PCGS 1939-D Walking Liberty Half

I think PCGS saw that as a strike issue. See how it's got a grey tint? They commonly reffering to that as "the grey" and they attribute it to strike issues usually.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

So you want a significant portion of the TPG graded Walkers to reside in AU58 holders? At some point Doug, you are going to have to stop substituting your grading standards for those used by the TPG's. We are all aware that you believe that any sign of wear should relegate the coin to AU status. However, you are aware that "roll friction" exists and that it plagues the exact areas that you have identified.

PCGS didn't blow it! They simply used their standard for grading Walking Liberty Half Dollars. A standard that is accepted by just about everyone in the numismatic community. Go look at WLH registry sets and you will find many coins that exhibit this same "roll friction" in exactly the same spots.

 

Au58-ms61

 

I had a Morgan Dollar that was in a GSA holder and you guys almost unanimously graded it a MS 63 and it was no where near the condition of this Walking Liberty which was given AU by you and MS 61 by others. Tons of nicks, scratches, etc
Clearly the standards are not the same across the board and there is no consistency.

 

There you go blowing smoke again. I don't care when they added it to some meaningless glossary on their website. I have a first edition copy of the PCGS OFFICIAL GUIDE TO COIN GRADING AND COUNTERFEIT DETECTION. This book is essentially a written account of PCGS's grading standards. The book was published in October of 1997. I would like to share with you a passage for grading mint state Walking Liberty Half Dollars:

This one passage blows all of your points out of the water. Roll friction is REAL. The TPG's have known about it and incorporated it in their grading at least as far back as when PCGS used OGH (Old Green Holders). Are you going to dispute that fact that the time period when OGH's were used is accepted as a conservative era in coin grading?

I have already alluded to the reason earlier in this thread. By taking every Walker that exhibits roll friction and grading it AU, you will drastically reduce the overall populations of mint state examples. It is a known fact that these coins were subjected to storgage conditions that lead to high point wear. It is an unfortunate unintended consequence that some coins which actually do have wear from circulation will be graded mint state by mistake. But that is far better than large hordes of AU coins that all appear to be GEM & PREMIUM GEM at first glance.

It isn't blind trust Doug, it is the product of logic and reason. The process of market grading coins uses a holistic method. When you compare an actual AU Walker to one with simple roll friction, it becomes painfully obvious that the coins are not equal and don't deserve to carry the same grade. You are unable to look past your own stubborn beliefs. Roll friction is an accepted cause of high point wear by almost everyone in the numismatic community including people like David Hall & John Albanese. These people have forgotten more about coins and coin grading than you and I have ever known. But you want me to believe that they are just a bunch of sellouts sacrificing their standards at every turn just to make a buck. Sorry, not buying it Doug.

 

I don't see any hits on the coin. kinda hard to tell from the pics about the breastplate but the head looke good and the skirtlines are full. i would go ms64. lots of 39ds are well struck thus the low price.

 

I think it should have only graded MS64.

 

This discussion is not at all about the TPG's changing their grading standards. You claimed that PCGS blew the grade of the OP's coin. I pointed out that PCGS graded it correctly according to their own standards when they accounted for "roll friction". At that point, you decided to resort to one of your tricks and claim that back in the gold old days, "roll friction" didn't exist. I then provide indisputable evidence that you are wrong and that PCGS has recognized "roll friction" as it pertains to WLH's for a very long time. Then you decided to resort to a sarcastic quip.

I think you just enjoy arguing with me. When you said PCGS blew it, what you meant was that you think the coin should grade AU because of YOUR OWN STANDARDS. By your admission on this forum hundreds of times, you think that wear from any source should relegate a coin to AU status. PCGS & NGC do not use that same standard and will often allow high point wear using either "roll friction" or "cabinet friction" to explain why a mint state exhibits such wear. Furthermore, you are completely aware that both TPG's do this and are also aware they have been doing it for a very long time. The problem here is that there is a fundamental difference of opinion between YOUR grading standards and the grading standards employed by the TPG's. It has nothing to do with the consistency of the TPG's grading standards. In a nutshell, you want the two coins shown below to be graded the same.



1944-S Walking Liberty Half Dollar NGC MS66 Roll Friction




1941-S Walking Liberty Half Dollar PCGS AU58 Circulation

And while you are entitled to your opinion that these two coins should have identical grades and similar values, the TPG's disagree with your opinion. Furthermore, I disagree with you. And most importantly, the market does not agree with you. So rather than try to claim that the TPG's have changed their standards and that I and the rest of the numismatic lemmings blindly follow their every step with a glass of kool-aid in hand, just admit the TRUTH.

TRUTH: You have different grading standards than the TPG's.

