Guess the Assigned Grade 1943-S Jefferson Nickel

Wow!! That price jump from 67 to 67+ is insane. From $90.00 to $1025.00 for the color and luster? I just don't get it. In my opinion if there is a price jump that significant for a + grade differential, then the coin should stand on it's own technical merit and not rely on pastel toning to get it there while overlooking surface condition. Coin doctors now have a heck of a goal to strive for.

I'm not trying to knock this nickel, but I just flat out don't agree with PCGS on it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

well, yes and no...

think about this: the difference between the coin with a star and one without is outstanding eye appeal.

Although you may argue that the star coin is not worth $1K, I might argue that it might be and that the technical 67 (ugly one) may be underpriced at $90

 

The problem with your analysis is the assumption that this coin was ever a $90 coin. That $90 price guide coin is usually your garden variety blast white 43-S MS67 war Nickel of which there are thousands. And while toned war Nickels are not rare, they are scarce in comparison to their untoned counterparts.

I purchased this coin in an NGC MS67 holder for $253 and sold it the same way for $335.

 

This can and is argued all the time. I absolutely agree that a coin like this one commands quite a bit more money than an everyday garden variety blast white one. I buy and sell nicely toned coins all the time and I pay and command a premium over the going rate for an untoned example. I wholeheartedly agree the eye appeal can help a coin command a price for one or two grade points above its assigned grade.

With that said, my problem with factoring in eye appeal into the grade assigned by the TPG is that it creates a false base line to establish the coins technical merits.

Here's an example. Take an 1880-S Morgan in MS-65 that was graded by PCGS and is housed in an old blue or green holder, before coins were given a grade bump for toning. Let's also assume the grade assigned was technically accurate. Now let's say that Morgan has neon rainbow toning on the obverse. That coin will probably command MS-66 to 66+ money, rightfully so.

Now let's assume that that same coin is cracked out and resubmitted to PCGS. With market grading happening that coin is given a 66 because of the eye appeal. The technical grade remains the same. The new owner takes that coin that has been "compensated" for by being given the grade bump to 66 is now asking 67 money. Does this same coin that was originally graded technically correct but commanded a higher price because of its eye appeal, still deserve to command a point premium at the new compensated grade? In my opinion no, because it's now over graded, but it was given the bump due to its eye appeal. It should only command the 66 or 66+ money that it originally did, because the grade was bumped for the eye appeal already. We all know that it does not work that way and that's my problem with the TPG's grade bumping for eye appeal.

 

I agree 100% no doubt that this specimen is a nice coin . But Justin I couldn't of voiced the same any better. Do I believe that it's worth the price range it was first purchased and sold for yes for sure.....is it worth moon money no. One reason I have had beautiful specimens slabbed stay stable and have had others over time spot,tone more and not for the best. I'm guessing this is the type of coin that one would rather sell at a nice profit , then hold and run the risk of it toning more or developing spots over time.
Again as nice as it is I would have to sell and be happy with a profit then hold and run the risk.

 

One can argue the atrocities of market grading and grading for eye appeal until Jefferson is blue in the face. The fact is, that is the way it is done (and that is the way that almost all of us were trained to grade, and that is how we do grade). Sometimes it is taken to extreme, but the truth is, TPGs aren't really assigning a grade at all - they are assigning a value. Value is based on eye appeal.

That's market grading.

 

My guess was just chopped liver, I guess....

 

That's why NGC introduced the star designation and would call such a Morgan MS 65* instead of MS65+ or 66. In theory at least, maybe they'll still assign the higher grade when they're on the fence between 65 and 66.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Or that standards have loosened up since the coin was slabbed in the fatty holder. You should try the experiment with current holders.

When I am looking at high-grade early US, the TPGs sometimes assign a value of MS-63 to an AU coin. Sometimes the dealer markets it as a premuim MS-63 coin for MS-64 money, hoping the buyer does not know the difference. The TPGs just did a disservice to the hobby.

