The Official CoinTalk Grading Experiment 4

I’ve noticed that a lot of glamour shots don’t seem to be that glamorous. I’m not sure what’s going on, but I’m just an amateur photographer who bought a really good cd from someone who knows what they’re doing.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I think he means that most folks graded it 65 or better. 37/49 had it at 65 or better. It’s the AU58 outliers that brought the average down.

 

I marked this as best answer. All grades are simply opinions and arguing opinions is a frivolous thing.

 

@physics-fan3.14 I don’t mean to question your methods, but on this thread, 37/49 voted 65 or better, but some outliers pulled the average down to 64+. I think that outliers should not necessarily be omitted, but in this case, I think they skew the data enough to make the results seem a bit off. Your thoughts?

 

I was at 65 because simply it wasn't as bad as a 64 and IMO in the photo it didn't seem as good as a 66. (Although I am always low and had no doubts it would grade higher.) While I did see the cheek chatter, it was not caused from bag marks, if it was I would have been lower. (64). So I discounted that. As far as "luster breaks",
coins above 65 shouldn't have luster breaks.

 

38 voted 65 or better. 11 voted 64. Throwing out the few that voted 62-63 (ludicrous to even think that), the coin was a gem to most.

 

There have been a total of 60 votes. Of that total, 13 or just over 21% of the votes were at MS-66 or 67. That is hardly a ringing endorsement for the MS-66 grade which almost triples the price over the MS-65 grade.

You can ignore that result if you want, but when it comes time to sell, you had better hope that the blow-up photo looks better than the one Heritiage used on this piece the first time around. If I were in the market for this coin in the MS-66 grade, I'd look at that for about 10 seconds and turn the page. The full slab photo might look like a "glamor shot" to some, but the blow-up photo certainly was not.

 

Ok so we have a sample size of 60, a mean of 64.5, and a standard deviation of 1.68. This means that the actual grade is between 64.1 and 64.9 with a confidence of 95%, between 63.9 and 65.1 with a confidence of 99%, and between 63.8 and 65.2 with a confidence of 99.99%.

A 66 or higher isn't even on the table, statistically speaking.

Of course, it is possible that there is just something about the coin that isn't conveyed with these high resolution photographs, but it seems more likely that it's simply overgraded.

 

A coin like that, I would NOT buy without seeing in person. I am confident that it is 65 or above, but with that kind of money on the line, I would have to see it in hand. Based on my experience with 40 plus years of Morgan collecting, it is at least a 65. No problem with the 65+ grade, and green bean. It is an attractive coin. Morgan grading isn’t only count the bagmarks—based on photos available, my eyes see nice surfaces.

 

Of course seeing it in hand makes a difference. There's a reason graders handle the actual coins and not just photos of them! As I said before, I voted MS65, but could probably be convinced to go MS66 if I had the coin itself under a light for 1 minute.

 

Throw ou the 58s and turn the poll on its side and we have a nice little bell curve going. Statistically 1 out of 6 correctly identified what the TPG graded the coin at. That is about all you can say frome this one sample size (n=1), which won't really tell you much


Now we need to move on and add to the sample size and see if we can identify a trend.

 

Here is PCGS’ photograde rubric for MS 65. Looking at THEIR standard for a 65, there is no question in my mind that the 1885s is at least a 65, and way superior to that—GIVEN THEIR STANDARDS.

 

I thought it graded 66.
The coin you are referencing in post #49 that got 65+ was not the OP.

 

I know that. I voted 66. I was debating that there was no question that the coin was BETTER than 64, for the Naysayers.

 

Au 58

 

Why would you ignore some of the votes? Because YOU think those members are wrong?

 

All friends here guys.

 

Because they were not statistically significant. They were so far off the mark, so as to be irrelevant. Same way if someone would have selected MS 68 or MS 69. Same with the AU 58 votes. Not statistically valid—kind of like judging the Olympics. Throw out the excessively low and high scores. TPGs are not 3 or 4 grades off, if they err. Possibly a range plus or minus 2 grades from norm at most.

 

I think we should ignore the MS67 votes, because MS67 is a ridiculously high grade. AU58 is a more reasonable guess in my opinion. You see where this is going now?

 

I recluse myself (not because I could enter any enlightenment) because I may be influenced by prior posts. Dang, I missed this one. I like to post my thoughts at the beginning portion of the thread.....