Example of buy the coin not the slab? $10 Indian

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1932-Indian...093955?hash=item36040b7603:g:RysAAOSwEjFXdF7J

I ran across this auction while browsing and wanted to see what others thought about this. It's been talked about here many times. Buy the coin, not the slab. I think this may be a prime example.

In this instance I love the slab and the CAC sticker. lol MS-64+ is an awesome grade that automatically commands a premium. The fields are awesome but look at the hits on the face! It may have above average luster in hand. If someone here is selling it I have no argument that it's a great coin. I'm just saying I think you could find a 63 that could rival this coin and save $800 while you're at it. I don't know what they saw in it other than the clean fields and luster.

If anyone disagrees, please, feel free.... I would read an opposing opinion with great interest. I'll bet a steak dinner this never gets cracked out again for a re-submit. lol

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Aww now, that's Chief Scarface

 

What a crime! The coin is not even an MS-64! Beautiful color but too many marks for me. Bad copper spot should have been removed easily (for free) at NCS.

Now, This is a great teaching coin. The obverse is 100% original with no trace of wear, even on the cheek. That is probably why the MS-64+ grade. True Unc's are scarce for this series.

The reverse has wear all over the wing shoulder. The graders let it go as you cannot call/sell a coin like this as an AU-58 anymore.

IMO, should have been graded 63 max.

Something to consider. In a grading class, the TPGS instructor would tell the student, "there are SEVEN MORE levels of Uncirculated between a 63 and a 70. Understand?

 

Not understanding. I like AU-58 for gold. Especially nice comely examples. Are you sayin' that the TPG is bowing to market acceptability? That folks don't want AU coins, just mint state coins? If that is so there is indeed something rotten in the mix.

 

Small marks are not as critical on gold coins as they are on the other coining metals.
Gold, being the softest of the coining metals, gets a slight waiver when small marks are involved.

 

The only thing rotting around here or in the mix is the 5% of old collectors such as myself who are stuck in the past and very close to death.

To paraphrase Q. David Bowers in "Grading Coins by Photographs" which should be in every SERIOUS collectors library along with the 7th Edition (NOT any of the earlier editions) of the ANA Grading Guide and perhaps Making the Grade: Coins that were formerly considered to be AU-58 are now graded as high as MS-62 (I think he wrote MS-63 ).

Technically the coin is a split grade MS/AU. I looked at the reverse again. Most of the discoloration on the eagle is from compression or "stacking" which is OK (to the professionals) on an Uncirculated coin. Nevertheless, there is also a very slight amount of actual friction in the middle of the flattened, stacking luster. As I wrote before, the reverse is a technical AU-58. .

Now back to the real world. No grading service, PNG dealer, intelligent commercial grader would ever call this coin AU anything! Take that to the bank. Learn it so you don't sell a coin as an AU only to see it graded later as aMS-65 in the REAL WORLD. That being said, every knowledgeable, long time numismatic expert here has their own standards for grading. Call the coin what you will. Thanks to the OP, IMO it is a perfect example for us to see his point.

@kanga IMO there is nothing "small" about the marks on that coin!

 

I learned something on this thread, thank you.

 

IMO, The OP's coin is an MS62, but since they graded the coin 64+ then this coin of mine should grade 65+

 

The fields are nice, but part and parcel of grading is the prominence of the marks. Every distraction on this coin is right in your face, and I wouldn't go above 63 for it.

You're right, it's a perfect example of "buy the coin, not the slab."

 

I think the coin in the OP was rewarded by the paid opinionators for the thick original skin.

 

Here's a MS-63.....(lol)

 

Yeah, I'd give 63 money for that.

 

Great fields and luster but the marks are significant and in a prominent place. As well as the run on the reverse. To me this coin is a solid 63. And that's it

 

Where is the bad copper spot...? At "ED" on UNITED?

 

I believe this coin is a better example of "market grading":

http://www.ebay.com/itm/10-Indian-G...934780?hash=item1a0a8986bc:g:jP0AAOSw1-RUajf3

 

So it's kind o' like the Emperor and his new clothes.......

 

NO IT IS NOT! Let's get real and stop wasting time.


In defense of the TPGS's: We can find examples of over graded coins everywhere we look. In the multi-millions of major grading service slabs it is EASY to find mistakes. Case in point the Ebay link above. IMO, that coin is not market graded. It's MISGRADED!

You want to SHUT DOWN a coin grading seminar or a coin blog so that none of the students/members learn anything - just start discussing TPGS mistakes! We all have horror stories.

I get a big kick when a know-it-all (sometimes I'm guilty of this too) starts about TPGS mistakes and calls it "Market Grading." It shows they possibly don't know as much about coin grading as they think.

 

I can see that now...
Here, PCGS is saying that "wear" is okay for UNC coins (bottom bullet point):

In this PCGS Webinar at YouTube, the presenter says this about that last bullet point:

"...that may sound like a contradiction, but you often see that on Bust Halves where you have a little rub on the cheek. That usually came from a roll, or being stored in a cabinet, not really from being circulated." (my emphasis).

So PCGS is saying that "wear" only comes from "Circulation" (I'm guessing that means "used as money?"). The definition is not "rub" or "abrasion".

This brings me back to my previous inquiry about what IS "wear"?
It seems like there's the "old school" definition, and the new Market definition.