The Official CoinTalk Grading Experiment 4

So you are saying you've never seen an ugly clean well struck lustrous coin? I'm sorry I don't have a better example, but I'm a collector who focuses on eye appeal so my inventory of ugly coins is limited.



And for the 1000X, I am not bumping a coin because of the eye appeal, I am simply rewarding the luster and eye appeal that are a much higher grade than the surface preservation would deserve from a technical standpoint.

As an experienced toned coin collector, it is the collector's job to evaluate whether or not the coin was as you say "grade bumped" for color and incorporate that information into his valuation of the coin. Collecting toned coins, which have no established price guides, is the deep end of the numismatic pool, and collectors who only have the ability to multiply the price guide of the assigned grade deserve to drown IMO.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Paul, I think I speak for a few of us when I say this and I have said this numerous times now: I have no problem with any of the TPG's doing market grading, but what chafes my hide is that it seems to be some sort of hush hush secret. Go on the PCGS website and look at their published grading standards. With many examples that have been brought forth, it's clear that they are not following their own published standards. You're a multi -million dollar company with a reputation to uphold, and in my mind this is a black eye for them. If they want to grade coins differently, more power to them, but, dang it, publish it as such!

 

Ok, neither are these definitions are what PCGS and NGC use for their application of the + designation.

PCGS Definition: The high end for any particular grade represents the top 30 percent of the scale within a grade and I estimate that the plus designation would apply to approximately 15 percent to 20 percent of the coins within any individual grade.

Two Leading Grading Services Announce "Plus" Grading

NGC Definition: NGC assigns a + to coins at the high end of their assigned grade, approaching the quality requirements for the next grade. In addition to their superior technical merit, coins receiving a must have above-average eye appeal.


NGC Launches Plus Designation

While NGC doesn't explicitly define where the higher end of the assigned grade, it is very likely to mirror PCGS which means

MS65+ = MS65.70 to MS65.99

Furthermore, Typecoin is correct that the star designation and plus designation are two entirely different things. The star is for exceptional eye appeal and the plus indicates the coin is high end for the assigned grade, and it is possible for a coin to qualify for both.

 

LOL, that is a whole different issue that NGC avoids by not publishing their standards. FWIW, I am an NGC customer because for several reasons but one of them is that I think they are more consistent in their grading. I see many more "head scratchers" out of PCGS than I do NGC.

 

Well for semi-PL and PL, the surfaces mark much easier and the marks show much more strongly than equivalent marks on a matte surface. I would say, yes as a result. A semi-PL coin tends to end up with a point lower or so with the same level of marks as a matte coin, simply because the surfaces show the marks more.

Having said that, the semi-PL coin frequently has superior eye appeal even with a lower grade. I find the semi-PL coins get unfairly penalized by the TPGs. If they make the PL designation that speaks for itself, but when they just miss it, the coin does not typically get a bump for eye appeal. Usually the eye appeal is equivalent to a coin that is a point or two higher, however, I have one example of a gold type that I have in MS61 with semi-PL surfaces, that I declined to upgrade to an MS64 example with matte surfaces, due to the MS61 having superior eye appeal.

 

I have seen clean, well-struck coins with ugly toning or hazing, but usually the luster is subdued and thus should be a lower grade.

Very few collectors match your knowledge, experience, and eye.

Thank you for the clarifications.

Thank you for your inputs.

 

For those of us who submit coins frequently, and know how infrequently plus grades are given, the TRUE definition of a plus graded coin is this: Graders are split on whether a coin is a 64 or 65, so the finalizer splits the difference and grades it MS64+.

The other main method/reason plus grades are given is resubmissions for regrade and reconsideration services, combined with the relatively new AU58+ grading phenomenon.

 

That is an excellent use of the +. What is becoming apparent to me is that lots of the "old ways" we did in the 1970's are becoming "new again."

 

Can you elaborate ?

 

Yes. The everyman registry sets. Collectors and dealers are resubmitting their AU58s to get AU58+ grades. Do some research on AU58+ at great collections and Heritage and eBay. They go for HUGE money.

 

Lehigh96, posted: "Yes, coins are graded, and the assigned grade is then tied to a value that can change over time while the assigned grade does not."

Yes, a coin's value DOES CHANGE over time. Unfortunately, you are out of touch if you actually believe this : "...while the assigned grade does not." Additionally, as I have stated several times, the value of a coin INFLUENCES the assigned grade. So does determining if a coin should be straight graded. There is a 1933 $10 straight graded as MS-63 with several deep scratches all over the reverse being discussed at the moment.


"This is not the same as trying to value a coin, grading is simply a means by which you can place value on a coin."

See above.

"In other words, "they" [?] do exactly what you do [It should be obvious from our posts that you don't have the slightest clue what I do], they assign a grade based on the standards of market grading, and then the market decides the value."

"Don't look now, you just proved my point."

I'm pretty sure if we had a talk we would realize how much more we agree on.

