Guess the Assigned Grade--1924 Standing Liberty Quarter--Bonus!!!

Mike, I don't expect perfection out of the TPGs, never have. What I do expect is a certain level of consistency, and a maintaining of their grading standards. The latter of course has a lot more to do with we've seen over the years than the former. You, and just about everybody else on this forum, knows my thoughts on the matter of grading standards. So I'll not bother repeating them.

For as long as I have been posting on various coin forums, (and since long before that but none of you would have any of knowing that of course), I have maintained the same level of consistency when it comes to grading. So I see no reason, except one, why the professionals could not have done the same.

Now me personally, show me a coin, in hand and I'll grade it. Next week, next year, 5 years later, I'll grade that coin the same the vast majority of the time. I have no problem admitting I'm not perfect either. But my level of consistency is far higher than of the TPGs.

And ya know what else ? I also have no problem admitting that many, if not most, of the professional graders are better at grading coins than I am. But there is one major difference between us. Care to guess what that difference is ?

I don't have a company telling me what standards to use.

The problem is not with the graders Mike. The problem is with the companies. How can the graders possibly maintain any semblance of consistency when they are not allowed to just grade the coin ? I readily agree that there is a certain level of subjectivity when it comes to grading coins. But that level of subjectivity is greatly magnified when a grader is told that he has to follow a given set of standards dictated by the company he works for. You see, that is the variable that changes everything.

If left alone, to just grade the coins, the level of consistency in coins graded by the TPGs would return to what it was in years gone by. And most of the variances due to subjectivity would be removed.

We'll see what this coin comes back as. But this thread is a good example of what I am talking about. Look at the percentages in the poll. 67% graded that coin as 64 or higher because that is what they have become used to out of the TPGs in recent years.

And to use your words, "I never disappoint", I graded it exactly as I would have always graded it. Exactly as I would grade any coin - because my standards don't change. If I see wear on the coin, and the coin is not known to have a specific pedigree that proves it was never in circulation, then I grade that coin as AU. And yes, I can tell the difference between weak strike and wear. And I don't accept excuses that roll friction or album friction, etc etc are acceptable on coins graded as high as MS67. If a coin has wear then it has wear, and if it has wear then it is AU. Period, end of story.

I guess what I'm saying Mike is if I can do it, be consistent, (and I'm not a professional), then they should dang sure be able to do it.

Blaming it on subjectivity, that is just another excuse.

 

Brandon -

First of all I readily agree that there is no single standard of grading followed by everybody, least of all the TPGs. Each TPG has their own set of standards that they follow. Secondly, I do not grade coins based on standards established before the TPGs existed. I grade coins based on ANA standards, and as I am sure you are aware their latest book came out in 2006. And that book is basically unchanged from the edition written in 1986 and published in 1987. The same two years that PCGS and NGC were established. Thirdly, prior to 2004 it was a rare occasion when I would disagree with a grade assigned by either NGC or PCGS. And lastly, contrary to what you believe, although I understand why you believe it since you have only been reading my posts for 2 years, I have no problem grading coins 65 and up when that coin is worthy of that grade.

What you don't realize Brandon is that before 2004 I used to be able to look at a raw coin in hand and about 90% of the time be able to predict what the TPG would grade that coin. And yes, I could even differentiate between NGC and PCGS. That is not only consistency, that is also accuracy. And I was pretty good at making the same predictions based on pictures of the coins, as long as the pictures were of decent quality.

In 2004 all of that went out the window. And it sure wasn't because I changed. I grade coins today exactly as I did back then. And as much as it may surprise you, back then it was not all that uncommon for some to think I was over-grading a coin when I predicted what the TPG would say. Yeah, imagine that ! But, most of the time I was right. And yes, that includes coins that the TPGs graded 65, 66, and even 67.

 

Paul I readily agree that there is subjectivity between any 2 people (assuming they both know how to grade) who grade the same coin. But the vast majority of the time when those 2 people differ in what they think the coin should be graded they will differ by 1 point either direction. It's going to be a truly rare occasion when one says 58 and the other 64 or 65. I'm not saying it doesn't happen at all, I've seen it happen. But it doesn't happen very often.

But with the TPGs things are different when it comes to subjectivity. And they are different for a reason. With NGC there are 3 graders, and a finalizer, who all have to agree on the grade. With PCGS, there are 2 graders, and a finalizer, who all have to agree on the grade. Do you know why they do that ? They do it to remove subjectivity. Grading by committee by its very nature takes individual subjectivity out of the equation.

