I'm losing faith in the ATS *

Peacemonkey · December 18, 2011 4:38PM

droopyd · December 18, 2011 4:45PM

Yeah, that's kinda "meh."

magikbilly · December 18, 2011 4:51PM

I don't think I like that! I'd look for there to be some incredible luster radiating on that cheek for a 64* and I do not like the Rev anyway (I think the coin may have been better served slabbed Obv up taking the spotlight off the Rev, if it indeed does not seem to carry the grade or *.

Eric

Justlooking · December 18, 2011 6:40PM

The star is for superior eye appeal, correct? This one doesn't have it. It seems like a borderline 65, but they don't give out stars for that.

Justacommeman · December 18, 2011 6:48PM

I see you have returned........

That picture is mediocre at best so i won't even comment on that coin, just the premise. Some * coins are very worthy and others maybe taken into question. In the end to each is own. Buy or pass on it's own merits. Cool coins are cool coins regardless of grade and designations. MJ

Peacemonkey · December 18, 2011 6:53PM

<< I see you have returned........MJ >>

Was I not supposed to?

Justacommeman · December 18, 2011 7:10PM

<< 

<< I see you have returned........MJ >>

Was I not supposed to? >>

No matter to me. I could have easily said welcome back, but It came out, "I see you have returned". It was just an acknowledgement. Fresh start. Best wishes. MJ

Mercury · December 18, 2011 9:27PM

The coin doesn't do anything for me. However, the pictures are not of high enough qualityfor me to judge the overall grading abalties of an entire company.

Mercury

magikbilly · December 18, 2011 9:44PM

Yes, the photographs appear really....unusual.

Eric

PerryHall · December 18, 2011 9:48PM

That's the problem with eye appeal---beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

RYK · December 18, 2011 10:05PM

<< Cool coins are cool coins regardless of grade and designations. MJ >>

I like that line!

GRANDAM · December 18, 2011 10:21PM

Well a 1881-S in MS65 is only worth about half of what this coin sold for in a MS64* holder

GrandAm

kryptonitecomics · December 18, 2011 10:50PM

I don't like it as a star but I often disagree with NGC about it's use or non use of the designation.

Peacemonkey · December 18, 2011 11:05PM

<< 

<< 

<< I see you have returned........MJ >>

Was I not supposed to? >>

No matter to me. I could have easily said welcome back, but It came out, "I see you have returned". It was just an acknowledgement. Fresh start. Best wishes. MJ >>

Oh, well thanks. Im not really trying to hide. I dont think I did anything worth hiding over. I made some mistakes but made good on all of them so I dont feel like its a new start per se, just a lesson learned and a move forward.

BarberFanatic · December 18, 2011 11:21PM

In slabs of BOTH top tier grading companies you can find:

- beautiful coins
- ugly coins
- overgraded coins
- undergraded coins
- problem coins in normal holders
- problem-free coins in problem holders

As MJ said, "Cool coins are cool coins regardless of grade and designations."
People get so caught up in whether a coin is the "correct" slab or not.
How many times have we heard it: "Buy the coin, not the holder."

You know what I do when I'm looking for coins to buy?
I completely ignore the slab and I make my decision solely based on if I like the coin's merits compared to its price.
I couldn't care less what some anonymous-to-me group of coin graders thinks; it's about what I think.

UNCOnly · December 18, 2011 11:31PM

Not worth what the seller is asking for.

BillJones · December 19, 2011 12:14AM

Based upon that picture, I can't say that the coin is totally off. I don't know why the picture was shot at an angle.

DennisH · December 19, 2011 12:28AM

I've never had faith in the * concept.

Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder; it's not defined by what a holder says.

Peacemonkey · December 19, 2011 12:30AM

<< In slabs of BOTH top tier grading companies you can find:

- beautiful coins
- ugly coins
- overgraded coins
- undergraded coins
- problem coins in normal holders
- problem-free coins in problem holders

As MJ said, "Cool coins are cool coins regardless of grade and designations."
People get so caught up in whether a coin is the "correct" slab or not.
How many times have we heard it: "Buy the coin, not the holder."

You know what I do when I'm looking for coins to buy?
I completely ignore the slab and I make my decision solely based on if I like the coin's merits compared to its price.
I couldn't care less what some anonymous-to-me group of coin graders thinks; it's about what I think. >>

While I agree with you nearly fully, it cannot be ignored that the plastic affects the market, mostly for the good IMO but not to be ignored either way when its good or bad.

streeter · December 19, 2011 1:18AM

I don't get the concept of the '*'.

Are they trying to say that the coin is in the upper reaches of the technical grade or are they trying to say it's an attractive coin?

Regardless, I don't need them to tell me what I should prefer and --- I suppose if a coin doesn't get the star.....ruhroh. Is it a barker?

And besides, their slabs don't fit in my OG boxes.

al410 · December 19, 2011 1:29AM

Based on the picture it is hard to comment on the grade, I would not automatically say it was mis graded. The price being asked is what the owner thinks a person might pay. That does not mean it is worth it or not.

AL

Barry · December 19, 2011 1:34AM

Bad picture and bad lighting. Look how yellow the obverse holder material looks, except in the lower left corner.

My guess is the guy tried to highlight the toning with a very oblique lighting angle.