And how about cleaned coins graded as problem-free, like many seated dollars? Are they suddenly worth as much as problem-free coins just because the plastic says so?

 

Going around in circles here, buddy. These are the same comments and complaints that people have been making about TPGs for 20 years now.

 

So I have been told by @Insider. Doesn't make me respect them any more.

 

Thing I always remember: the TPGs are a tool. Tools can be very useful if used appropriately, and counterproductive if used poorly.

A hammer is great at pounding nails, but it is terrible at cutting a board.

You know how to use a hammer, and you know that a saw would be better for the other job - only by educating yourself, and practicing, can you use the tools effectively.

 

I use them as tools to play the system and make myself money, but I am pretty sure that is not what you meant.

 

Let me fix that for you!

"Going around in circles here, buddy. These are the same comments and complaints that people have been making SINCE BEFORE YOU WERE BORN."

 

It wasn't an experiment, it was an observation made based on anecdotal information. Say what you want about TPG standards but if you review the material in MS67+ holders, you will find that almost all have exceptional eye appeal, usually in the form of attractive toning.

 

Doesn't make the complaint any less relevant. But seeing how everyone just unqustioningly accepts it as the way it is, then I might as well too. (Or maybe I won't.)

What I don't get is how an MS-67 "+" is superior enough to the MS-67 to justify spending 5-10 times more. It's these split-hair grades meaning the difference of thousands of dollars that make me question the sanity of the modern coin market.

It's like MS-70 bullion trading for twice as much as an MS-69 just because of the label, even though most people cannot see a discernable difference. I definitely can't see the difference that justifies spending twice as much.

 

The compaint usually comes from people new to the hobby who can't recognize that whatever injustices you think are caused by the TPG's are far outweighed by benefits created by the TPGs, including a stable marketplace where new collectors can safely purchase coins without being fleeced.

What you are looking at is the registry effect. These "+" coins that are driving 5-10 times more are either top pops, or the top pop drives many many multiples of the previous grade. Additionally, conditional rarities exist in classic coins so you can drop this sanctimonious condescension you have towards people who collect 20th century coinage.

People will pay huge premiums for coins with originality and eye appeal. The same reason that rainbow toned coinage garners premiums in multiples of price guide contributes to the premiums paid for these registry quality "+" coins. And it really isn't anything like the MS69-MS70 problem. You admitted that with respect to MS69-MS70, you can't discern the difference. With these coins, the superior eye appeal is readily evident for all to see.

 

I will complain no matter what if hundreds or thousands of dollars are on the line, as is often the case when it comes to early Americana.

Fair enough.

Modern = Post-1600. Not just 20th century. I am including all coins that are graded on a micro-grading scale.

Next time I am at a show, I will have to see for myself if there is $4000 worth of eye appeal (for a 1964 quarter, for example) in a split grade from MS-67 to MS-67+. I doubt it.

 

Do you even collect these things you are complaining about?

So, you are an "Ancients" snob?

So because you don't personally find the value, others who do are automatically WRONG?

 

I can't afford to, but that does not stop me from looking at pictures and wondering "How the heck did that 1794 Dollar get AU-58," or "how did that bust dollar get MS-63?" Or "How did all of these cleaned Seated Dollars get problem-free grades."

Not necessarily. I won't look down on your MS-65 Morgan and say that my Alexander tetradrachm is better. Both are pretty coins, and are of equal value, and are special for their own reasons. I just don't agree with the micro-grading system.

I was chatting with a collector of modern coins in England, and she says that few collectors and dealers use the 70-point system in Europe. She said that they thought it was kind-of silly. So I am not alone in my thinking.

However, there is a British TPG that recently started who uses an even-crazier a 100-point system instead of a 70-point system. I don't know how successful they have been.

Millionaires and billionaires can spend whatever amout for the best-of-the-best coins they want. They can do that; it's their money. I would rather have a car than a coin that was simply graded 1 point higher.