As for your comments about how or why this particular coin was assigned a 58, I don't know. Maybe it's because the wear was so obvious to them in hand that they felt they had to grade it 58. Among us, you're the only person who has seen the coin in hand, and you obviously believe they under-graded the coin. Like I said, I guess we'll see what happens when it comes back. Regardless of that, my opinion won't change.

I have absolutely no doubt that you are correct, that there are graders who personally agree with me. You play poker Paul, what are the odds that 4 of them who agree with me would all just happen to be together at the same time and that all 4 of them would all agree on the same grade that I would assign - unless that coin really was worthy of that grade ?

Yes, that has always been my point because you, nor me, nor anybody else, can tell the difference between wear caused by roll friction, album friction, or any kind of friction, because there is no difference. Wear is wear ! It all looks exactly the same because it is all exactly same.

With coins, the issue of wear is similar to how it is with toning. The TPGs know for a fact that they cannot prove one way or the other that the toning is NT or AT - so they guess. Same thing with wear, the TPGs know for a fact that they cannot prove that the wear was caused by roll friction or from the coin sliding around on a counter top as a result of it being used in circulation - so they guess. And just like it is with toning, people are either willing to accept their guess or they are not.

But there is one major difference between wear and toning. The very definition of MS states that there can be no wear on a coin. If a coin has wear, then it is not MS.

I think everybody here will accept that if a coin is in the change drawer at a grocery store, or in the change tray at a bank, that coin is absolutely in circulation. But, if when you look at that coin, and that coin has no wear on it, then that coin can correctly and accurately be graded as MS. And if you send that coin in to the TPG then the TPG will grade that coin as MS as well.

But, if you were the one at the grocery store Paul and you got the coin back in change, and you saw that the coin had light wear on it. But something about the coin made it valuable, a variety, a doubled die, anything, and you saw that. So you sent the coin into the TPG, and they graded the coin as MS - relying on the explanation that the wear was caused by roll friction.

What would you think Paul ? Would you be willing to accept the TPGs grade, when you knew for certain that they were wrong ?

Well that's what you are doing when you accept their guess. Me ? I'm not willing to accept that. And neither should anybody else, unless of course you are willing to throw the definition of MS out the window and just ignore it.

 

There are no such indicators. Light wear on the high points of coins from being in a roll looks exactly the same as light wear on the high points of coins that were in circulation. Just like it is with AT & NT, nobody, absolutely nobody, can definitively tell one from the other.

Do you know why ? It's because light wear on the high points is nothing more than breaks in the luster. And a break in the luster caused by 2 coins in a roll rubbing against each other looks exactly like a break in the luster on a coin that is slid across a counter top, or a table, or the sides/bottom of a change drawer. There is absolutely no difference between the two.

It is my understanding that it is both. Yes, they use a committee to avoid 1 grader making a mistake. But it is also my understanding that when there is disagreement that the coin goes back to the graders until there is agreement. That is the purpose of the finalizer - to make sure there is agreement.

For what happens when the 2 or the 3 graders all agree - but the finalizer disagrees with all of them ? The coin goes back and is graded again until all agree. The finalizer is there because he has more experience than the others. His very purpose is to catch it when they make a mistake, in his opinion. But he cannot just say the grade is XX and pass it on for processing. For if he could they would not need the other graders, they would simply have finalizers grade the coins by themselves.

The point of grading by committee is that they all have to agree in order to remove any question of doubt over the assigned grade. For how would it look in the eyes of the public if it were known that 2 graders said 63, 1 said 64, and the finalizer said 64 ? That wouldn't exactly be reassuring to the public now would it ?

The point of grading by committee, and then using a finalizer, is to make sure that the grade is not determined by just 1, or 2, but by 3 (or 4 as the case may be) graders who all agree on that grade. That is why the grades assigned by the TPGs are supposed to be trustworthy. Because there is no disagreement. If there was disagreement - how could anybody ever trust them ?

LOL ! Now that is what I call desperation. You know for a fact that they are wrong, but you are willing to accept it as being right anyway. THAT is a perfect example of the "blind faith" that I talk about !

You see Doug, you are doing the exact same thing, but you compartmentalize in your head a certain way that it hides the fact. You claim that wear is wear and that all coins with wear should be considered AU and graded as such. This makes things very nice and tidy, perfectly clean in the black and white world. You then give me a hypothetical example about a rare coin with friction found in circulation that the TPG's grade as MS based on roll friction. Did they get it wrong? Well of course the answer is yes. But in your world, you simply ignore roll friction all together. You don't refute that it exists, rather you simply ignore it.[/quote]

I ignore it ? Really ? Can't help it Paul, I'm sitting here laughing ! I ignore it ? Good Lord - I don't ignore anything. I see it, I acknowledge it, I point it out, I say that it is there and because it is there the coin cannot be MS.

