How About A Pilgram To Grade!!!!**GRADE POSTED*

stman · December 30, 2003 4:35PM

Take a shot. Not mine.

braddick · December 30, 2003 4:38PM

Very nice! If it's not yours, it should be. It would be a nice compliment to your MS67 toned Peace.
I'll venture a guess and state, Superb GEM.

puff · December 30, 2003 4:41PM

Not that great at grading commems...... But it's gorgeous and I would think at least a 66...... That being said I would sure like to own it!

stman · December 30, 2003 4:45PM

<< If it's not yours, it should be. It would be a nice compliment to your MS67 toned Peace >>

Thanks, and I would like it to be mine. But since I just acquired that Peace$ you mentioned, I probably will wait till next year to buy another coin.

Cam40 · December 30, 2003 4:48PM

I love that toning.

technical grade 64

market grade 66/67 range

Placid · December 30, 2003 5:42PM

Nice Pilgram. 65

Cam40 · December 30, 2003 5:51PM

ohhh close but no cigar.

stman PMed me the slabbed grade after my guesstimation, but i,m not going to spill the beans on it....as if i hadnt already........uh, nevermind. i didnt say anything.........

BigD5 · December 30, 2003 8:43PM

That looks to be a very attractively toned Pilgrim. The obv. fields look to have some chatter. Would probably agree with Cam40's assessment. Great eye appeal.

FC57Coins · December 30, 2003 9:41PM

Stdude - very nice Pilgrim indeed. I see a few dings/disturbances on the obverse, and a few small dings on the main mast. Being that I've had a couple of these graded and I know how tough they can be on these - I'm going to say MS63 - with the understanding that these are still very nice, appealing coins.

DHeath · December 30, 2003 9:53PM

It's an easy coin to like. The toning is nice. I'm guessing the scratch in the water on the reverse is on the holder. There's some chatter and a few hits. The hit's are tiny, but the chatter is distracting. I'd count it MS-64. I'd figure the coin a technical 63 with a 1 point bump for eye appeal.

XpipedreamR · December 30, 2003 10:08PM

66

IrishMike · December 30, 2003 11:24PM

When they are that nice who cares what the grade is. That coin has a lot going for it. It would surprise me from the photo if it was graded less than a 5.

Outhaul · December 30, 2003 11:45PM

Technical grade - MS-64

Chatter in obv fields and on brim of hat keep it from gem status. But, having said that, it wouldn't surprise me if it was in an MS-65/66 holder. It does have nice eye appeal, but I still grade technically.

Cheers,

Bob

Veep · December 30, 2003 11:51PM

First thought: Technical MS64 (due to hit and chatter on brim of hat) but market graded 65. Then, the more that I looked at the rainbow toning and the way the gold bounces off of the dark water and lights up the ship (just as the sun would) I decided MS66.

FatMan · December 31, 2003 12:23AM

Ahhhh.....the wonders of Market Grading. What a pretty Pilgrim. Just like many others, I don't see a technical grade of Gem. Without the lovely toning that commem is a 63. But it may well be worth 65/66 money. That is one I would really like to see in hand. Pictures can be very deceiving.

ms70 · December 31, 2003 12:26AM

65

Baley · December 31, 2003 12:49AM

"technical grade" is just one factor in the overall, or "market" grade. Sure the coin has a couple little hits and is probably a "technical" 64. But the eye appeal is off the charts at 72 or something, so the slab grade of this coin should be and probably is 66 (67 would be a stretch, but not out of the realm of reason, IMO) Nice coin, Pilgrim!

BigE · December 31, 2003 12:56AM

Ngc 66 *-------------------BigE

stman · December 31, 2003 2:35AM

Hi all, and thanks for explaining in detail your opinion of the coin. I saw this in the upcoming Superior auction. Now I will admit I don't know this series very well. I thought the coin is beautiful. BUT.... with a quick glance and all the scuffs in the field, ticks in the field, on the brim, a dig in the face.

