The Official CoinTalk Grading Experiment 4

Lehigh96, posted: "No dude, you don’t get to change the rules unless you are starting your own TPG. Eye appeal is an element of market grading, period.
[I AGREE!]

"Strike plays a significant role in grading coins, [I DISAGREE!] Actually, not as much as in the past when a trace of wear = AU. Grading has evolved. From what I see, strike is much less important than it was once when a coin could NOT BE GRADED MS-65 if its strike was not FULL! Therefore, "significant" is not correct.] especially for certain series like Buffalo Nickels. But if you want to reduce it to 10% or adjust it to MS65, the coin would still have a grade that would round up to MS66 or at least garner an MS65+. Either way, the coin still deserves a higher grade."

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Do the grader's know which tier the coins are paid for when grading them ???

 

TypeCoin971793, posted: "Larry Briggs tried to get a table at one of the past ANA shows for SEGS, but he was subjected to the political maneuvering of PCGS and NGC to get him shut out by the ANA."

The ANA is far from a perfect organization and there have been plenty of political shenanigans going on over the years.

At this time, ICG no longer attends ANA conventions. Similar to the way SEGS was treated, after paying way in advance for a table, ICG was left out of the program and stuck way back in the hall away from the other services. They were not given the already paid for number of chairs, etc. When told we needed to pay extra for anything it was only through the efforts of Mike Ellis (a governor at the time and again now) that we got chairs.

 

I wish we had a LOL button (as they do at CU).

I guess your name must be John so...

John, I'm not a moderator either. I sure have enjoyed reading your educational posts in the past too but what is going on in this discussion? I'm really sorry I missed the coins you all are discussing as I love a good debate w/colors
and . You have made some good points but your apparent rage is drawing me in to try and make you even madder! It's just my nature.

 

In my experience, the best graders work on the most valuable coins. When I was at NGC, I graded the gold tier and the vintage stuff. When the $100,000 + stuff came in, I got to look at the pieces I wished to study if time permitted.

 

Anyone can see that the coins you ask about are graded MUCH differently. One poster at CU who owns one of the XF/AU million $+ major rarities graded
MS-something now, knows it is not MS and has said as much. The grade has gone up over the decades as it crossed from one TPGS to the other and back over several decades TO REFLECT ITS INCREASING VALUE.

 

TypeCoin971793, posted: "Ever wonder why those coins cost $300+1% of value to grade? They take much, MUCH longer than the average 5-7 seconds with them. [And you know this for sure because you have worked at which TPGS?] This is to ensure authenticity, accuracy of the grade within the market, and to protect against liability. Now the accurate market-acceptable grade can change with the market, but it will almost certainly be consistent with what is acceptable in the market at the time of grading.

This is also why, when there is a $$$$$+ price increase in between grades, getting the grade bump is so hard. [VERY TRUE, even when it would have easily been graded higher if that were not the case!] The graders pay much closer attention to it.

As an extreme example, the fourth-known 1854 S half eagle (valued at over $2 million), took NGC 2-3 weeks to authenticate. [True, the time had nothing to do with how long it took to grade it.] That grading bill would have been around $20K."

 

Lehigh96, posted: "I made the winning argument that the pretty patina actually changed the condition/grade of the coin and it is that improvement in condition/grade that raised the value of the coin."

I think the three of us made the exact same "winning argument." Eye appeal will increase the price of a coin.

 

I know it for sure because it is information told to me by those who have worked in the grading room. It has been consistent. In practice, I only take a 10 or fewer seconds to grade a coin in hand, so the 5-7 seconds is a perfectly-reasonable time frame.

 

Um, pulling numbers arbitrarily out of the air and saying “it changed the condition” is hardly a “winning argument.” It better supports my “winning” argument that these numbers are more and more emotionally assigned to coins that the graders think are “pretty” and are less and less based on their state of preservation.

 

Yes, we all agree that eye appeal will increase the price of the coin, but that isn't the crux of the argument. He contends that coins should be graded from a technical standpoint and that it should be up to the market to decide the value of coin. I believe in market grading principles where "eye appeal" is part of the grading process and exceptional eye appeal should increase the actual grade of the coin, thereby increasing the price.

 

If you think that eye appeal shouldn't be part of the grading process, then you are promoting technical grading. You are free to do whatever you want, but that isn't how the TPGs grade, and like it or not, their grading practices control the US coin market. No amount of whining, crying, or ranting is going to change the fact that the TPGs employ a market grading system that rewards coins with better eye appeal with higher grades.

