I am completely stumped on this MS-67+ Washington Quarter

Funny, you were all by yourself in that thread, but you still think I'm the one out on an island.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Thank you @Lehigh96 for bringing up that old post. Unfortunately I just read through it quickly and will print it out to read fully.

Here is what I got out of it so far:

1. While the thread is very educational and should probably be cleaned up a little and posted as an important intro on the home page; grading standards have changed since that discussion in 2010.

2. I also just voted. It seem that 85% of the posters believe/follow the standards that indicate a single detracting mark can keep a coin out of the gem grade. I agree.

3. I've been told by graders with much higher qualifications and pay grade than any poster here including Mark Feld (who is way above my skills/pay) that "there is a lot of room between MS-65 and perfection." Therefore, it would seem that they agree with the opinion expressed by Mr. Feld and the totality of the eye appeal of each coin must be considered when grading it.

Mark Feld, posted: "Finally, a coin can be accurately graded, but a good many people not like it, due to a distraction (such as a mark in the prime focal area)."

and...

"There is no written standard that can account for all of the different variables that occur while grading coins."

I agree. This is not a contradiction. The TPGS and commercial graders do not follow MY PERSONAL standards as expressed in published guides.

​

 

YES. The OP's quarter is over graded. Let's see what some Registry Set collector pays for it. That may settle this discussion.

 

I already admitted very early on that the coin was overgraded and deserved no higher than low end MS67 money which would be $250-$300

 

Most people think they under-grade their coins. I really struggle to find who these other people are that think that upgrades are automatic from early holders.

 

The problem I see is that @Lehigh96 assumes that NGC has a set standard, when in fact they don't. I have seen MS-66 coins in MS-64 slabs and vice versa. If there is no consistency, then there is no standard.

I figured you would say that. That is why I added the part about the reputable dealers.

You took my comment out of context. I don't care about what they are like 2300 years from now either. But my point is they probably wont be pristine and problem-free anymore.

I know a lot of collectors that only buy slabbed coins and care only about the label. I have met a lot of dealers who think the same way. What I was saying is that there is a stark contrast of mentality between the two collecting areas.

Most = >50%. Most of the collectors I know would know a Nero denarius or a Sicilian tetradrachm without being aided by a slab.

The point is to be able to appreciate the history of the coins by looking past all of the coins' universal "problems." That is what numismatics is about. Judging them from US coin standards is folly. Experienced numismatists like you claim to be know that.

 

As a general proposition, the TPGs tend to grade on the high side, i.e., are biased on the seller side.

 

That is absolutely ridiculous, all of the TPGs have established standards for every series in every grade. And while this thread might be about one of the market graded outliers, there are many thousands of coins that are graded by the TPGs that have highly predictable grades and are not in dispute.

If you have MS66 coins in MS64 slabs then run some GTG threads and prove it. I have run dozens of GTG threads on this forum and they have shown me both how consistent the TPGs are and how inconsistent amateur collectors are at grading.

Btw, I asked everyone to play along and give numerical grade for each element of grading. Why didn't you play along?

 

Check out this thread.

https://www.cointalk.com/threads/post-your-under-graded-slabs-official-thread.291238/

Particularly the NGC MS-64 Morgan that got an MS-66 upon resubmission. Sure, it was crossed to PCGS, but you have to agree than it is nicer than almost every MS-64 in NGC slabs.

https://www.cointalk.com/threads/po...bs-official-thread.291238/page-6#post-2731766

https://www.cointalk.com/threads/po...bs-official-thread.291238/page-6#post-2746822

Because I simply don't care. It also would not work given the subjectivity of grading, especially eye appeal. The OP coin does not have eye appeal above MS-63 for me. Rick Snow suggested a similar system, but it was mostly turned down by the numismatic community.

 

This is exactly why I posted the Buffalo. I couldn't take my eyes of the coin when I saw it in the dealers case. It was surrounded by ms65 to ms68 coins, and by far looked like the strongest coin in the case.
If there was a standard, and even if they are different between the TPG's. .
This kind of mistake wouldn't happen.
This coin is grossly under graded.
Strike 67
Luster 68
Eye appeal 68
Contact marks 67+
I may be a little biased because I own the coin.
In hand it should be a top pop.

 

That is one example, and one not one that you own, but one that was brought up specifically in a thread about undergraded coins. How many tens of thousands of 1880-S Morgan Dollars are graded correctly?

