GTG 1950 Franklin Half Dollar PCGS

Guess how variable and inconsistent grading would become if technical grading was abandoned in favor of purely subjective grading. Much worse. There would be no objective standard to which the TPGs would be held accountable. Based on everything said in this thread, PCGS is moving that direction, and you are completely okay with that.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

They don’t, so the idea is completely ludicrous, but I played along with Lehigh’s game.

 

So even when you weight the elements of grading to be highly skewed towards surface preservation and barely account for eye appeal, the coin still graded as an MS66.

I guess that explains why you downgraded the grades for luster & eye appeal, smells like desperation to me.

Both NGC & PCGS grade the way that I do. They don’t care about this dreaded subjectivity that you fear so much, and prefer to have a coin with booming luster and colorful toning grade higher than dreck with clean surfaces.

 

Actually, you didn’t play along, you had to cheat the grades to get your desired result even after you changed the weighting of the grading elements.

Thank you, come again!

 

I never said that “those things don’t count” or that we “pretend they aren’t there.” All I said was that surface preservation isn’t the only element of grading and it shouldn’t be a limiter with respect to grading.

Anyone who grades solely on the basis of surface preservation isn’t employing market grading, they are using technical grading. Nothing wrong with that, other than it is antequated and not used in the current marketplace.

However, I’m not accusing you of technical grading. You take each element of grading into account, and then apply the most punitive form of grading, by using every element of grading as a grade limiter. For example, if you encountered a coin with MS66 surfaces, but subpar luster, you would most likely grade the coin MS64 because the luster was not good enough to warrant a gem grade.

But hey, at least you didn’t call the coin an MS64.

 

No, because the luster is NOT MS-67 luster. It’s close but not quite there, so I’m okay with it as 66 luster given the Trueviews and the Heritage pictures. That’s an UPGRADE from the MS-65 grade for luster I gave in earlier posts before the additional pictures were revealed. Also, the obverse toning is not that attractive to me, so yes I downgraded it.

Aren’t you the one who argues that grading is subjective so the TPGs can’t be faulted? Yes, I disagreed with PCGS and gave my reasons. If grading is as subjective as you like to make it appear (again, my grade is just 1 point off from PCGS’ grade), who are you to say I am wrong?

Lastly, if it was my intention to radically change the result downward to make it appear that PCGS was grossly overgrading this coin, then why is it so close to the assigned grade (it is within the margin of error/subjectivity). I was actually surprised how close it was, but I left it as is because it was an honest assessment of the coin as I saw it. I used your numbers to compare, and again, very close. If I wanted to keep my altering of the numbers quiet, which I would do if I were as desperate as you want to portray me, then why would I explicitly use the numbers you gave to compare with my result?

Your OWN breakdown of the grade indicated that PCGS overgraded this coin by giving it a + (>66.5) when you originally give it a 66.2. My grade is 65+ (65.6). So am I really desperate to show that PCGS grossly overgraded this coin, or are you desparate to portray PCGS as infallibly correct?

 

Legit question: Why do folks take this stuff so personally? Even Doug, a head mod, had to take a jab with his seemingly haughty "ya know..." and "laughing out loud" comments. I think we've established that we disagree about grading, methods, standards, changes, etc. Nobody's changing anyone else's mind here, are they? But hey, maybe the back and forth is fun for some... (crawls back into his hole after grading the coin MS67 FBL)

 

Here’s a radical opinion: we both agree that this coin is soldily within the Gem BU category, but shy of the Choice Gem BU cetegory. In the end, does the micro-grade assigned (65+, 66, 66+) really matter? They are all really close, and these grade levels represent spectacular coins. The specific grade can vary day-to-day, but the general category will not.

 

So what you are saying is that toning & eye appeal should not be a factor in the grading process because it is too ambiguous. Obviously, I disagree. Collecting toned coins is the deep end of the numismatic pool. Determining the appropriate premium to pay requires experience and an in depth understanding of the current market. If someone is playing around in that market without the requisite skills to avoid being fleeced, then I say, caveat emptor!

