NGC "star" designation - new information added

Sunnywood · June 22, 2005 2:43PM

The much hyped "Battle Creek Collection of Toned Morgan Dollars" was hyped by NGC as containing 1400 beautifully toned Morgan dollars. In fact, perhaps 1000 of the coins are mostly white. (Yes, many of the rest are beautifully toned.) Yet somehow, miraculously, 1400 out of 1400 got the star. I mean, if I sent a coin in for the star, it would probably be worse odds than flipping a coin heads or tails, right? Now, what's the odds of getting heads 1400 times in a row ?????

Best,
Sunnywood

Edited to add: please see my post at the top of page 2 of this thread, with new information.

robertpr · June 22, 2005 2:46PM

Givin the new information I am not ticked off anymore. See Sunnywood's post below.

hedgehog847 · June 22, 2005 2:46PM

Some Sneeches had stars on thars.....

Tonelover · June 22, 2005 2:48PM

In my opinion the star designation has always been irrelevant. I don't need a grading service to tell me when a coin has superior eye appeal, I can make that decision for myself. Just another gimmick by the grading services to keep the submissions flowing.

michael · June 22, 2005 2:55PM

the star is only irrelevant for morgans

michael · June 22, 2005 2:56PM

any true star coin that is a real monster and above ms65 and i like it well then the star is okie by me

airplanenut · June 22, 2005 3:02PM

A few things to note:

1- I've always liked the star for online purchases, as it usually indicates that the toning will be nice, if the image isn't great.
2- There have been coins for which I don't agree with the star designation (ie, the coin's not that spectacular)
3- I've made a star on a white coin--obverse DMPL, reverse just lustrous. That said, if a white coin is exceptionally nice for the grade (perhaps completely original), it should get the star, too. If these all came from sealed bags, it's possible that NGC rewarded them for such an original look.
4- As someone mentioned in a previous thread, perhaps these coins were screened, and there are thousands more that weren't to receive the star.
5- Buy the coin, not the holder.

Jeremy

pharmer · June 22, 2005 3:03PM

Very interesting Sunnywood, and michael, it does seem to be pretty uncommon on issues other than Morgans, and thus worth something.

robertpr · June 22, 2005 3:09PM

I don't see how it's possible to pre-screen for the star designation. According to NGC's website, the star designation is ONLY rewarded with universal agreement among the graders. If any grader or finalizer that reviews the coin disagrees with the propriety of giving a particular coin the star designation, it loses it.

Now, tell me how you can prescreen the coins for a designation that must be universally awarded by all graders and finalizers? What happens when one of the coins hits the grading room and one of your graders goes "nope, this one ain't a star"?

relayer · June 22, 2005 3:11PM

prooflike · June 22, 2005 3:26PM

one of your graders goes "nope, this one ain't a star"?

Then that grader goes on break!

Myqqy · June 22, 2005 3:40PM

I've always thought the star designation was useless hype, and unnecessary.......

magikbilly · June 22, 2005 3:40PM

More gimmicks. Not a surprise, but for the stupidity. Look at the PCGS Signature Series signed slabs and the groans in here when they came out. The marketed but untested PCGS wood cask..boxes. Like the Mint and those dumb pouches and light up Edison - looks like Danbury Mint material. The "tightening" or "gradeflation" or inconsistency/whatever..66 comes back 64 etc.... LOL how transparent will this get before it is seen (that sounds odd)? Fortunately, I collect these round metal things..not slips of paper, plastic or stars...means nothing to me. Assuming the star had some value and the grader thought it should get one - I still don't care. It matters what I think, not him - my money.

Billy

LincolnCentMan · June 22, 2005 3:41PM

Well, I like the star designation. It does give SOME guidence on how the eye appeal is. If I see a KILLER toner in a recent NGC holder on line, and it doesnt have a star designation, I figure the image has probably been.... enhanced.

As far as the Battle Creek collectiong goes, I've only seen the pics on NGC's web site. Although I would be presumptous to pass judgement before I saw a larger representation of the coins, it does seem odd that 1400 for 1400 got the star designation.

David

ER · June 22, 2005 3:48PM

<< <i>In my opinion the star designation has always been irrelevant. I don't need a grading service to tell me when a coin has superior eye appeal, I can make that decision for myself. Just another gimmick by the grading services to keep the submissions flowing. >>

Newmismatist · June 22, 2005 4:00PM

I've been told by a very good source that these coins had been purchased by the collector in holders WITH stars already - the collection was then submitted for "name" designation (and possibly upgrades) - so it was not a case of 1400 raw coins being submitted and ALL receiving a star.

magikbilly · June 22, 2005 4:14PM

<< <i>I've been told by a very good source that these coins had been purchased by the collector in holders WITH stars already - the collection was then submitted for "name" designation (and possibly upgrades) - so it was not a case of 1400 raw coins being submitted and ALL receiving a star. >>

I was wondering when responding if this "* story" were really true - it seemed so stupid. However, I still agree 100% with my own post

Billy

roadrunner · June 22, 2005 8:41PM

Many white coins get star designation too because of extra brilliance or particularly bold luster. Sometimes I agree and other times I don't. It's not unsual to see a conserved, way too bright "type" coin get the * rating. Again, sometimes I agree and sometimes not.

roadrunner

MrEureka · June 22, 2005 10:35PM

I've been told by a very good source that these coins had been purchased by the collector in holders WITH stars already - the collection was then submitted for "name" designation...