 

I know Doug was willing to let it die, but I'm thoroughly enjoying the debate

 

If the above is not an attempt to put an end to it, then I guess I need new glasses

 

The MS66 was PQ+++ as Kleinman would say. The other dull in comparison. The first may be overgraded. Overall aesthetic eye appeal impressed the graders. Grading is a lot more critical with key dates. And if you went back to when holders first came out, money differentials were much tighter with the upgrades. Now it is big money. You submit enough with Walkthroughs you will get the higher grade.

 

Here's something to think about.
Straight off of NGC (I understand it was graded but PCGS but still..)

They have a good price guide on there so I looked up mine for fun and saw that in the analysis.
Could be why grading standards for, maybe this specific year, aren't as stringent.

 

some people have to be right even when they're not. I have the same coin in a PCGS 65 holder but I'm not going ti go there. see my first post, put 64 but like i said you just can't tell from pics.

 

Do you really consider a sarcastic quip with the intent to bait me letting it die?

It is not my fault that you never put the effort forth to actually prove me wrong. Typically, you resort to one of two responses. First, you use your age and experience to get others with less experience to defer to you. Second, you always claim that there is no reason to try and change someone's mind since you believe they will never change their mind. You have already used both of these defenses in this thread. Care to deny that?

Here is what you don't get Doug. I have no intention of trying to change your mind. With the exception of TomCorona and his delusional 9/11 fantasies, you are the most rigid unrelenting person I have ever engaged on any forum ever. I could very easily just follow your example and refuse to engage you with the reason being that I have no chance at changing your mind. But my debates with you are not about changing your mind. They are intended to provide a dissenting opinion to yours so that the other members of this forum can decide for themselves which point of view they would like to adopt. The simple fact is that while you grip your numismatic ideals with an iron fist, most of what you believe is not accepted in the current market place. This current topic of discussion is a perfect example. The entire numismatic community accepts that Walking Liberty Half Dollars are plagued by roll friction and that high point wear does not automatically relegate a coin to AU status. That is not an opinion, it is a fact!

NO, NO, NO, NO, NO! That is an entirely different debate. In this case, I have shown that the TPG's have followed their standards to the letter with respect to "roll friction". Furthermore, you have never come close to proving your contention that the TPG's have gotten worse at following their own standards in any thread on Cointalk.

That is exactly what I mean to say. If I saw these coins raw, I would not grade them the same. You see Doug, you are so predictable. I knew you would resort to this little tactic. But I have to come clean. These two Walkers do have something in common and it is not their grade. What they have in common is that I used to own both coins. I have seen both in hand and I can state without a doubt, they don't deserve the same grade. Explaining the difference between "roll friction" wear and circulation wear is extremely difficult to do in words. PCGS tried to claim that circulation appears "grey" as opposed to roll friction wear which still appears "silvery". This is true to a certain extent and what I noticed was that circulation wear appears flat whereas roll friction wear still appears glossy, almost lustrous. I guess it is easy to claim that these coins should be graded the same from a photo, but when you have seen them in hand it becomes impossible. The difference in luster and eye appeal between the two coins is dramatic. The AU coin has friction in the fields and the mint state coin does not. This is the real standard that the TPG's use to grade these coins. Now, are there coins with very light wear from circulation and no friction in the fields that reside in mint state holders? Certainly there are, that is the price we pay for ensuring that premium gems exhibiting roll friction still end up in the appropriate mint state holders.

As far as disagreeing with the TPG's, I do it in my own coin descriptions in my registry set (click link below). If I will proclaim that one of my registry coins is over graded what would stop me from disagreeing with a TPG on a coin forum?

Atlantic City Set of Jefferson Nickel Varieties 1948

The TPG's collect the fee whether the coin resides in an AU holder or MS holder. The fact is that the collecting community wants to see Walkers with roll friction in mint state holders. You can't accept that because you can't see outside of your own opinion. To you, wear is wear and roll friction is a circulated coin. So we are all suckers, and kool-aid drinkers who despite our knowledge & experience blindly follow the TPG's every word huh? We see the wear Doug, but when we think the cause is roll friction, we want to see the coin graded as a mint state coin. To most collectors, the "wear is wear" philosophy is simply not good enough. You see, we have the confidence to see beyond black and white and comprehend advanced numismatic principles which it is apparent, you can not do!

That is an outright lie! You have not seen either coin with your own two eyes. However, the multiple TPG graders have seen the coins with their own eyes and graded the coins correctly. What I would like to know is why you feel that it is appropriate to ignore your numismatic caveats when it serves you? You preach to everyone incessantly that it is impossible to grade a coin from a photo and that purchasing a coin based on a photo is the same as buying sight unseen. Yet in this thread you claim to be able to discern the difference between circulation wear and roll friction from a photograph. So keep spinning your web of lies and deceit and I will continue to expose them.

 

If something as small as roll friction determines AU/MS then there would hardly be more than a handful of Morgans in MS holders.
I've seen tons of morgans with scratches, dents, etc in ms slabs.