 

But the fundamental “condition” of the coin is unaffected. That’s where your argument fails.

 

Is toning invisible? Are you saying the a coin with a thin film interface isn't different than a coin without? The toning/patina/oxidation absolutely changes the condition of the coin. It doesn't change the surface preservation or wear level of the coin, but equating "condition" will only "surface preservation" or "wear level" is where your argument fails.

 

TypeCoin971793, posted: "I know it for sure because it is information told to me by those who have worked in the grading room. It has been consistent. In practice, I only take a 10 or fewer seconds to grade a coin in hand, so the 5-7 seconds is a perfectly-reasonable time frame."

Told to you? LOL, I call that HEARSAY.

Folks, please don't believe everything you are told about what goes on in a grading room. I confess to have told BOLD FACE LIES about what goes on in a grading room on many occasions. Sometimes, its like making sausage using secret ingredients like poop filled intestines. I also confess to leaving out much more than I tell - even when it is the truth!

 

Translation:

Don't believe your trustworthy sources, believe me, Insider, Tony Montana's alter ego: "I always lie, even when I tell the truth!"

 

Lehigh96, posted: "Yes, we all agree that eye appeal will increase the price of the coin, but that isn't the crux of the argument. He contends that coins should be graded from a technical standpoint and that it should be up to the market to decide the value of coin. I believe in market grading principles where "eye appeal" is part of the grading process and exceptional eye appeal should increase the actual grade of the coin, thereby increasing the price."

Excellent post!

This is the entire grading argument explained in a very concise way. The two sides can NEVER come together - EVER! The powers that be don't wish this to be resolved either. Grading a coin by strict, "old-time" TRUE technical standards is a very easily learned skill with the proper instruction. The grade does not change over time if the condition of the coin stays the same. At least 98% of the subjectivity added by "modern" grading is removed. Eye appeal and value have no influence on the technical grade. Today's "Detail" grading is actually the old technical system applied to impaired coins. Grade the coin, then mention its qualifiers. In the 1970's, this worked for straight graded coin too: MS-65, flat strike. A coin with full original luster, no rub, virtually no marks, great eye appeal YET missing some of its design. A commercial MS-64 at the time.

You see, any knowledgeable person (YOU) can look at an Uncirculated coin and judge (rate) each of its qualities very easily:

STRIKE:

a. Flat
b. Weak
c. Normal
d. Strong

Then, Luster, Marks, etc.

It is very easy to teach with examples too. How many marks?

a. None
b. Virtually none
c. Very few
d. Few, on and on down. Each adjective corresponds to a particular "look" that we all develop over time - faster if we study graded coins.

UNFORTUNATELY, as soon as coin dealers took over, grading became very subjective and more complicated, old established standards were "junked" and the rascals ran the coin business. You need to know what a coin should be worth compared to others from the same date and mint in order to "rank" its value to similar coins. With the foolishness going on today with stickers, cross-over, up grades, etc., "they" can paint a technical "pig" and sell it for $$,$$$ or even higher and most folks are very happy buyers and defenders of the practice.

Therefore, I guess I'll side with the other guy...Grade the coin and let the seller price it according to how pretty it looks - TO HIM - which is just more added subjectivity.

 

Charging a percentage of the valuation to grade a coin is a gouge.
There is a conflict of interest to grade the coin higher and make it worth more.

 

Lehigh96, posted: Is toning [ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE] invisible? [No, no, and heck no! I especially like the BLACK CORROSION on the rims of rainbow 66 on up coins.] Are you saying the a coin with a thin film interface isn't different than a coin without? [Of course its different and it may be more attractive too] The toning/patina/oxidation absolutely changes the condition of the coin. It doesn't change the surface preservation [You called it. OF COURSE it changes the surface - oxidation. No longer as original as it left the press] or wear level of the coin, but equating "condition" will only "surface preservation" or "wear level" is where your argument fails."

LOL, just because some folks consider AU coins w/"cabinet friction" to be "Unc enough" (a term I coined to be able to forget my personal grading standards and work at a TPGS) does not indicate failure. It is a fact of "market grading."

As you know, the condition of a coin's surface is judged by several things including loss of luster (wear).

 

LOL. Actual translation: "Don't believe anything you see or hear until you can verify it for yourself.