@Maywood said:
More evidence of grade-flation at CAC, this is absurd.
This is a funny post. Eye appeal is a very subjective part of the grading equation and thus one can easily see how a grade for a coin like this can change depending on the grading event. It is more absurd to use this as an excuse to knock one grading company.
The only CAC issue is failure to give it a gold originally. Clearly it was a solid 65 and a solid 67. It's not like they failed to sticker it and then did sticker it
@Desert Moon said:
Ouch! Is this a record in upgrading?
Heavens no! There is an 1804 Dollar that has grown from a 40 to a 55!
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.
Beautiful coin. Ex of toning, grade 65 seems right, esp if you go by the premise the grade is the lower of the 2 sides. The obverse, again without toning considered, should be 66 at best with the chatter by nose and lower neck. JMHO. As noted above, should color market grade and add to grade or just get a +. The grade I would like to see is 65 ++.
.
Grading isn't typically done "by the premise the grade is the lower of the two sides". Rightly or not, the obverse carries significantly more weight than the reverse.
Gee, perhaps coins should be graded on both sides..............
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.
@Elcontador said:
Nice coin, but imo, this shouldn't happen.
Did it happen because (1) the toning added to the value and (2) the toning covered up previous blemishes ?
Obviously, that kind of grade jump in the Mint State area isn't that normal. Especially with something as popularly graded like Morgans (and to a lesser extent, Saints and other pre-1933 gold).
@You said:
Not making a comment on the grade of this particular coin, but the concept of color bumps (which PCGS is far >more guilty of than the other tpgs) is incredibly inane. The thought process is: X coin is a technical 66, but has wild >color and is worth far more than a 66 in the market, so let’s call it a more appropriate 67. But the problem is the >technical grade isn’t noted, so no buyer or seller will necessarily look at that coin in a 67 holder and think “this is a> technical 66 that has been bumped up due to the value associated with the color, so I’ll buy/sell it for more or less a >67 price.” No, they will look at it and think “this is a 67 with wild color, so I’ll buy/sell it for a 68 price (or whatever >amount over a typical 67 price.” So in fact the market value increase caused by the color bump is twofold. It should >never have been adopted as a practice.
That's what I, as a novice grader, have wondered: how was toning handled before the days of TPGs...how was it handled in the early days of the TPGs ? I know that today it is considered a major plus (buyers want color AND it can color up blemishes/bagmarks).
Nobody would upgrade a coin's grade based on it being in an OGH even thought it might be worth an extra 10% in some cases. But a change in a COIN's appearance -- not the holder it is housed in -- certainly merits debate if not a higher price.
I agree, and your post capsulized it perfectly: what do you do when an exogenous factor (toning) adds to the value of a coin ? Rather than just sell these coins at the actual non-toned grade at a higher price, it appears the way the market has taken this into account is to bump the grade.
@You said:
Not making a comment on the grade of this particular coin, but the concept of color bumps (which PCGS is far >more guilty of than the other tpgs) is incredibly inane. The thought process is: X coin is a technical 66, but has wild >color and is worth far more than a 66 in the market, so let’s call it a more appropriate 67. But the problem is the >technical grade isn’t noted, so no buyer or seller will necessarily look at that coin in a 67 holder and think “this is a> technical 66 that has been bumped up due to the value associated with the color, so I’ll buy/sell it for more or less a >67 price.” No, they will look at it and think “this is a 67 with wild color, so I’ll buy/sell it for a 68 price (or whatever >amount over a typical 67 price.” So in fact the market value increase caused by the color bump is twofold. It should >never have been adopted as a practice.
That's what I, as a novice grader, have wondered: how was toning handled before the days of TPGs...how was it handled in the early days of the TPGs ? I know that today it is considered a major plus (buyers want color AND it can color up blemishes/bagmarks).
Nobody would upgrade a coin's grade based on it being in an OGH even thought it might be worth an extra 10% in some cases. But a change in a COIN's appearance -- not the holder it is housed in -- certainly merits debate if not a higher price.
I know you think you’re in agreement with me, but I don’t really understand what you’re saying here.
I agree, and your post capsulized it perfectly: what do you do when an exogenous factor (toning) adds to the value of a coin ? Rather than just sell these coins at the actual non-toned grade at a higher price, it appears the way the market has taken this into account is to bump the grade.
No, the way certain graders have taken it into account is to bump the grade. The TPGs are not the market. The market is not bumping the grade because the market does not assign the grade. The market assigns the value based on the grade as well as on other factors like toning or luster or strike or the generation of holder.
Toning did not get a grade bump until the early 2000s. I started seeing a one grade bump for some attractively toned coins around 2003 or 2004. I bought an attractively toned 38 D Buffalo Nickel in MS 66 and was able to upgrade it to MS 67 (in holder). That's one full grade. Not three.
"Vou invadir o Nordeste, "Seu cabra da peste, "Sou Mangueira......."
Comments
All due respect to all I'm happy i didn't see it the first time ( ill repent sometime ifin I sorta remember ) 😉
The only CAC issue is failure to give it a gold originally. Clearly it was a solid 65 and a solid 67. It's not like they failed to sticker it and then did sticker it
Heavens no! There is an 1804 Dollar that has grown from a 40 to a 55!
Gee, perhaps coins should be graded on both sides..............
Did it happen because (1) the toning added to the value and (2) the toning covered up previous blemishes ?
Obviously, that kind of grade jump in the Mint State area isn't that normal. Especially with something as popularly graded like Morgans (and to a lesser extent, Saints and other pre-1933 gold).
That's what I, as a novice grader, have wondered: how was toning handled before the days of TPGs...how was it handled in the early days of the TPGs ? I know that today it is considered a major plus (buyers want color AND it can color up blemishes/bagmarks).
Nobody would upgrade a coin's grade based on it being in an OGH even thought it might be worth an extra 10% in some cases. But a change in a COIN's appearance -- not the holder it is housed in -- certainly merits debate if not a higher price.
I agree, and your post capsulized it perfectly: what do you do when an exogenous factor (toning) adds to the value of a coin ? Rather than just sell these coins at the actual non-toned grade at a higher price, it appears the way the market has taken this into account is to bump the grade.
I know you think you’re in agreement with me, but I don’t really understand what you’re saying here.
No, the way certain graders have taken it into account is to bump the grade. The TPGs are not the market. The market is not bumping the grade because the market does not assign the grade. The market assigns the value based on the grade as well as on other factors like toning or luster or strike or the generation of holder.
Toning did not get a grade bump until the early 2000s. I started seeing a one grade bump for some attractively toned coins around 2003 or 2004. I bought an attractively toned 38 D Buffalo Nickel in MS 66 and was able to upgrade it to MS 67 (in holder). That's one full grade. Not three.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
Had to check this thread to make sure it wasn't a coin I sold in a 64 holder.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
So who is going to finally be the end user on it?