The Official CoinTalk Grading Experiment 4

You also said that coins with excellent strike, Luster, and surface preservation will naturally have good eye appeal. The Barber Quarters I posted show that isn’t always true.

As for grade limiters, I don’t like them because then the coin is graded by its weakest link. Imagine a Morgan Dollar with a hammered strike, blazing luster, and flawless MS67 surfaces with unattractive mottled brown toning that severely impacts the overall eye appeal of the coin without diminishing the luster. By the ANA standard you are quoting, that coin would be graded MS64 since the eye appeal is grade limiting. Under my system which grades holistically, the coin would grade MS66. I submit that even with the unattractive toning, the coin would look out of place in an MS64 holder.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

For Example:



or



or



And all of these examples are from the first page of Heritage's 1880-S MS67 archive. None of these coins deserves the lofty MS67 grade with that hideous mottled brown toning, but at the same time, they don't deserve to be in MS64 holders either. Following the holistic method of adding a grade for exceptionally pretty coins and penalizing a grade for ugly toning yields the most accurate grade for these types of coins.

 

Im going with 65....going off the slabbed pics which look much cleaner than the first ones or woulda said 64 max. Assuming the marks on the neck and cheek arent any worse than they appear in the slab but cant see any higher..Tough goin off photos. Will see!!!! lol

 

What’s interesting with those is that CAC found two of them to be solid for the grade (A or B). They for some reason do reward “originality” even if the coin looks unattractive.

From the pictures, they look ok as 67s to me but I’d expect them to sell for a discount as the market would take care of the unattractive look. The CAC sticker probably will bump up the price, in part because there are sticker only buyers (and maybe based on CAC bid being higher or CAC supporting the price with its own bid). Still a nice 67 without a sticker will garner more in most cases.

With the generic 80-S in 67 going for $400-$500, I think a $300-$400 price would be about right (I didn’t check Heritage, but I’m guessing they brought more). Penalizing the coin to a 66 would drop the value to around $150 (closer to low end price range of 66s). That seems too harsh a penalty for unattractive toning on a technically correct grade.

 

Lol.

The result is already in.

 

You can see the result on page 3 (MS 66).

 

Let me rephrase. By “limiter” I meant “detractor”. A coin that grades MS-67 (such as the Morgans you posted) must have exceptional eye appeal. If it does not have that, though it has the technical merits of a 67, then it cannot be a 67. It is the “limiting” factor that should keep it from grading 67. It also should not be a 64 or 65 as it’s technical merits far exceed those grade levels.

 

In your earlier post (above in red), you were quite clear that negative eye appeal should act as a grade limiter and prevent a gem grade. Now you are saying that it should merely detract from the grade rather than limit the grade. I don't have a problem with your change in stance as it basically mirrors my own view on the subject, but I do have one question. If ugly toning/eye appeal can detract from the broader technical grade, why couldn't exceptional eye appeal raise/bump the technical grade?

It seems to me if you believe that can influence a grade negatively, it must also be able to influence a grade positively.

 

My stance is that there shouldn’t be positive or negative influences (just stars and pluses...and maybe minuses).

However, if we decide that positive eye appeal can bump up a grade, then it would be consistent to say negative eye appeal can lower a grade. I don’t think we should have one without the other.

I’m also a bit confused about @TypeCoin971793 exact stance.

 

A little extreme.

The last coin is the only one that deserves a gem grade both of the others look circulated. Finger printed and an obvious mistake by the TPG.

Original is one thing. Yes they both have clean surfaces and great
preservation , but neither deserve the gem slab they are in.

Neither of the first two should go above gem in the first place. What are you missing? The third looks closer to the grade. Just not one that is going to break the bank.

 

Because great eye appeal is expected for gem and above grades, along with the technical merits of the grade.

 

I’ve already proven that isn’t true. You can’t apply the antiquated ANA standards to the TPGs who don’t use them.

 

Their published standards still use them, which means they are actively trying to misinform collectors and hide what they do. I will leave it up the the imagination why

 

First let me say keep it coming. Hopefully, folks will get to see both sides of the discussion with me playing the "bad" guy.

Lehigh96, posted: "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."