I thought this can't be graded by NGC MS66*. It indeed is. I can understand a bump of 1 point, but this appears at least a 2 point bump. I thought like many of you a 64 from a technical standpoint at best.

Another reason I started this thread is..... I've heard many on here and in PM say NGC's answer to the "No bump for color or eye-appeal" is the "Coveted Star." Well, I feel this is a good example that this statement may not be true. It's a beautiful coin BUT MS66*????????

Outhaul · December 31, 2003 2:42AM

My position is that NO grading service should use eye appeal in determining the grade. Technical grading in itself is extremely subjective, but by adding eye-appeal to the mix you further muddy the waters.

I think grading services should only tecnically grade a coin and let the market determine value based upon eye appeal. What's pleasing to the eye of one collector (or grader) could be another collector's/grader's dog. I've seen many 66/67 coins in 64 holders because of eye appeal. Eye appeal should be taken out of the equation. If the coin is a 66 but ugly, it's still a 66 and it should be up to the buyer as to whether or not they pay 66 money for it or pass.

This Pilgrim, while a beautiful coin, is a 64 at best but because someone at NGC has determined the coin has eye-appeal it should be bumped up two points. The result, some poor sap is going to get stuck with a 64 in a 66 holder for 66 money.

Just my eversohumble opinion.

Cheers,

Bob

Clankeye · December 31, 2003 3:20AM

I know this is easy to say in retrospect--but I just looked at the Pilgrim, having my morning coffee, shaking off the cobwebs, and my thought process was "nice coin, some field disturbances, a little hit on the obverse devices... a 65, but probably got a one point bump for color and eye appeal." And apparantly that is the case.

<< My position is that NO grading service should use eye appeal in determining the grade. Technical grading in itself is extremely subjective, but by adding eye-appeal to the mix you further muddy the waters. >>

Bob--what you describe here is the way Canadian's grade coins. That is exactly the way ICCS grades. That is their philosophy. And the longer I am around coins, one which I tend to think is pretty solid.

Clankeye

IrishMike · December 31, 2003 3:53AM

If you buy into the philosophy of why grading companies were started, that is to provide a market for sight unseen coins then you can't have it both ways. Without this color this coin would certainly bring a lower price ergo so much for the grade and sight unseen market. Eye appeal is paramount to me and other collectors. I see no downside in bumping it to market price with the grade within reason. If you don't like toned coins or this one simply don't buy it.

I said earlier that I would be surprised if it wasn't at least a 5, turns out I was conservative. Kudos to everyone who thinks they can look at a coin photo and exactly guess a grade, I can't. NGC tried to technically grade coins and the koolaid drinkers bashed them for this saying it might technically be a 65 but its ugly. Once again which way do you wan't it?

Clankeye · December 31, 2003 4:11AM

I think it's a great looking coin, and I would certainly expect to pay more for it based upon it's eye appeal. I don't believe in a free lunch with coins. If it has that certain "zing" you are going to pay for it, and rightfully so.

I certainly don't believe in grading from images with certainty. But, let's face it, we are asked to do so all the time on this forum, so occasionally I with tender an opinion. I do so with the Clankeye * system. As in, here's what I think *(but it's a scan so don't hold me to it).

I think this coin is a pretty good illustration of the way NGC and PCGS grade coins in the reality of the coin market at this point in the evolution of the hobby. I'm not opposed to it. I just think the eye appeal bumps on technical grade make for a lot of "wiggle room"--and throw in the * designation on top of it, and you are going to have exactly what we have--a lot of debate.

No problem there. Gentlemen, start your engines.

Clankeye

coinguy1 · December 31, 2003 4:21AM

All of you guys (no matter how low or high you "graded" the coin) who make judgments, based solely upon images, are nuts and unfair.

End of story

In all seriousness, it is entirely possible, that on a sight-seen basis, some of you who graded it less than MS65, would grade it MS66 and that some of you who graded it MS66, would grade it less than MS65.

