The Official CoinTalk Grading Experiment 4

Some of those coins in that thread looked to be undergraded based on their start grade.

I feel like if you posted gtg for most of those coins, the final grade would only be 1 grade above the average.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

That 1st one looks like a 62 in a 65 holder.

 

I’m never gonna defend that coin, and I said so in the thread. Heck, the toning isn’t even that great.

 

Most looked to be correct, and had the green CAC as evidence (besides the 65+ which CACed at 65+ and 67+). Some might have even started in lower holders as all were fairly recent (2014-2019 holders).

 

What I’m saying is they don’t look out of place in their new holders. If they were untoned, would they be 2 grades lower? I don’t think so.

 

The 68 would almost certainly be two grades lower. The others would be lower too. The first example (65+ to 67) has a few reeding marks on the obverse that would have certainly held it back to a 65/65+ without the color.

 

The 68 is an MS66/67 without the toning, whoever graded that coin MS65 was drunk.

Say what you want, those coins are tremendous and don’t look overgraded to me in their final holders. Like I said, several looked undergraded at the start.

 

The last one was the only one that looked undergraded at 65+ ....at 68 it's certainly maxed out. Four of the five only received a green sticker from CAC, so they thought those coins were A or B quality for the original grade (the last 65+ is the oddball in the group as it stickered at 65+ and 67+).

We'll just have to disagree on this one as I don't see most of those (outside of the last 65+) upgrading had they been untoned.

 

Lehigh96, posted: "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 [ Perhaps "immaterial "to the weasel who sells it to the Koolaid drinkers] e to the discussion. If you want to consider the ugly duckling shown above a problem coin for environmental damage [I DO], then you must also consider this coin a problem coin as well. [I DO. See below.]



But even here, there is a huge difference in eye appeal between the two coins. [Duh. Since corrosion is often seen as a progression...sometimes it is not ugly.] 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. I'll agree with that 100%. Does that indicate we are making progress?

Exactly, I do consider this a problem coin. Here is why. It is corroded.

You see, at on time I worked for the first and only coin grading service in the U.S. until the second grading service came on line and then the third N.C.I. Any others around at the time were trash. I believe after a while there were another half dozen way before 1986. Anyway, at a meeting to get us all on the same page, I was SHOCKED at all the attendees there that I had never heard of.

Sorry, I got off tract. This is the point I wish to make from actual long-time experience staying within a strict, precise, grading system (which we no longer have at all, anywhere, by any TPGS!). Once you set up a system and rank coins it better mean something. The obviously corroded nickel you posted has been graded MS-67 by one of the top TPGS. Once a corroded coin is graded that high, how much BLACK, END-STAGE corrosion are they going to tolerate on an MS-68 or 69? Once they allow this, what are they going to grade a similar nickel with the same beauty and eye-appeal that is NOT CORRODED?

To this day I can remember my reaction seeing the first bright, full-frosty, no friction, Gem++ Barber half dollar after seeing the usual junk offered as MS at coin shows. If we had been grading the usual impaired sliders gem MS because that's the way they come, what do we grade a rare, true gem when it comes in? They are out there. This nickel is NOT ONE!

We would all be in a better place if the actual true condition of coins were stated. In the case of this nickel: Beautifully toned Gem + with partially corroded rim [and probably edge]. I think most of use could visualize a coin with this description. Unfortunately, using a single number (67 in this case) does not cut it!

 

Lehigh96, asked: "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."

Do you live in the U.S.A.? The "poster child" for this type of over-grading nonsense was auctioned recently for millions of dollars when a spectacularly toned
MS-64/65 (at best) $20 was bumped "Mucho."

 

Completely unnecessary comment, I sell good quality coins and don't misrepresent them. Furthermore, I wasn't the one who graded the "ugly duckling" as an MS67, NGC was.

You have already admitted that corrosion is a progression (see red text above). Then you claim that the rainbow toned 43-S Jefferson is a problem coin because it is corroded (see green text above). Earlier in this thread, you promised not to call rainbow toned coins damaged, yet you are calling this coin a problem coin which means you think it is damaged. So where does one draw the line between what constitutes damage? By your standard, the mere presence of any end stage (terminal) toning which is black in color is the delineating factor. But that is your standard, not the standard employed by the TPGs. And while I tend to be very harsh on coins with terminal state toning, this particular Jefferson has tremendous overall eye appeal and the terminal toning at the periphery is not distracting enough to warrant problem coin status IMO.

Just because they draw the line in a different place than you, doesn't mean they are wrong. Whatever their standard is for environmental damage should be consistent across all grades. What should keep a coin with terminal state toning from grading MS68 or MS69 is that it detracts from the overall "EYE APPEAL" of the coin.

That said, the rainbow toned MS67 43-S Jefferson shown above is my current registry coin, and it replaced an MS68 which also had black rims.

I'm glad you brought up Barber coinage. This conversation all started because Typecoin told us that coins with excellent surfaces, luster, and strike will automatically have excellent eye appeal as well, making the inclusion of eye appeal as an element of grading, redundant and unnecessary. I used to collect mint state Barber Quarters and can personally attest to how many otherwise gem Barber Quarters are absolute ruined by crappy toning and substandard eye appeal. Now I know that you agreed with me that he is wrong, but I would still like to leave you with a few examples of these ugly gem Barbers (photos courtesy Heritage Auctions).






Instead of complaining about bumping the grades of rainbow toned coins due to exceptional eye appeal, I think we should be talking about downgrading coins like these due to abysmal eye appeal. If the surfaces, luster, and strike are all great but the coin looks like hell, why should it be rewarded with a gem grade?

 

Can you at least post a link to what you are talking about? Is this the Mercury Dime?

