ANOTHER overgraded PCGS Morgan

Very uneducated position to take.

Just you for your racist acronym.

To try and help people from being mislead. But I give up on that you guys can lead them down the wrong path all you want now.

No you can't. Digital pictures on an oversized image are famous for exaggerating.

Then you need to learn more about digital imaging.

So many people would be better off not reading what a lot of you post. Anyway like I said I'm done. Mislead people all you want. It's on you. Fighting internet trolls is a loosing battle and I have better things to do. Collecting simply isn't worth it. I loved coins so much more before the negativity and tinfoil hat opinions of coin yelp.

You won. Enjoy your "victory". Once I sell everything off you won't see me around anymore. I'm done trying to deal with people trying to shove their feelings as facts

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I usually pick my kid up, brush him off, and tell him have another go at it.
But hey your an adult. Do whatever you need to do, no one here can stop ya.

 

I’ve bought enough coins from pictures to know what does and doesn’t show up in hand. The damage on this coin would certainly be noticeable without magnification, even if it is just a distracting disturbance that requires a closer look (which IS how the graders grade).

 

Here are the two auction descriptions from Stacks when they auctioned this coin, and they tend to be honest when writing auction lot descriptions. The “few scattered marks that are present to the unaided eye” refer to the gouge behind the head and the severest ones at the base of the bust. “Low magnification” (10x or less) makes the “innumerable” rest visible. Graders are equipped with a low-magnification loupe at their stations.

On my screen, the thumbnails are about 2x the diameter of a quarter eagle. The two areas of damage I pointed out are still readily visible. The main picture is about 4-5x the diameter of a quarter eagle, and all of the marks are visible. These smaller marks would have been immediately apparent under a good light in the form of a very distracting disturbance. To say they can’t be seen without 100x magnification is pure folly.

This lot passed twice at Stacks and once at Heritage. According to the market, that must mean that it probably was not correctly graded by PCGS.

 

Love that movie!

 

HNIC only has one meaning

 

And both listings discuss the rarity of the coin which you have fully ignored this entire time. That is the reason they are more lenient with damage on these issues and the reason this coin was straight graded.

If there are around 50 examples left, how many of them have problems in a strict sense that would nessecitate a details holder? If you don’t like the net grade and think it should be lower, fine, but to insist that this coin should be details graded because that is how you were taught to grade is incongruent with the market grading standards applied to these coins by the TPGs.

And just because the same coin changes hands several times, doesn’t mean the coins grade is incorrect.

 

Just stop it, that acronym has only one meaning in that context, and you know it. You wanna slam baseball21 for his synthetic indignation and using it as an escape hatch out of this thread, fine, but don't act obtuse about the term's meaning. In your words, you are better than that.

 

I have a coin of which only a couple dozen exist. I have only come across 5. That is far rarer than this quarter eagle.

However, it has been broken and expertly repaired. Its rarity does not change the fact that it is broken. So what makes a US coin different such that severe intentional damage is completely overlooked, especially when similar examples (yes, AU 1700’s quarter eagles) with fewer distracting problems get “details” grades? Where is the line drawn? Is there even a line?

All of the other straight-graded AU’s I found had nowhere near this level of damage, so it’s not like it is routine to let these “rare” coins get a pass just for being “rare” completely ignoring the level of damage. So this coin is incongruent with how PCGS usually grades AU quarter eagles.

The rarity of the coin does not change its state of preservation. The period when it was used might (eg how it was used in normal circulation), but rarity does not.

Also, what was this coin net-graded from? There is no luster, and the details are just barely AU-50 (I’d argue closer to EF, but whatever).

 

I don't care about your silly broken world coin. Comparing it to this is apples to oranges.

If coins like this didn't get a pass routinely, you wouldn't be complaining. Why you care is beyond me, it isn't like you can afford to collect these coins. You post photos of coins you have never owned, criticize the assigned grade, and pretend to be an expert in a series that you have no actual experience grading. For example, claiming that a coin you have never seen has "no luster" because you saw a photo.

Now, instead of being the "last word" expert on this forum, do me a favor and post your collection on early quarter eagles in your next post.

 

Here is a PCGS AU-50. The glossiness of the surfaces suggest that it has been cleaned, but we’ll ignore that for the sake of being “lenient”. The gouges on the reverse appear to be adjustment marks, so we’ll ignore those too. So we have a coin (graded by PCGS!!!) which is superior in both detail and lack of damage, yet it got the same grade.