The star designation is proprietary, what would you like PCGS to do, create another symbol to match NGC's star? [I don't think it would hold up. Put the star in front of the grade, change its shape and make it gold. Otherwise, use a little eye which is better than a star anyway."] If you think that marketing gimmicks are the solution, then okay, but I would rather they include eye appeal in the grading process and if the eye appeal is enough to warrant a higher grade, then so be it."

 

Lehigh96, posted: "I am listening, you and your friends think the only aspect of grading that deserves merit is surface preservation. I disagree and think that luster and eye appeal are very important factors [Of course they are. As you posted both luster and eye appeal are DETERMINED BY SURFACE PRESERVATION], and strike can be a significant factor on some coins as well."

"This has nothing to do with oxide layers that are invisible to the naked eye [Until they become visible and influence the calculation], I merely mentioned that as a rebuttal to the fact that Typecoin called rainbow toned coins damaged. Outside that narrow application, you don't need to worry about surface chemistry.

"I have no idea what you were trying to convey in the sentences highlighted in red. Honestly, I read this post last night and though you had too many beers."

What brand?

"Yes, eliminating technical grading is going out of style, because it is already dead. The TPGs killed technical grading and you guys who can't accept it are now basically a fringe group."

AGREE. Technical grading is DEAD except for problem coins. It was killed by coin dealers for a reason $$$$$$$$$$. Additionally, the more complicated the grading system, the more folks will be kept ignorant.

 

Lehigh96, posted: "So you are saying you've never seen an ugly clean well struck lustrous coin? I'm sorry I don't have a better example, but I'm a collector who focuses on eye appeal so my inventory of ugly coins is limited."





IMO, posting this CORRODED PROBLEM DOG of a coin with a "MARKET GRADE" does NOT refute what Typecoin wrote: "When you grade a coin on surface preservation, luster, and strike, eye appeal naturally falls out. A coin with few marks, good strike and great luster will have exceptional eye appeal, toned or not."

 

BuffaloHunter, posted: "Paul, I think I speak for a few of us when I say this and I have said this numerous times now: I have no problem with any of the TPG's doing market grading, but what chafes my hide is that it seems to be some sort of hush hush secret. Go on the PCGS website and look at their published grading standards. With many examples that have been brought forth, it's clear that they are not following their own published standards. You're a multi -million dollar company with a reputation to uphold, and in my mind this is a black eye for them. If they want to grade coins differently, more power to them, but, dang it, publish it as such!"

Read it and weep between your sips of Koolaid folks. In the end, when you learn and understand all the aspects of grading, can see everything there is to see on a coin, and know what a coin is "worth, you will not need the grading "crutch" we call TPGS's.

 

I believe the AU-62/3 coins (aka, AU coins which do not have rub in the fields) should be given an AU-58+ grade so that they rightfully go for that premium. At least in our current system. A system with grades of AU-63/4/5/etc. would make things much easier and make many more people happy.

 

The thing is that the TPG's have tried to eliminate public opinion just as the option for value.

This stranglehold is going to be hard to reverse.

 

By the way @Lehigh96 I was having a few beers the last message.
The point I had in red highlight was using eye appeal alone is dangerous territory to many coins today that are only gem at best.
They are given the plus category without it being stated on the slab.
64 _65 coins being given 66-68 grades and everything in-between.


Are you trying to say they are leveling the playing field?

@baseball21 was the first to initiate this thought of thinking. I think that it is more than an excuse, than it is the truth. Maybe more ambiguity than anything else.?

 

There are plenty of lustrous, well struck coins with clean surfaces and butt ugly toning. The fact that the example shown above has terminal state toning at the peripheries is immaterial to the discussion. If you want to consider the ugly duckling shown above a problem coin for environmental damage, then you must also consider this coin a problem coin as well.



But even here, there is a huge difference in eye appeal between the two coins. I submit to you that if you want to find the types of coins that I am talking about, search some auction archives and look for the phrase "wholly original," that is the coin cataloger code for "FUGLY"! My original point still stands, that excellent strike, luster, and surface preservation don't guarantee excellent eye appeal.

 

Can you show me an example of where a coin has been graded on eye appeal alone? You are claiming that the TPGs are bumping the grades 2-3 points over the grade warranted by surface preservation, but I don't see that. The overwhelming majority of color bumps I see are limited to one grade up, and usually I don't have a problem with the assigned grade.

As far as leveling the playing field, I'm not sure what you are referring to. In a general sense, the existence of TPGs levels the playing field between collector and dealer, but grade bumps based on eye appeal are an increase in subjectivity and make market grading more difficult to understand.

 

Here is a recent example of a big color bump:

https://www.cointalk.com/threads/guess-the-grade-morgan-toner.344695/


This thread also has some (from 1 to 1.5 to 2.5 points):
https://www.cointalk.com/threads/interesting-finds-aka-where-the-67s-are-from.342300/