Opinions on the grade of this Seated Quarter

Beautiful pl details on yours and a great strike but I'd have to see in hand personally I like colorful toned coins so the color of the op coin appeals to me miy opinion but I prefer colorful toned coins plus it's an a&r which would be a big update for my type set the 1868 wouldn't still a nice coin tho

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

My opinion is a solid AU 53 to 55. It is toned, so the luster is harder to see, but it is beautiful coin--I'd happily own it.

 

You have sharp eyes. NGC, no grade "AU details", IMO trangressive against numismatics, unsaleable as such. ICG AU58. It sold quickly!

 

The surfaces do look odd to me...I'm not surprised that NGC put it in a details holder and ICG did not.

 

"Improperly cleaned" in judgment of NGC; a little handling issues in the fields is not enough to issue a scarlet letter. It is why ICG makes pragmatic, reasonable judgments vs. legalistic, vindictive grade judgments; and NGC will be getting less of many submissions as a result. Perfectionists find themselves marginalized and rightly so. Grading is an art not a science. Look at dozens of coins in the same date and grade category to get a sense of where any given coin falls in the spectrum. If you like "original" without aesthetic appeal, so be it.

 

Why myself and many others prefer the more stringent grading specs of pcgs and NGC and the easier resale of coins in those slabs anacs can be ok too but other then those three i absolutely will not buy a coin sight unseen I will buy one in an off brand slab if I can see in hand and believe it will cross otherwise I prefer to buy raw and have them slabbed

 

David Alexander from Heritage Auctions gave a talk at our coin club a few months back. I showed him a $20 gold coin that NGC had called Unc. details improperly cleaned though if so it was minor; he did not see the reason for the no grade and it was minor if anything. And I have had coins that no graded only to later both get high grades and get CAC approved. Details holder coins do absolutely nothing for the submitter with the exception of rare coins. There are obviously cleaned and overly "brushy" coins and those that are on the edge and those where there is no reason for them to stigmatize a coin with the details holder. Probably the lawsuits that PCGS encountered after 2008 are a reason for their borderline paranoia in not putting many coins they used to in numerical holders. As Voltaire said, the perfect is the enemy of the good.

 

And I have bought coins as qc and resubmitted them and they came back clean too I've bought coins I disagree at times with the details grade. What I was referring to was the lack of trust of myself and many others have to buy sight unseen a coin in a non pcgs or NGC slab I WILL buy a coin in an off brand but I HAVE TO see it in hand to me its genuine but a raw coin

 

I'm beginning to really like certain AU-58 coins I am finding. I usually only drop out of mint state status when it's a tough coin, and I am realizing more fully how some of these 58s (if they are TRUE 58s) can be super nice coins.

 

I have an 1873 seated half that is graded by NGC as AU (55 i think) and it looks way worse than the ICG coin posted above. Which I think is what Owle was saying. Even though my AU graded coin is most likely due to legitimate wear, it is not near as appealing as Owles ICG coin with a slight cleaning.

I am genuinely surprised that my half isnt in a Details holder, especially since it is NGC, but that again just reiterates why I buy the coin and not the slab and also why I peek at 'lower tier slabs' for good value purchases.

 

All I'm saying is that coin appears to clearly have altered surfaces. It looks wrong to me. That's why I feel that NGC put it into a details holder. It clearly belongs in one based on he photos. Now, photos can lie. Perhaps it looks much better in hand.

I hope the person who bought the coin once it was in a problem free holder was knowledgeable enough to inspect the coin and know that it likely is a problem coin in a lower tier holder.

Every coin is different, without seeing both coins in hand it can be really hard to make an iron clad decision on that. I can't see the coin to which you are referring so I have no idea what it looked like. Does NGC miss one now and again? Yes they do. But, they ate FAR more consistent than ICG.

I also agree with you that can find some great coins in lower tier slabs if you are careful and know what you are doing. Many "serious" collectors ignore lower tier slabs so sometimes ignored gems are sitting right there. While I agree that you should inspect and grade every coin you buy yourself...to ensure that its listed graded and price is appropriate (for both raw and slabbed coins) I personally believe that old sentiment "buy the coin not the holder" is not the worlds best advice. But, that's probably an argument for a different day.