Yeah, yeah, where have I heard that one. "I didn't grade the "dog," I'm just the $eller."

"You have already admitted that corrosion is a progression [talk about an UNNECESSARY COMMENT] (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?
[ If the person is "informed" it becomes a personal decision] 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. [Yes, black corrosion that has etched the surface of a coin in such a way that it CAN NEVER be HONESTLY restored is TERMINAL CORROSION DAMAGE - ALWAYS! I'm in the business of protecting the end user. What other graders/dealers do is their business. ] 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." [NGC agrees with you]

Here is my standard (We all have them. Many of us don't agree with yours or those of a major TPGS):

If I'm able to see something on a coin, say that it is beautiful oxidation "damage" because the surface has been changed from its pristine original condition, AND STILL GRADE THE PIECE MS-70 if that is the case and the "damage" has not reached "End Stage" there is no contradiction. That's because I can usually change beautifully toned coin back to its natural state without most knowing it was once "damaged."

As you know, at this time, color often adds value to a coin. I love it when it is attractive yet I usually know what it actually is/caused it and can express the FACT: You have posted a very beautiful, desirable nickel that is also corroded.

"Just because they draw the line in a different place than you, doesn't mean they are wrong. [Where did you get the idea they are wrong? Grading is SUBJECTIVE. They cannot be "wrong" because that grade is the PROFESSIONAL opinion of some experienced folks well above our pay grade. Anyone (Even you: "ugly duckling") can disagree with an NGC grade; however, they better have a good reason.] 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 [BTW, this is one of the most attractive War nickels I've ever seen!]."





"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 [Not true if it has ugly tarnish] have excellent eye appeal as well, making the inclusion of eye appeal as an element of grading, redundant and unnecessary. [The point I think we both are trying to get across to you and all market graders is this: GRADING CAN NEVER BE PRECISE AND UNCHANGING as more and more variables and subjectivity are added - NEVER. All you Koolaid drinkers have helped build the "commercial sand castle." Learn it, live it, enjoy it, continue to build "sets of LABELS"," and try to defend this totally wacky mess created by coin dealers for you. Meanwhile, don't disparage this "Chicken Little" poster!] 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 [Again, your subjective opinion ]. If the surfaces, luster, and strike are all great but the coin looks like hell, why should it be rewarded with a gem grade?" Could it possibly be because the coins are worth MS-65 money?

 

I'm really liking the discussion on these threads, but must point out "again" that if people have different "standards" of grading coins, with or without toning, there is no standard at all. There should be another word/term used.
In my opinion this coin grades......

And again I think that a + or - for top or bottom 10% of the grade, and a * for exceptional eye appeal would work well. The TPGS don't use this for many resons, financial rewards being the biggie. IMHO.

 

Johndoe2000$, posted: "I'm really liking the discussion on these threads, but must point out "again" that if people have different "standards" of grading coins, with or without toning, there is no standard at all. There should be another word/term used. In my opinion this coin grades...

Congratulations! You got it."

 

Since when does the presence of subjectivity preclude there being a standard? Think of graders as judges (in the legal or sports sense) following a standard that must be interpreted and applied with subjectivity.

 

You must at least have a published standard that is OBJECTIVELY applied, otherwise it is all just a subjective opinion. It may well be that modern coin grading is just that, no published standards objectively applied, but totally subjective on what the market will bear (i.e., market grading NOT technical grading).

 

That's not how coin grading works. It's why computers can't grade coins accurately. If we had a standard that could be objectively applied, we would have that already.

Take a statement as simple as "A coin that has been harshly cleaned cannot be assigned a grade." This involves accurately identifying the appearances of numerous types of cleaning, distinguishing the appearance of cleaning from the appearance of other similar effects that are either different problems or not problems at all (die polish, worn dies, etc.), and having the wisdom to know when there may be an old cleaning that is nonetheless market acceptable. This is judging and it's inherently going to be subjective.

 

Well then you have what you have, one expert arguing with another expert over subjective opinions. Things like hairlines and other signs of harsh cleanings CAN be standardized (and actually are in experienced folks brains) so that when they appear on a coin, we all can agree that it is a harsh cleaning and not over polished dies or other similar effects and not a problem (as an example).