The TPGs have been grading coins this way for decades and the market for their coins seems pretty stable to me. And given your username, I assumed you collected toned coins. I must say though, you are the first toned coin collector I’ve ever encountered who supported a technical grading system.

With regards to my differentiation of market and value grading, it is based on the perceived application of grading by the TPGs. The typical application, which I refer to as market grading, simply refers to the normal process of grading that incorporates surface preservation, luster, strike, and eye appeal. Now inherently, a coin with superlative luster and eye appeal will get a higher grade, and subsequently, a higher value. So in the strictest sense of the definition, it is value grading. But when I refer to value grading, I’m talking about the “ranking” of coins relative to other graded examples because they think the coin is more/less valuable than what they are comparing it to. Typically this is done with extreme rarities like 1913 Liberty Nickels, 1804 Silver Dollars etc. but occasionally they do it with more common coins. The freshest example that we can all recognize, is the $100K 1958-D Franklin Half. I hope this helps clear up my use of the two terms.

 

The way I understand the published standards, the upper ends of the MS grades must have stellar eye appeal. That is, if it meets the technical requirements of these grade levels, then stellar eye appeal is expected. If it is not extant, the grade is lower. Stellar eye appeal does not necessarily translate to a higher grade, though it might translate to a higher value.

The problem with market grading is that very few people understand it. You do, but the majority of the market does not. The half posted here is market graded as a 66+, meaning bumps were already factored in for eye appeal. Collectors would view this as a technical 66+ and tack on additional value as an eye appeal bump. The job of the TPGs is to judge the technical merits of the coin, and the market will naturally bump the value accordingly. But what we are seeing is the TPGs bumping the value through inflating the grade, and then the market bumping the value on top of that.

A nearly-blast-white technical MS-66+ FBL 1950 half with superior luster sold for $1080. The OP coin, a market-graded toned MS-66+ FBL with inferior luster and technically inferior surface preservation sold for $1440. This is the issue I have with market grading.

 

Hey look, we agree!

Now all we have to do is get you to realize that grading philosophies are not right or wrong, but a matter of opinion.

 

How can you judge the luster of the coin based on a photograph? I’ve seen the second coin in hand, and the luster is incredible, better than most MS67s I’ve seen. And the eye appeal is off the charts, especially on the reverse.

My point is that the top coin has better surface preservation, but the bottom coin is has a eye appeal that only toning can provide. Now, I’m not saying the top coin isn’t attractive, it is, but in a very generic way.

Btw, what is the PCGS Price Guide for a 1950 MS66+ Franklin? Without looking, my guess is $1100, just like the sale price.

 

They follow standards, just not the same ones you do.

 

As I stated in a previous thread, I really don't care if they change the grading standards......more power to them...…..but communicate it as such. Don't pretend that you're holding to some sort of standard that you had been previously and do otherwise.

 

Because I have studied how photos portray luster. The OP coin likely has booming satiny luster that is highly attractive, but the one I posted is a step above in that is has a sparkling, gem-like quality to it, like the 1964 half I posted earlier. I personally like that look better, and would more willing to pay up for it over toning like on the OP coin. It’s not a quality you see as often as satiny luster.

Good. I’m sure the market will attach a just premium to it even in a technically-correct holder. But attaching a premium to a bumped-up grade is double-dipping and overpaying.

 

The luster isn’t satin at all, and the reverse luster and eye appeal is as good as I’ve ever seen on a Franklin Half. Saying you know how to interpret photos is one thing, disputing the strength of luster based on a photo with someone who has seen the coin in hand is foolish.

If you think that paying a $400 premium for the toning on this coin is tantamount to double dipping, I have no idea what to say to you. Before the auction, my estimate of the coin was $1750-$2k. IMO, my brother got a good price on a properly graded coin, based on PCGS standards.

 

MS-65+ is around $150
MS-66 is about $400

We both agree that this coin is technically a high 65 or low 66. The + is due to the eye appeal bump you ascribe. You are looking at an at least $700 bump for the + alone, and your brother paid a $300 premium on top of that. Yes, it is double-dipping.

 

By their own price guide a PCGS graded MS66+FBL is listed for $1350.