 

Well from my limited experience, and keep in mind I am only on about year 2 of serious collecting, i have noticed WAY too many questionable coins in all holders. Sure NGC or PCGS has less of those, but they are still there and in two short years I have seen my share of coins in top 2 holders that have made me go 'huh'?!?

Which is why I now look for coins the way that I do, and will continue to do so.

Maybe its just me getting more and more picky with what i spend my money on in the coin world.

 

I have seen them too. PCGS and NGC grade coins based on being market acceptable. Meaning, if the majority of the serious collectors will consider them acceptable, they will grade them. I'm not a huge fan of it...but that's the way it is.

I too have seen many questionable coins in holders. I agree that one should inspect ANY coin they buy (raw or slabbed) carefully. Decide if it's graded accurately, priced correctly, problem free, and to ensure you want that piece in your collection. If any of those are a "no" then pass on it.

Part of the problem I have with the "buy the coin not the slab" talk around here is many people lack the ability to access the coin themselves. On top of that, it makes it sound like the slab has no value. I have seen people say "the slab has no value" and that is simply not true. My view is this. When someone submits a coin to a TPG (I'm only speaking of PCGS and NGC) they are paying for an expert in the field to evaluate the coin and give their expert opinion. By slabbing the coin, this coin is now "branded" with that expert evaluation. That evaluation and the insurance/safety that comes with it has value. Is the coin worth more once slabbed than it was when raw? No, but the package of coin and slab is worth more than the coin a lone. The coin also becomes more liquid once slabbed.

So, I completely and 100% agree that we should fully inspect the coin prior to purchasing it...but I think the "anti-slab" sentiment is not the best thing.

 

Truth about TPG's is
1 was Started by ANA the had to be sold
1 is Secret Service contracted
1 Noted as Worlds best return+broke records money wise
1 Is now noted "The official service of the ANA."
What it all boils down to is who spends the most on advertising as all have to have the best answer to stockholders for the bottom line earning each quarter.
As we all know not 1 of the grading service has a perfect record grade wise.
Buy the coin and not the holder.

 

I definitely am a fan of the idea of a slab as I agree that you have purchased some assurances with it.

My point is you still have to disregard the slab and look at the coin itself though to determine if it meets your standard and that could be at odds with what any TPG has put on the outside of that slab.

 

I agree.

 

On grading standards it comes down to money. How much do people pay for their raw coins, how much do they pay for the slabbed coins? Is it reasonable for PCGS, NGC, ANACS and ICG to net grade coins with minor issues numerically? They do it every day. I know a former grader who got really upset that PCGS seems to do that more than NGC. Valued grading in the lower dollar figures where coins are knocked down a little due to an issue or two is a reasonable pragmatic decision. I have seen many butt ugly coins pre-1900 especially that get graded and bought and sold without concerns as to grading standards. Those coins are hard to sell. I have run a fair number of coins through NCS that generally are more marketable afterwards, "cleaning" is in the eye of the grading service.

I know a major dealer who can get most any coin with minor problems in an NGC or PCGS slab with his methods which he does not divulge. That is the end result of overly fussy grading services, also the contention and trouble that is created in the collecting community when weighted judgments are not made in grading. Mark Salzburg, David Hall, Michael Fahey, Randy Campbell, Skip Fazzari understand this very well but each of them have a different set of economic as well as business standards.

 

This is because there is a difference between a proper cleaning which does not damage the surface of a coin and an improper clean which does. I never said that cleaning coins was bad...but there are certain ways of doing it which are not damaging to the coin. Based on the photos of that seated liberty in the ICG slab...the surfaces look damaged to me. I would love to see it in hand...but apparently NGC agreed with that and that's why it ended up in a problem coin holder.

 

Not to be jumping all around here, but since I started this topic on seated quarters I had another question about the series in general.

Are there any books available for seated quarters? I know about The Complete Seated Half Dollar Guide by Bugert, but is there anything written on quarters?

 

Larry Briggs' book, although out of date and print, is the best available. Check Stanton books as the last I knew, they still had copies available and are reasonably priced.