Sounds like that little detail should have been included in the press release.

Sunnywood · June 22, 2005 10:52PM

I have just received the following information directly from NGC, which helps to clarify how this deal worked:

"The pedigreed coins from the Battle Creek Collection were part of a much, much larger silver dollar hoard. They were graded by NGC, and 1409 coins received a star designation. The star designated coins were reholdered and pedigreed as the "Battle Creek Collection" after they had been graded, because, as a group of Morgan Dollars with superior eye appeal, they were thought to be something truly special. The pedigree "Battle Creek Collection" was applied only to coins with a star, rather than stars to coins with the pedigree, as your post states."

The above explanation does give a better picture of how 1400 coins could all receive the star. Thus, I retract my earlier statement that "NGC sold the star designation as part of the deal." I do believe NGC should have made this clear in the press release.

Anyway, I was probably in a bad mood when I wrote the first post !!!

Best,
Sunnywood

K6AZ · June 22, 2005 11:02PM

I knew there had to be something missing, which is why when this was brought up the other day I suggested that we wait until we see the coins to make any type of determination.

AlaBill · June 22, 2005 11:06PM

I wonder how much larger the hoard was. 1409 coins with stars is still a lot, regardless of the larger hoard.

Sunnywood · June 22, 2005 11:10PM

There are only four dates represented in the group: 1885, 1886, 1887 and 1904-O, and that most of the coins were graded MS63* to MS65* with a small number of MS66* and none higher. With the four dates given, these coins obviously came from original mint bags. Thus, there must have been at least 4 bags, and at least 4000 coins total. I imagine that the 1400 coins selected were the ones with any color at all. Good thing they didn't put them in a bathtub to dip them. That used to be a common practice, as white Morgans always sell more easily.

Sunnywood

K6AZ · June 22, 2005 11:18PM

Well, again I would like to see them. Some people don't consider a toned coin as a nice coin unless it is incredible. NGC is giving stars to "small" crescents that are true rainbows, especially when they are on the obverse.

As far as dipping coins, I remember dealers back in the 70s who would dip entire original bags of Morgans. Everything had to be blast white for most in those days.

ms70 · June 22, 2005 11:23PM

If 1400 out of 1400 got the star, that proves the "star" is the gimmick I've always said it was.

ddink · June 22, 2005 11:30PM

Are ya'll actually surprised by this? NGC lost all credibility when they agreed to "grade" coins as "Uncirculated" for HSN.

IrishMike · June 23, 2005 12:33AM

The implication seems to be that the * is only given out to toned coins or coins with a lot of eye appealing toning. This just isn't the case, I own a few * coins that have absolutely no toning, but have spectacular original luster and surfaces. I would hope that collectors realize they drive the market and it seems for the most part NGC might be a little more aware of this and more sensitivity to collector's desires. Without having seen the coins, I don't know how anyone could give a fair assessment of these coins or without further information, how and when they were submitted, collected/purchased.

Just like the photoseal on IHC's if you examine a * coin you can usually find a reason why the designation appears. Whether you find it has exceptional eye appeal or not is up to individual tastes. I guess we like rumors and conspiracys better.

bestclser1 · June 23, 2005 12:53AM

Doug,I would love to see them as well,but from my experience,NGC stars are generally deserving.At least on their toned Morgans.

MrEureka · June 23, 2005 12:56AM

NGC lost all credibility when they agreed to "grade" coins as "Uncirculated" for HSN.

ddink - I don't see anything wrong with calling an uncirculated coin "uncirculated", even if the submitter is hoping to resell the coins for high prices.

pf70collector · June 23, 2005 1:30AM

Here is a NGC star I picked up last year. I like the star designations because it sets it apart from other coins that are graded in the same category.
1963 PF 69 Cameo *

gemtone65 · June 23, 2005 2:28AM

Sunnywood's original question is now moot given that we can indeed surmise, as Sunnywood does correctly in my view, that at least 4000 coins were in the original submission. Still, Sunnywood's original question is intriquing.

What is the chance that 1400 coins taken from an original bag will all receive the star designation, if we suppose that the independent chance of any one coin receiving a star is fifty-fifty?

Under the postulated assumptions, the chance that the first 20 coins submitted would all receive a star is about one in a million. Supposing that we take that likelihood as comparable to winning the lottery, then it is as plausible all 1400 coins would receive a star as it is that any one of us will win 70 consecutive lotteries at odds of one-in-a-million per lottery.

Sunnywood · June 23, 2005 5:31AM

gemtone65 - ever the mathematician, just as I once was !!! ( now I'm lucky if I can add)

flaminio · June 23, 2005 5:48AM

<< <i>Are ya'll actually surprised by this? NGC lost all credibility when they agreed to "grade" coins as "Uncirculated" for HSN. >>

Once again, it's Shop At Home, not Home Shopping Network. I've no love for the latter, but I'd hate to see the wrong party disparaged.

ddink · June 23, 2005 8:27AM

<< <i>ddink - I don't see anything wrong with calling an uncirculated coin "uncirculated", even if the submitter is hoping to resell the coins for high prices. >>

The problem is that they dumbed down the grading standards so that MS60s can be passed off to novices in the same category as MS64s.

NGC "star" designation - new information added

Comments

Leave a Comment

NGC &quot;star&quot; designation - new information added

Comments

Leave a Comment

NGC "star" designation - new information added