IrishMike · December 31, 2003 4:32AM

<< I think it's a great looking coin, and I would certainly expect to pay more for it based upon it's eye appeal. I don't believe in a free lunch with coins. If it has that certain "zing" you are going to pay for it, and rightfully so.

I certainly don't believe in grading from images with certainty. But, let's face it, we are asked to do so all the time on this forum, so occasionally I with tender an opinion. I do so with the Clankeye * system. As in, here's what I think *(but it's a scan so don't hold me to it).

I think this coin is a pretty good illustration of the way NGC and PCGS grade coins in the reality of the coin market at this point in the evolution of the hobby. I'm not opposed to it. I just think the eye appeal bumps on technical grade make for a lot of "wiggle room"--and throw in the * designation on top of it, and you are going to have exactly what we have--a lot of debate.

No problem there. Gentlemen, start your engines.

Clankeye >>

Well put Clankeye, this is one of the things that makes this hobby more fun and interesting. I could care less what it grades I like the coin and would determine based on how much I like it what I would pay for it. See I am really a simple collector.

stman · December 31, 2003 4:34AM

Hi guy's, we having fun yet?

Just to let you all know I didn't post this as a slam on any certain grading company. Those that know me are aware I drink no koolaid for any company. I have coins with nice color (toning) correctly graded from a technical standpoint with nice eye-appeal from BOTH the top two.

I also understand this is just an image, but just with the scuffs in the field alone told me I wouldn't be bidding on this coin as a 66. Matter of fact when I decided to post this for the board I knew I wouldn't be bidding at all. (Add I'm not that stupid.)

I thought it would be good for discussion, and OK maybe a few arguments. Myself.... I try to find the very few coins that are technically graded correctly with nice color and or eye-appeal. Very tough to do these days.

Just ask Coinguy1

FatMan · December 31, 2003 5:04AM

Market grading is bad for collectors.

Here's the rub. That pilgrim is a 63, maybe a 64 on an easy grading day. To be Gem that hat brim needs to be free of marks and it can only have a minor mark or two in the field. This commem isn't even close. This Pilgrim has great appeal and may be worthy of 65/66 money, but no more.

So what we have is a coin that based on grade alone is valued at $100-$200. At MS66 it is valued at well over $1000. The market value has already been bumped by the market grading. But wait.....it will be sold as a MS66 with great eye appeal. So instead of being sold at the already market graded MS66 price, the dealer will want MS66+ or $2000 - $3000. That is way to much to pay for a MS63.

This happens all the time. We collectors end up being fooled into believing we have an awesome MS66 (that is what the great PCGS or NGC have graded it) with great eye appeal that we pay MS67 dollars for when what we have is a MS63 that we should add a nice premium to for outstanding appeal. But 20 to 30 times sheet? Thats outrageous. The dealers are laughing all the way to the bank compliments of Market Grading.

Lets get back to putting the grades on the labels and not the value estimate. The grade is only one consideration when determining value. Lets not have the grading services merge considerations under the guise of grading.

Now I know my rant here is not going to change a thing. But maybe a lurker or a newbie may learn something here, something I hope most of us already know.

stman · December 31, 2003 5:08AM

<< All of you guys (no matter how low or high you "graded" the coin) who make judgments, based solely upon images, are nuts and unfair. End of story >>

True, but I disagree to some extent. When we are looking at an image for bidding purposes on the internet.... that's all we have to go by sometimes. So we can only access it to the best of our ability.

The assessment could be right or wrong. But if one doesn't like to mess with returning coins, I'd rather just weed out the ones that I don't care for. Yes, just by the image alone.

You'd be surprised what a few of us do to access an image when that's all we have to go by. Invert the image which highlights the marks. Do a quick fix in image software to see if it's been tweaked or to reveal what it really looks like, or to rid the glare that might be present.

Yup, you're right we're nuts!!!!

Outhaul · December 31, 2003 5:11AM

RIGHT-ON FATS!