 

At least two of those Barbers look a point too high even without the unattractive eye appeal. The last one is in an older holder, so there is a chance that it may have been blast white and turned in the holder over the years.

And I still vote for neither downgrading nor upgrading. If you placed two technical 65s in an auction-an ugly one like one of the three above and an attractively toned one-the nicer coin would sell for a significant premium while the below average would sell for guide/average or even less.

The market can be quite efficient without extra help from the graders.

When you take the ugly technical 65 and make it a 64 and take the nice technical 65 and make it a 66 or higher, the value gets distorted. The 64 sells for even less than a typical 64 while the 66 sells at a significant premium to a typical 66.

I watched it happen with that 65+ toned Morgan. It sold for $660 in the original holder, then around $2,600 in the 67+ holder, and now it’ll be $5k+ if AB sells it in the 68 holder.

 

Which two? The ones with CAC stickers?

No doubt that ugly coins sell for less and pretty coins sell for more. The question is should eye appeal affect the overall grade of the coin? Most times, toning is either non existent or neutral with respect to grade. It is the remaining 10% that I am talking about. Coins that have extremely attractive toning and resultant eye appeal deserve a higher grade, likewise, coins with horribly ugly toning deserve a lower grade.

I have no problem with either of those scenarios. I will take this blast white MS63 Barber Quarter over any of the three gems shown above any day of the week.



And we already know that I will pay big money for monster toned coins. The real problem that people have with this concept is that the TPGs haven't always done it. The practice of color bumping has gotten more liberal over the years. If they had done this from day one, the practice would be consistent, and collectors would know what to expect.

I'm already on record about that coin, the graders who called that coin MS65+, toning notwithstanding, were drunk. It has MS66/67 surfaces all day long.

 

Which two? The ones with CAC stickers?

The first (w/ CAC) and the third (no CAC). Both appear to have some significant (at least for a 65) scrapes under the toned parts.

No doubt that ugly coins sell for less and pretty coins sell for more. The question is should eye appeal affect the overall grade of the coin? Most times, toning is either non existent or neutral with respect to grade. It is the remaining 10% that I am talking about. Coins that have extremely attractive toning and resultant eye appeal deserve a higher grade, likewise, coins with horribly ugly toning deserve a lower grade.

I believe the plus and/or star can take care of this.

The top 10% within a grade can be rewarded with a plus designation.

The star can be used to reward color regardless if the coin is high or low end technically for the grade.



I have no problem with either of those scenarios. I will take this blast white MS63 Barber Quarter over any of the three gems shown above any day of the week.



I prefer that one as well (compared to the other three).


And we already know that I will pay big money for monster toned coins. The real problem that people have with this concept is that the TPGs haven't always done it. The practice of color bumping has gotten more liberal over the years. If they had done this from day one, the practice would be consistent, and collectors would know what to expect.

I agree with that. If the color was incorporated into the grade from the beginning and that was publicly acknowledged by the TPGs as a grading standard, then there would be a lot less complaining and less confusion.

I'm already on record about that coin, the graders who called that coin MS65+, toning notwithstanding, were drunk. It has MS66/67 surfaces all day long.
That is one that I agreed looked undergraded. Still at 68, it’s at least a 1.5 point color bump as it looks like a 66+ to me without color (and is similar to a blast white MS 66 with Green CAC that I own in a fairly recent NGC holder.

(Edit: fixed a minor grammatical error)

 

Simple and effective. I wish they had done this from the start. It's inconsistent to sometimes give a grade bump for eye appeal and sometimes give a star.

The coin I use for my avatar was graded MS66 by NGC. The toning is even more stunning in hand:



I believe it got a bump for eye appeal. For certain the coin is a gem, but I have a blast white 66 and a neutrally toned 67, and both have better surfaces. This has the best eye appeal of the three, but to me it would be better served as an MS65* to convey that it is a spectacularly toned 65.

To complicate matters, this coin was slabbed before they started giving the star designation to world coins. I sent it back in for designation review for the star after they started doing so, and it did not get it. Although if previously slabbed coins had already gotten a bump for eye appeal, wouldn't the addition of a star designation essentially be doubling the bump for eye appeal? Perhaps they took this into account when evaluating it, and would have been willing to give it a 65*. Who knows?

 

How about the Franklin the one that made it into the wrong hands. Six figure coin that only a fool would have bought in that grade. It was put into a Libel situation, and somewhere some one has a history of that coin in a 63 slab, then it got passed with a pastel toning that increased the grade and value, now a 64. The next time it was seen was in a 66 slab and it only went up from there.
In my last statement I went ahead and started pulling your leg, it was on purpose. This type of situation happens all the time. A collector puts the coin in the right situation, it keeps aging and becoming more visually acceptable? I get the whole concept of surface preservation.

I am really not wanting to go here. Since the TPG's have started grading. We have 58 coins being graded 62 and higher, Most of that is a restored coin getting some environmental treatment. Not an original coin getting older. You can argue this till your face is red, but it's the truth.

Usually with those that wish to only buy and sell.

A collector will use his knowledge to buy the piece for it's condition not just it's originality.

I can only see one word in the last statement that doesn't fit in the grading process, and that is "subjectivity" years ago we were taught how to grade with out using this new standard. Let's just say that it has opened up the system up for failure. And exactly why we have inflated grades today.

 

Top to bottom as far as surface preservation

That Black around the perimeter should not be allowed on a 67 or better coin period.

Ps I think they are all beautiful coins.

 

Remember when I said earlier (several times) that eye appeal should be a requisite for the gem and above grades? At least that’s how it is described in the ANA official grading standards. That way crappy eye appeal is grade-limiting.

 

I agree that the star is enough for eye appeal. A bump in grade, even one point throws people off, and isn't necessary.