This one graded AU-50 by NGC. There are some light scratches above the date, but let’s ignore those. The eagle has some adjustment marks in its center. However, at the same grade level, it is still superior in both level of detail and lack of damage.



PCGS graded this one AU details because of some graffiti in the left field. Much less distracting (imo) than being abused with a screwdriver. This also goes to show that they don’t just let anything through just because it is “rare”.


This one also graded AU details for being cleaned (that apparenly mattered) and having a mount removed. Relatively speaking, the damage is not overly severe, but it still got a “details” grade.



As for the original quarter eagle, I think PCGS just dropped the ball on that one, or keyed in AU-50 when AU details was meant (“mechanical error”). I don’t know how it would do with a guarantee resubmission, but I certainly don’t see it being okay’ed by PCGS the second time around since it simply does not meet their standards.

 

Typical arrogant US coin collector. Nothing else is worth even considering. If it’s not US, it’s junk.

Simply because Baseball was defending an indefensible coin due to his staunchly pro-PCGS bias.

 

I mean, is it not their JOB to weed out damaged coins and describe them as such? You even called this example tooled. So, tell me, is the level of damage on this coin perfectly acceptable for a problem-free AU-50? Baseball refused to answer this question, so maybe you can.

Luster has a very specific way of showing up in pictures, especially for circulated coins.

 

You don't own any of those, I wanted to see your collection of early quarter eagles. If you feel so strongly about the original PCGS AU50, buy the coin and submit it for appearance review.

 

Comparing some inexpensive obscure world coin that nobody collects to a US rarity worth 5 figures is apples to oranges. Has nothing to do with arrogance, but I probably should defer to your expertise on that subject.

His defense has been consistent and I agree with it. We trust the experts at the TPGs who have actually seen the coin over some self appointed internet experts who are grading coins based on photographs. You have just completed your book report on early quarter eagles without ever having seen a single one in hand, and are convinced in your grading superiority. This is exactly what Baseball21 was talking about.

 

You said nothing about value. You only stated that major problems are ignored because of a coin’s rarity. I provided a counterexample to challenge this BS notion. But since your only counterargument for the practice is that it has to be valuable, then it appears that the practice exists purely to keep the big collectors and dealers happy. No other logical reason can explain it.

So you choose to ignore the four examples which show that the one example is incosistent their own standards, just to defend the notion that PCGS has to always be right?

Also, I’ve handled several AU/MS early turban gold coins at shows and the like. Mostly $5 and $10, though, because I find them more interesting.

But let’s tag an expert and get his opinion: @charlottedude

 

I would if I could, but since I can’t, I won’t.

 

If their opinion was that the damage was not severe enough to warrant a details grade, then I defer to the fact that they have seen the coin in hand and I have not. Furthermore, I didn't call it tooled, you did and I acquiesced because I really don't care. Nor did I care about your repeated accusation that the marks have been caused by a screwdriver without any evidence to prove such an assertion. Personally, the mark in the left obverse field is the only problem on that coin that should possibly cause a details grade. The small marks are not disqualifying any more than a banged up Morgan would get an MS60 grade. I don't know what happened in the right obverse field or how distracting it is in hand, but with a coin of this rarity, it also would not be a disqualifying problem to preclude grading.

As for your book report, you posted 2 coins that straight graded then proceeded to point out problems that should necessitate a details grade (cleaned & scratches above the date) and then told us to ignore them, just like the TPG did, because doing so helped your narrative. The graffiti on the 3rd coin is very distracting and much worse than the damage on the original coin, though I understand that you can't admit that because it would destroy your argument. And if the last coin was bagged for cleaning, my guess is that it had to be pretty severe, though the photo doesn't show it. Perhaps the slab photo might show it better.

Just stop it!

 

Coming from someone who won’t stoop down low enough to purchase a circulated coin

 

It was inferred you ridiculous dude. Want me to start calling you Captain Literal?

The 4 examples you showed proved one thing, that you are a self proclaimed internet expert who has no idea what he is talking about.

Watch out, the internet expert saw a coin in hand. You are a real expert now.

What is this, Who Wants to be a Millionaire? Using a phone a friend?