Clankeye · December 31, 2003 5:16AM

Well... judging from the scan... inspite of your list of the coin's defects Fatman, no way that coin only grades a 63 technically. And that is, of course, just my opinion.

As to the rest of what you say, yes I understand where you are coming from and agree with you to some extent.

Clankeye

FatMan · December 31, 2003 5:49AM

Clank,

Alright....I'll split the difference with you. MS64

It is only a picture and as Mark eloquently says above "we're all nuts"

braddick · December 31, 2003 5:50AM

Everytime we look at a blown up photo of a coin here we judge it a point or two (or three: Fatman) lower than the insert. THEN- the new Owner gets the coin (kind of like that $500.00++ PCGS toned 1963 Jefferson nickel from last week) and states it is BETTER than seen and, in hand, is truly the grade on the insert. Maybe one day we won't be fooled into viewing a coin that has been SuperSized and believing those SuperSized marks and disturbances define the grade. In the meantime we'll continue to post fantasy grades/conservative grades based on an image rather than real life.

coinguy1 · December 31, 2003 6:18AM

Stman, hold on to your seat (and your hat if you're wearing one) - I agree with most of your last post.

Clankeye · December 31, 2003 7:21AM

Fatman--

I've been thinking about your post, and besides I want to stir things up some more...

What you are saying in effect is that you think all coins should be valued on purely a basis of technical grade. It is worth monetarily exactly what the price guides say a coin should be worth at that Sheldon designation for that grade.

Why should the price of a coin be based on technical numerical grade alone? Why should that necessarily be the only factor?

Who says surface preservation is what gives a coin it's total value?

Even if that coin was in a 63 holder you're not going to get it for 63 money. Not unless someone who just doesn't have a clue is selling it.

Now, I earlier indicated that I like the ICCS way of technical grading--I do--but I've found you don't find the really incredible coins that ICCS did not give the eye appeal bump trading at ordinary levels for the technical grade--they go for much more in most cases.

But, even if a coin such as this Pilgrim was in a holder with a much lower grade designation, don't think that the price inflation that a seller is going to ask isn't going to happen to some extent anyway.

Eye appeal is a factor in determining the value of a coin. Why not? The question is should it be a factor in determining the technical grade of a coin. And right now, in numismatics, the major US grading services say "Yes."

Clankeye

FatMan · December 31, 2003 7:58AM

Clank

I think I have been misunderstood.

I do not believe that coins should be valued based upon technical grade alone. Grade is only one consideration of value, and for me not the most important. I believe that this Pilgrim is not gem grade but it is worth 65/66 money due to its appeal. If it looks as nice in hand as in the image I would have no problem paying 66 money for it. The problem here is that NGC has proclaimed it as a 66 (market graded - both you and I agree that it is not a technical 66) and now dealers will start the value at 66 and add for the appeal. The appeal value was already included with the 66 grade and now its being bumped again. This is my objection.

BTW, there is not much difference in the price of 63 and 65 when compared to 66. The market grade bounce from my view of 63 to 66 is $1000. The bounce from your view of 65 to 66 is $725. Either way, the appeal is already in the price. Wouldn't it just be better if the grading companies just put the technical grade (MS63 or MS65) and then let us determine the added value for eye appeal.

stman · December 31, 2003 8:17AM

<< The problem here is that NGC has proclaimed it as a 66 (market graded - both you and I agree that it is not a technical 66) and now dealers will start the value at 66 and add for the appeal. The appeal value was already included with the 66 grade and now its being bumped again. This is my objection. >>

Ahhh, the "Double Bump." I've been saying this on here for a long time. Nobody listens to me but I keep saying it.

Clankeye · December 31, 2003 8:28AM

<< I think I have been misunderstood. >>

Fats--

Sorry, I think I kind of ran with your post and interpreted more into it just to keep a lively discussion going.

What you have just said is well stated and I agree with it.

I think you are correct that the higher the designation on the holder, then the higher the starting point for the eye appeal premium. And it can finally get ridiculous and price a great coin you might enjoy for your collection right out of the picture. And the true collector knows--that's painful.

