Hypothetical Toning and Grading Question
 of 4-17-04 004.jpg)
UtahCoin
Posts: 5,366 ✭✭✭✭✭
Question for the more knowledgeable and astute members here.
I think we all are aware that the TPG have tightened down on grading toned coins. Suppose you just happen to have a Silver Proof set (let's say 1963). Lets further suppose that the envelope and plastic all look crisp and new and the cellophane looks fine, no holes or tears and each little coin compartment is intact. Now suppose that the Franklin (none of the other coins) has some pretty cool toning. Not the wild, most people think is AT toning, but the kind you think had a 50/50 chance a couple of years ago, and not much of a chance today.
If you sent the whole proof set in for grading, still in the packaging, would you have a better chance getting it graded?
How about a GSA CC Morgan?
The Proof Set question is strictly hypothetical. The GSA Scenario is not. I just saw an amazing GSA CC, probably a 64PL or DMPL. 99.9% sure it has never been messed with. If I land this deal I would probably send ATS to keep it in the original holder.
I think we all are aware that the TPG have tightened down on grading toned coins. Suppose you just happen to have a Silver Proof set (let's say 1963). Lets further suppose that the envelope and plastic all look crisp and new and the cellophane looks fine, no holes or tears and each little coin compartment is intact. Now suppose that the Franklin (none of the other coins) has some pretty cool toning. Not the wild, most people think is AT toning, but the kind you think had a 50/50 chance a couple of years ago, and not much of a chance today.
If you sent the whole proof set in for grading, still in the packaging, would you have a better chance getting it graded?
How about a GSA CC Morgan?
The Proof Set question is strictly hypothetical. The GSA Scenario is not. I just saw an amazing GSA CC, probably a 64PL or DMPL. 99.9% sure it has never been messed with. If I land this deal I would probably send ATS to keep it in the original holder.
I used to be somebody, now I'm just a coin collector.
Recipient of the coveted "You Suck" award, April 2009 for cherrypicking a 1833 CBHD LM-5, and April 2022 for a 1835 LM-12, and again in Aug 2012 for picking off a 1952 FS-902.
Recipient of the coveted "You Suck" award, April 2009 for cherrypicking a 1833 CBHD LM-5, and April 2022 for a 1835 LM-12, and again in Aug 2012 for picking off a 1952 FS-902.
0
Comments
My opinion on the GSA Morgan, ATS, definitely, you want to preserve that baby right where she lies.
<< <i>I don't think the graders see the original packaging from sets. And if they don't, I don't see why including it in the submission would increase the odds of an NT vs. AT opinion.
What if one was to submit an unopened original mint bag of 1884-o Morgans where any toned examples would be assured of being NT. Would it be a bit unfair if even one was bagged for questionable color?
<< <i>
<< <i>I don't think the graders see the original packaging from sets. And if they don't, I don't see why including it in the submission would increase the odds of an NT vs. AT opinion.
What if one was to submit an unopened original mint bag of 1884-o Morgans where any toned examples would be assured of being NT. Would it be a bit unfair if even one was bagged for questionable color? >>
No, it wouldn't be unfair. In order to be objective, graders should be grading the coins, in a vacuum, based on their appearance, not based on packaging and/or stories.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I don't think the graders see the original packaging from sets. And if they don't, I don't see why including it in the submission would increase the odds of an NT vs. AT opinion.
What if one was to submit an unopened original mint bag of 1884-o Morgans where any toned examples would be assured of being NT. Would it be a bit unfair if even one was bagged for questionable color? >>
No, it wouldn't be unfair. In order to be objective, graders should be grading the coins, in a vacuum, based on their appearance, not based on packaging and/or stories. >>
If after one received the coin/s back and one was bagged for questionable color, do you think a pic of the coin in mint packaging along with a notarized affidavit that the coin was in a sealed mint set prior to submission would cause a TPG to change its mind?
I was going to answer until you excluded me with the preamble.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I don't think the graders see the original packaging from sets. And if they don't, I don't see why including it in the submission would increase the odds of an NT vs. AT opinion.
What if one was to submit an unopened original mint bag of 1884-o Morgans where any toned examples would be assured of being NT. Would it be a bit unfair if even one was bagged for questionable color? >>
No, it wouldn't be unfair. In order to be objective, graders should be grading the coins, in a vacuum, based on their appearance, not based on packaging and/or stories. >>
If after one received the coin/s back and one was bagged for questionable color, do you think a pic of the coin in mint packaging along with a notarized affidavit that the coin was in a sealed mint set prior to submission would cause a TPG to change its mind? >>
It could (and similar things have likely occurred) but I don't think it should. I believe that the coins should be evaluated on their own merits, even if that doesn't always happen.
they kicked them all back as Q.T