And saying you simply don't care means you don't care to learn how the TPGs grade. You say it wouldn't work because of the subjectivity of grading. That is exactly why it does work. Furthermore, the TPGs are already using this system and for the most part, outside of this forum, they are widely accepted in the numismatic community.

So you think that coin has the eye appeal of an MS63 coin huh? I would like to explain that comment.

 

While I agree with you that the coin is undergraded, I don't agree with your individual assessments of each element of grade. The 1938-D Buffalo is tantamount to the 1881-S Morgan Dollar. It is an issue of superlative quality and is usually found with a good strike, great luster, and stunning eye appeal. The TPGs are simply tougher on the 38-D than the other Buffalo dates. I would grade it like this.

Strike: MS65
Luster: MS67
Eye Appeal: MS67
Surface Preservation: MS68

The strike is not full details, and not really even sharp details. The obverse is good, but the reverse is mushy with a blended tail and blending of the raised fur line. The terms full details and sharp details come from Q. David Bowers book A GUIDE BOOK OF BUFFALO AND JEFFERSON NICKELS.

Again, this issue is commonly found with outstanding luster and eye appeal, and while your coin has both, it doesn't stand apart from the other premium gem 38-D Buffaloes that I have seen, so I gave both MS67, not higher.

The coin appears to be very clean and I gave it the highest marks for surface preservation but there is no way that the grade can exceed MS67 with that strike.

Keep in mind that your coin was graded over 15 years ago and could easily be a victim of gradeflation. The clear solution is to crack the coin out and resubmit it. For sure it will upgrade to MS66, and will probably get an MS67.

All that said, I certainly don't think that your example in any way proves that the TPGs don't have standards.

 

I will not grade a coin with any corrosion spots over MS-64. Ignoring the hairlines and friction rub on the coin's high points, I'll assume the big scratch across the cheek is on the plastic and not the coin.

 

Of course they do. It's their vested interest. Disappointed customers are not good for business, and assigning any sort of altruistic motive to a TPG's work is the worst kind of self-deception.

 

That isn't how the TPG's grade coins. Furthermore, I don't know what you are calling a corrosion spot on that coin.

 

They sure don't. I've seen "Environmentally Damaged" coins graded as high as MS-66! Hopefully, these oversights occurred AFTER the coin was slabbed.

Yeah, I'm "micro-grading" the nickel. I guess the little, insignificant black corrosion spot with the discolored "REACTION RING" around it is an indication that the coin is original. My mistake.

 

That's why I said it. We're going around virtually unconscious of it. The same holds for the auctioneers, their rake-offs being in direct relationship to the hammer prices. The system is stacked against the buyers. But, not to worry, keep the buyers chumps. It's called, "marketing." Their style of "grading" is called, "marketing grading." I'll tell you what, though. You'd better not try to sell me an "AT" coin--nope, not me! And they got us thinking it's the "coin doctors" making the chumps out of us. Keep thinking, chum...

 

If you are going to be that hyperbolic about a small insignificant carbon spot, then you should also refuse to grade any toned coin. Technically speaking, all toning is corrosion.

 

Gotcha! It seems the noted chemist, and numismatic author Mr. Weimar W. White, has revealed his true identity!

 

But you agree that the one example was a mistake. It shows that NGC is not 100% consistent. What if the same happened for the OP coin, just overgraded instead of undergraded? I like to see you try to argue against that.

The reason I don't care is because I don't want to have to worry myself over a single point difference. How many hours have you and many others spent arguing the case of whether or nor this coin is graded a point or two too high? I find myself much happier not caring about such trivialities, much less paying $$$$ for them. To me, coin grades over MS-66 don't matter as there is often not a significant-enough difference warranting such a large premium.

Other than in ancients, I have yet to see a slab that breaks down the coin grade into smaller components. You say the system is in place. Show me. As far as I am concerned, it does not officially exist.

Lastly, I have my own grading standards, and they are what I use, not the TPG's. I don't care what the fancy piece of plastic says. Usually I grade lower than the plastic.

If I think a coin is ugly, I won't pay a premium for it. A Morgan dollar can be technically graded MS-65, but it would not be worth that to me if it has butt-ugly toning. I see dozens of contact marks on the reverse and splotchy brown toning on the periphery of the OP coin. No way I'd give it an eye appeal grade of MS-67. I've seen low-MS coins that look nicer.