You see Paul, it doesn't matter how the wear got there. It only matters that it is there at all.

It is when somebody says - yeah, I see that wear on the coin, I see those breaks in the luster. But that might have been caused by 2 coins rubbing against each other in a roll, so that wear doesn't matter. THAT is ignoring it ! THAT is pretending that it isn't there so the coin can be graded MS - when it really isn't.

A sealed bag of St. Gaudens ? Do you really believe such a thing exists ? Of course they did exist, at one time. But not for almost a hundred years now. The sealed bags of St. Gaudens, or any other gold coinage, disappeared with the gold recall in 1933. They all went back to the govt.

Oh yeah sure, maybe a couple here, or a couple there, may have been stashed away by some really rich person. Or maybe a few were even sent to Europe, to be returned to the US years later. But the overwhelming majority of them all disappeared with the gold recall because the overwhelming majority of them were sitting in bank vaults. And those all went back to the govt.

But to address your point, let's assume such a thing did exist. You yourself have seen Morgan dollars that came out of a sealed bag, so have I. So has just about everybody. But did any of those coins ever exhibit flat spots (other than those caused by weak strike) or wear ? None I ever saw did. Not a one, not a single one.

What they did exhibit were bag marks and frost breaks. But that's it, they did not show wear. Gold coins coming out of a sealed bag would be exactly the same.

What the TPGs, and anybody else who goes along with the idea, are trying to do is to find a way to grade coins that exhibit wear as being MS. And the only that they can do that is find some excuse, some explanation, for that wear to be there other than the coin having been in circulation and thus obtaining that wear. So they say that the wear could have, might have, maybe it did, come from the coin having been in a roll (or album or whatever) and two coins rubbing against each other. So that wear doesn't count.

But did the TPGs, or any of those who also subscribe to the idea, ever stop and think for a minute - exactly how did those coins ever get into that roll to begin with ? What could have, might have, maybe did, go through before they were ever put in that roll ? Those are the same coulds, mights, and maybes as above - but shhhhh, they don't matter.

Anybody ever talked about the "original bank rolls" of coins sold on ebay ?

Do I really need to say anything else ?

 

We shall have to agree to disagree.

 

Yeah I did forget about the Wells Fargo hoard, got me on that one. But you should do a bit more checking regarding those. 19,000 huh ?

David Hall: In contrast to the usual "ratty" look of the 1908 No Motto Saints, in the early 1990s, dealer Ron Gillio found a hoard of 9900 absolutely incredible 1908 No Mottos.

Well, that's not your fault; the supposed numbers of the hoard are all over the place. Don't ya just love the internet ? You can find that quote on Coin facts.

It's also interesting that just about everybody fails to report that the hoard was originally discovered in the 1970's. At the time all of the bags were opened, the coins taken out, sorted, counted, and then put back into bags and back into storage for almost 30 years. Until Gillio, (actually Spectrum), bought them in '96. And of course that was the largest, and the only hoard of its kind ever found. Did have a lot of nice coins in it though.

And those coins never saw Europe. The original owner bought them in 1917 and they were stored, in the US, for almost 50 years before they were rediscovered in the '70s.

 

Boy you really don't understand anything do ya ? No Paul, I was not questioning your research. Which is why I said 2 things, I know it is not your fault, and that the reported numbers are all over the map, depending on which article or book you read. If you have 4 different credible sources and they all report different numbers - which one are you supposed to believe ?

And no, I most definitely did not say that all Saints were turned into the govt. You need to actually read what I say. When I made that comment you had brought up "mint sealed bags" as being the source for MS Saints.. And I said that the vast majority of "mint sealed bags" were turned into the govt. And the reason I said that is because the vast majority of "mint sealed bags" were all held in banks. And the banks, most definitely turned in all of their gold.

And since the bags of coins of the Wells Fargo hoard were all opened in the 1970's, they can't be said to have come from "mint sealed bags" 30 years later now can they ? And none of us has any idea of what happened to those coins or even where they came from during the 50 years prior to the 1970's. The coins definitely weren't stored in a bank all that time.

Just how many people do you think there were Paul that could even afford a "bag" of Saints ? Each bag contained $1000, a lot of money back in those days. And of course a bag of Saints was only 50 coins. So a bag here and there doesn't really amount to all that many coins.

As to your question of light wear, let's not forget that on coins graded by PCGS that excuse that light wear that is supposedly roll friction is thrown out the window with coins graded 68 or above. No light wear at all, of any kind, is permitted on those coins. It's kind of like they turn a switch off and on - light wear is acceptable on these MS coins, but not acceptable on those MS coins. That makes a lot of sense now doesn't it