the thread someone mentioning to me it had blazing luster that wasn't captured in the pictures and you had to have it in hand. But 67 probably is a stretch, agreed.
Ooh, tough question.
I would define it as a combination of technical grading but also incorporating various prices (market values) for coins in a rising price environment. Net grading to me is a sub-set of market grading because if you go "strictly by the book" and adhere to a pure technical grading standard some coins will be graded LOWER even though the market accords them a HIGHER grade via a HIGHER price because various factors (i.e., luster, strike, clean fields, detail, etc.) are at the high end.
The "slide" to market grading is most prevalant during rising price periods because the market tends to emphasize the PLUSSES of various coins leading to these factors driving a higher price associated with a higher grade, even though 1 or 2 demerits might mandate a lower grade irrespective of other factors that are more subjective or aesthetic. This is the essence to me of net grading.
Sorry for being so verbose, it's tough to explain.
I think this is the current debate (fear ?) with CACG, right ? Not only dropping numerical grades, but also going from the MS to the AU bucket.
I believe I posted it somewhere else here, but JA's comments about some gold coins in a big bull market in price in 1985 was very instructive on market vs. technical grading.
We know intuitively that the 1933 did not circulate....so it's Mint State....but looking at it without seeing 1933.... if it was any other dated Saint, what would tell you that the high-point marks and/or discoloration are NOT evidence of circulation and hence deserving of an AU grade ?