I have a feeling we are much more in agreement (in fact I know this from reading your posts) about most things numismatic, than we are at logger heads.

Even if you do show a clear prejudice against Dark Siders.

Just keeping the talk going....

Clankeye

JRocco · December 31, 2003 8:28AM

Great thread. FatMan you are right on the money.

stman · December 31, 2003 8:41AM

See, nobody listens to me like I said. OK I disagree with all of you and none of you have a clue.

Isn't that the way to get responses on here?

coinguy1 · December 31, 2003 9:36AM

Stman, I understand what you mean about the "double bump" and agree that it sometimes occurs.

FC57Coins · December 31, 2003 9:52AM

<< All of you guys (no matter how low or high you "graded" the coin) who make judgments, based solely upon images, are nuts and unfair. End of story >>

In deference to poindexter - while it is true that you can't accurately grade a coin solely off a picture, I think most of us here have become adept at throwing grades at what we "think" pictures look like - but hopefully no one has become convinced that you can grade any other way than to have the coin in hand. If anything because of all the trickery that can be done with images.

Ogden · December 31, 2003 10:02AM

I struggle to grade this coin. I own one and it still has the original die polish on it and it was graded MS 63. Great strike, but apparently the polish lines take away from the appeal.

Ogden

coinguy1 · December 31, 2003 10:14AM

Ogden, many Pilgrim's display noticeable die polishing on them. It is highly doubtful that yours is graded MS63, due to that. There are probably other explanations.

IrishMike · December 31, 2003 10:15AM

Just don't believe that market grading is a big deal especially to the value of the coin. This PCGS 66 sold at auction for $17,825. The second one in a 68 holder sold for $9775.

The market determined the price not the grade.

Clankeye · January 1, 2004 4:30AM

Those are two great looking Roanoke's, IrishMike. Thanks for posting that.

Long ago I owned a Roanoke that had dramatic toning very much like you see on those coins. It came from Larry Shepherd, and I believe it was one of three that came from the same card and were toned similarly. Mine was graded NGC 66 (and that is neither here not there--this is not directed at NGC).

At any rate, the coin was fantastic, except it had not one--but four-- visible hits on Sir Walter Raleigh's hat brim.

When I first saw the coin it took my breath away. I had never seen such dramatic toning on a commemorative. But... I have to say that after not much time, my enthusiasm began to fade and all I could see where those four hits on the hat brim. It got to be that every time I looked at the coin I was thinking how on earth could they grade this coin a 66. And then the debate would start in my mind--well, how could they not? Look at it? It's amazing!

Ultimately, I feel the coin was technically over graded by a couple of points. Was it worth the money I paid for it in a 66 holder? Well, let's just say I wish I still had it, because regardless of the holder I believe I could sell that coin for three to four times what I paid for it.

Which I don't lose sleep over. It's really not why I do this anymore. But, IrishMike's pics got me to thinking out loud again.

Clankeye

FatMan · January 7, 2004 12:21PM

<< 

<< The problem here is that NGC has proclaimed it as a 66 (market graded - both you and I agree that it is not a technical 66) and now dealers will start the value at 66 and add for the appeal. The appeal value was already included with the 66 grade and now its being bumped again. This is my objection. >>

Ahhh, the "Double Bump." I've been saying this on here for a long time. Nobody listens to me but I keep saying it.

>>

Amazing This Pilgrim Bumped to the Moon

FatMan · January 8, 2004 12:20PM

IrishMike, I saw that MS66 Roanoke today at the Fun Show. It is now residing in a PCGS 68 holder. I guess in this case once the $17000 was bid on it the market determined the grade.

How About A Pilgram To Grade!!!!**GRADE POSTED*

Comments

Leave a Comment

How About A Pilgram To Grade!!!!****GRADE POSTED***

Comments

Leave a Comment

How About A Pilgram To Grade!!!!**GRADE POSTED*