1941 WLH, MS-62??????

And if the coin was actually an MS62 or MS63, it probably would have a consistent grade, but I think that everyone here, including yourself, recognizes that this coin is a higher graded coin that is being net graded for some reason. The fact that it has been submitted twice, and net graded both times confirms that reasoning. Just because two groups of graders couldn't agree on what the net grade should be, isn't proof that they are inconsistent, rather it proves that grading is subjective.

FWIW, whenever I have submitted coins like this that appear to have MS64 or better surfaces, and they come back with an MS62 grade, they all have had one thing in common, they were dipped. For example:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I can't speak for baseball21, but I think typecoin is an excellent grader. That doesn't change the fact that he is relentless in his criticism of the TPGs related both to their market grading system and overall accuracy. That is why I give him pushback.

 

As I have said before, I give them a 95% accuracy by my standards (which I learned from expert dealers, forums, and even the TPGs), even accounting for subjectivity (+/- a point). That’s an A+ by most merit systems. My only argument is that because of the 5% they should not be blindly trusted (though I will add that you could pretty much put blind trust in the grade for moderns and Morgans). Arguing that they should be blindly trusted for every single coin like baseball says is folly.

I am a staunch technical grader and always will be. The number (and/or designation) determines the state of preservation, and the market determines the value. That is how I will always think it should be.

 

Originally, I assumed it was because they were harsh on the mark in the right obverse field. Comparing it with other MS-65/66 coins, I felt the mark was overcompensated for the first time.

Apparently so, but I am at a loss about what the reason is. I will show it to Bill Fivaz next time I see him. The luster is not muted from a dipping.

 

While I agree that you shouldn't blindly trust TPG grades and you should always ensure that the coin meets your own personal standards for the assigned grade, I'm going to tell you that your incessant criticism of the TPGs on this forum makes it hard to believe/remember that you basically give them an A grade for their performance.

There is a difference between market grading and value grading. Raising the grade of a coin with MS63 surfaces to MS65 because it has premium gem luster and eye appeal is market grading. Grading an obviously circulated 18th century rarity as a mint state coin in order to separate it from other AU coins is value grading. I agree with the first and blame the second for the horrible reputation that market grading has among collectors.

Personally, I grade holistically. I look at the coin without a loupe and evaluate the coins overall presentation and assign a grade. Then I use a loupe to look for any problems that I missed with eye test that could detrimentally affect the grade. In this regard, I am much more likely to reward both luster and eye appeal and forgive minor surface marks. If that sounds like what the TPGs do, then you can understand why I defend their grading practices.

 

I really don't think that could be the reason for a several point drop.

If the luster isn't affected at all by the dipping, then you might want to consider that they are uncomfortable with the friction on the high points on the coin and instead of grading it AU without friction in the fields, they are net grading it instead. There has to be a reason for the net grade, the surfaces just aren't bad enough to warrant an MS62/63 grade.

 

Luster and the lack of contact marks in the prime focal areas both technical aspects that contribute to both the grade and eye appeal. I am perfectly okay with an MS-65 coin with blazing MS-67 luster getting an MS-66. In my opinion, luster is the single most important aspect when it comes to a coin’s grade.

The presence/absence of toning, however, should not affect the grade unless it is clear that the surfaces have been messed with.

 

This is one of the biggest mistakes made when grading.

When speed becomes a conflict with quality. Quality Control should come in and correct the problem.

This isn't happening.

Is Market Grading the excuse for production?
Cause I sure as all get out want quality, if I am going to ever ask for their opinion.
​

 

Well, that is where we diverge. Toning can change the eye appeal of a coin just as dramatically as luster, and when a coin has both dramatic toning and booming luster, the terms monster & moose start flying around.

 

It shouldn't take anyone who knows what they are doing more than 1 minute to accurately grade a coin. If anything, it is the authentication part of the grading process that slows things down.

This preoccupation with the speed of the grading process is something I only hear from people who never submit coins for grading. It is a talking point, nothing more.

Furthermore, the quality control does happen, in the form a finalizer.

 

It sure isn't Happening. Think they should replace the finalizer then.

 

It takes 2 seconds on each side to get a gut grade, 1 second to flip the coin, and up to 5 seconds on each side to catch damage and/or re-evaluate the coin based on something initially missed in the first two seconds on each side. 10-15-second grading.

Coins where authenticity might be an issue and where the value jumps a lot with the grade assigned would understandably take more time.

 

I've never said that and have said multiple times there isn't a person or company on the planet that has never made a mistake. What I have said that their mistakes are FAR fewer than the internet makes it seem like and different opinions carry different weight. Someone seeing a picture on a forum and saying I grade it differently they're wrong ect doesn't mean they're actually wrong nor does it mean they made a mistake like some try and act like it does nor does it mean that their skills even approach the professional graders.

That especially applies on CAC coins. Neither CAC or the TPGs are just some amateur opinion and they make decisions for a reason not because they're clueless and just winging it like some people try and make it sound like. It needed to be pointed out that not liking a grade doesn't mean it's wrong

Just because someone doesn't like a grade doesn't mean they know best or that the grade is wrong.

But if you want to talk about blind trust they would be better off blindly trusting the TPGs/CAC than random people on the internet. The only reason I even got into it at all was because so many were acting like superior graders than the grading services. So much misinformation gets spread about the process and what they actually do and unfortunately a large percentage of it comes from people that have minuscule to no experience with them. It gets repeated so much that people believe it and it becomes an "internet truth" like people who think its easy to just crack stuff out and resubmit until they get the grade they want, or people who think the grading is loose and all old holders will upgrade ect.

 

This thread has more volleys than Borg and McEnroe at Wimbledon.

 

Let's tack another one to the tally for blind trust.
One for baseball,
So, if someone doesn't agree with you. Create some doubt so that you feel you have won.
Remember that others are reading these threads also, It is our duty as collectors to pass the truth, not side step it.

 

Feelings aren't facts and experience matters. To many with little to no experience with professional graders were lecturing about them which is why I spoke up

 

It's all about winning?
I am gonna get back to the World Series.
You going for the Sox or the Dodgers?

 

Recognizing limitations and how grading actually works instead of trying to act like I know better than professionals, how is that about winning?

 

That's not what I am talking about, it is the arguing for the top two until you are blue in the face. While knowing they are blatantly wrong.

 

So you believe you are a better grader than PCGS/NGC and CAC combined? Thinking that is the only way for them be blatantly wrong as you put it