Lehigh96 · December 19, 2011 1:37AM

I was one of the first people to bash the Walker that we discussed last week. It was a dog and was proven to be a dog. This coin is not a dog. The problem here is that the person taking the photo does not know what he is doing. He didn't know how to capture the color so he took the photo at a bizarre angle. The result is that the coin appears completely lackluster. I have trouble accepting that a partial crescent bag toned 1881-S Morgan Dollar is lackluster, because typically, they are not. I bet that any numismatic photographer worth his salt could take a photo of this coin and the reason for the assigned star designation would become immediately evident.

Having said that, the star designation is supposed to represent exceptional eye appeal. IMO, exceptional is relative to how that coin normally appears. In much the same way that quality of strike is relative to the strike characteristics for that date/mm. Partial crescent toned common date Morgan Dollars are very common and usually bring a small premium. I find nothing about this coin to be exceptional, including it's eye appeal. The presence of a rainbow progression should not automatically win a star designation. It is about where we draw the line. Here is an example of the lunacy and drawing the line.

It is an attractive coin, but not exceptional. It has rainbow color, but like the coin in the OP, IMO, is not exceptional. But therein lies the problem with the star designation. We all have a different opinion of what "exceptional" means. Apparently, my standards are a little stricter that the 3 guys that graded both of these coins. I don't agree with the star designation for either coin, but neither is an affront to the designation like that Walker was.

braddick · December 19, 2011 2:30AM

I just picked up this one last night on eBay and it didn't get the STAR.

leothelyon · December 19, 2011 2:51AM

I've come to the conclusion that with frequent flyers, there's lots of money involved, a company will make it worth your while and reward you with extra gifts of appreciation.

fc · December 19, 2011 2:54AM

<< Based upon that picture, I can't say that the coin is totally off. I don't know why the picture was shot at an angle. >>

It was probably shot at an angle because that is the only way you could see
the colors?

leothelyon · December 19, 2011 3:27AM

The one time I sent coins, one had such brilliant tinsel-like gorgeous toning (one of my greatest coins from 20 years in the series) that it should had received-like 3 stars but didn't star at all and graded 66? But I wasn't really surprised (got a good laugh instead), what with all the 67s that are out there and what those coins look like, no, I wasn't surprised at all. Another coin I sent with that batch was cracked out of a PCGS holder. Wanted to see what they would do......questionable toning. 4 of the 5 coins submitted, they said had questionable toning. Another coin I had bought from a dealer, showed me other coins that were pulled from the same album that had the exact same toning were already certified so I bought one raw coin that I really liked....questionable toning. Needless to say, I haven't sent anymore money/submissions their way since.

MikeInFL · December 19, 2011 6:48AM

What surprises me is that you had "faith" in it to begin with.

DIMEMAN · December 19, 2011 7:26AM

It's NGC...what do you expect??

golfer72 · December 19, 2011 11:14AM

<< In slabs of BOTH top tier grading companies you can find:

- beautiful coins
- ugly coins
- overgraded coins
- undergraded coins
- problem coins in normal holders
- problem-free coins in problem holders

As MJ said, "Cool coins are cool coins regardless of grade and designations."
People get so caught up in whether a coin is the "correct" slab or not.
How many times have we heard it: "Buy the coin, not the holder."

You know what I do when I'm looking for coins to buy?
I completely ignore the slab and I make my decision solely based on if I like the coin's merits compared to its price.
I couldn't care less what some anonymous-to-me group of coin graders thinks; it's about what I think. >>

You are a smart man!

golfer72 · December 19, 2011 11:18AM

I have said it before and I will say it again. The whole star concept is meaningless. As many of you have said eye appeal is completely subjective.

mrpotatoheadd · December 19, 2011 11:40AM

Seems kind of unfair to criticize a grading company based on what appears to be a poorly taken photo.

coinman23885 · December 19, 2011 11:54AM

At least the grade is right. I could care less whether a coin stars or not; as has been stated here, eye appeal is subjective. Moreover there could be a lot of luster not evident in the photo that could make this coin pop in hand. If the image is accurate, I don't think it is star worthy.

coinman23885 · December 19, 2011 11:55AM

<< Well a 1881-S in MS65 is only worth about half of what this coin sold for in a MS64* holder

GrandAm

>>

The coin didn't sell; it is the asking price.

Shamika · December 19, 2011 12:52PM

Star grade? Doesn't look as though it has exceptional eye appeal.

PerryHall · December 19, 2011 9:30PM

I ignore the star on the NGC slab label just as I ignore FIRST STRIKE on a certain other label.

TwoKopeiki · December 20, 2011 12:16AM

<< In slabs of BOTH top tier grading companies you can find:

- beautiful coins
- ugly coins
- overgraded coins
- undergraded coins
- problem coins in normal holders
- problem-free coins in problem holders

As MJ said, "Cool coins are cool coins regardless of grade and designations."
People get so caught up in whether a coin is the "correct" slab or not.
How many times have we heard it: "Buy the coin, not the holder."

You know what I do when I'm looking for coins to buy?
I completely ignore the slab and I make my decision solely based on if I like the coin's merits compared to its price.
I couldn't care less what some anonymous-to-me group of coin graders thinks; it's about what I think. >>

Sums it up nicely. Buy the coin, not the holder.

However, if I am buying a coin sight-unseen (or based on auction images, which is the same), I would give preference to PCGS, then NGC, and would think hard about going strong after an ANACS/ICG/NNC coins with sub-par images.

I'm losing faith in the ATS *

Comments

The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!

My Jefferson Nickel Collection

The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!

My Jefferson Nickel Collection

Leave a Comment