The evolution of eye appeal and grading - two Ultra Rare examples
tradedollarnut
Posts: 20,217 ✭✭✭✭✭
Grade inflation - we all have heard of it, but do we understand it? The simplest explanation is that the grading services have seen more coins and now are willing to use the entire grade spectrum. Another explanation is that they are focusing more on eye appeal and less on other considerations. Here's an example:
1885 Trade Dollars
The Norweb 1885 trade dollar was graded PR62 by PCGS in the 1990's. When auctioned in the Richmond Collection, it remained a PR62 but now in an NGC holder:
The Carter 1885 trade dollar was graded PR61 by NGC in 1990 or so and regraded PR62CAM by PCGS in 2003. Then in 2004 it was graded PR63CAM by NGC:
Now if this was just grade inflation, then the two coins should have both gone up. Instead, the Norweb coin stayed the same and the Carter coin went up twice. The difference? Eye appeal - the Norweb coin is fairly blah whereas the Carter coin has amazing toning. The Carter coin definitely deserves to be graded higher.
1885 Trade Dollars
The Norweb 1885 trade dollar was graded PR62 by PCGS in the 1990's. When auctioned in the Richmond Collection, it remained a PR62 but now in an NGC holder:
The Carter 1885 trade dollar was graded PR61 by NGC in 1990 or so and regraded PR62CAM by PCGS in 2003. Then in 2004 it was graded PR63CAM by NGC:
Now if this was just grade inflation, then the two coins should have both gone up. Instead, the Norweb coin stayed the same and the Carter coin went up twice. The difference? Eye appeal - the Norweb coin is fairly blah whereas the Carter coin has amazing toning. The Carter coin definitely deserves to be graded higher.
0
Comments
Eye appeal goes a long way.
<< <i>Please note that I agree with the current grades - the coins that went up are appropriately graded with the current emphasis on eye appeal >>
TDN, a serious question if I may - would you have agreed with the current grades a few years ago, or are you (only) agreeing with them now, due to your awareness and acceptance of the current emphasis on eye-appeal - you know, the old "chicken and the egg/which came first" thing
The Norweb example has what looks to be either die polish or hairlines...
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Mark: I feel the Carter coin is significantly finer than the Norweb coin and thus the grades make sense - remember that these are not pristine pieces, so a net grade must be arrived upon - and it's my opinion that the Ultra Rarities are ranked in addition to being graded, so I feel that it matters what the grades of other examples of the coin currently are in arriving at that net grade. All said, it's a coin that has the look of an even higher grade.
Two excellent examples
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
I think both have great eye appeal
My posts viewed
since 8/1/6
The ranking idea only goes so far in that there is a trade off between the technical grade and eye appeal. Problems really do seem to occur if an attractive but badly hairlined coin is graded (ranked) higher than a less attractive but cleaner coin. That is where the problem lies: when the eye appeal idea moved to grading the great unwashed masses of Morgan Dollars, etc.. I really prefer the NGC star system.
<< <i>Great Post!
Eye appeal goes a long way. >>
I have long thought that eye appeal was worth an extra point over technical grade.
Or at least worth a bump.
Collectors, at least this one, are willing to pay more for the coin than the numerical grade when the coin has that something special about it.
Very interesting thread.
-----------
etexmike
i think in coins this will only grow and get more attention and demand hence more value
myself i think eye appeal is the key with any coin no matter the grade or method of manufacture
you can have three coins of the same grade and their demand can vary greatly just on eye appeal
also you can have one average eye appeal gem graded coin and another monster eye appeal choice coin and the choice coin has much more demand due to eye appeal
<< <i>It is said that "Eye appeal adds a little and forgives a lot" >>
I thought that HRH said that toning adds a little but forgives a lot. Not sure if he ever made the same statement about EA.
What I cannot see and do not support are low end coins or even misgraded coins that were given 1-2 pt bumps for eye appeal. And in many cases that eye appeal is in the eye of the beholder. I've seen 2 pt swings given to arm's length appealing coins that had harshly cleaned or hairlined surfaces. Those just don't fly. I'll take less eye appeal and technically cleaner surfaces in that case.
IMO you cannot have eye appeal with harshly cleaned and messed with surfaces. How about some of these circ bust coins from the last Stack auction? One could state interesting or nice eye appeal with the Raymond toning. But because of the harshly cleaned surfaces (even though now slabbed) these can never be eye appealing imo. Rare exceptions might be an 1802 half dime or 1796 half. But for commoner types like 1794, 1795, 1798, etc. there is no excuse to call a grossly cleaned coin "eye appealing" and then get a grade bump to boot.
roadrunner
The 63 grade has always meant "choice proof or choice mint state" based on my understanding of the numeric grading system.
If your understanding is the same, do you now agree that the Amon Carter 1885 trade dollar is now "choice proof????"
<< <i>Now if this was just grade inflation, then the two coins should have both gone up >>
totally disagree. if all coins went up on a consistent basis, it would imply a certain (remarkable) level of instantaneous consistency at plastic co's. the point of gradeflation is that grading is NOT CONSISTENT, even at any point in time.
THAT in a nutshell is the problem w/ the theory of "grade guarantee" as plastic co's have implemented it - a 50% guarantee against overgrades, but not against UNDERgrades.
gradeflation, sadly, IS what happened to your initial example.
K S
I would bet that even what we call a MS60 Morgan looked pretty darn nice right after it was struck and before it was bagged and bounced around in a wagon bed for two weeks.
And no, the difference in the number on the holder doesn't add much value to these coins. The Carter coin has always brought high prices because of the look.
(Richmond, Kaufman, Eliasberg, etc.) or in a short time frame. We can assume that the bump was for eye-appeal but sometimes it was the historical time or the name of the submitter that swung it.
roadrunner
You must have missed my question:
Here is goes again:
[The 63 grade has always meant "choice proof or choice mint state" based on my understanding of the numeric grading system.
If your understanding is the same, do you now agree that the Amon Carter 1885 trade dollar is now "choice proof????"
I thought that HRH said that toning adds a little but forgives a lot. Not sure if he ever made the same statement about EA.
I didn't know that "HRH" was the only one that was allowed to say anything about coins
my bad, I guess.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Previously, I had thought of the Amon-Carter proof trade dollar as just below choice quality.
I thought that HRH said that toning adds a little but forgives a lot. Not sure if he ever made the same statement about EA.
I didn't know that "HRH" was the only one that was allowed to say anything about coins
my bad, I guess.
He isn't the "only" one of course!! It would seem tho that EA adds more than just a little when it kicks a coin grade up by more than 1 or 2 points.