Tell that to PCGS when they bump grades for monster toning. Toning does affect the market grade, and that's the business these TPGs are in. I think you mean it doesn't affect the technical or condition grade, and that's correct.
How about this Seated Half I came across browsing on EBay. This is the Coin Facts picture of it, so we know it had the big obverse paw print when it was slabbed. It also has a gold CAC sticker. Am I the only one who thinks it’s too ugly to pay 5 or 6 figures for? https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/1854-o-50c-arrows/6280
Of course not. Who cares about the coin if the plastic says 67 and there’s a green sticker attached...?
Which makes me question where these market graders are. What goes up must come down. If they can upgrade for the market for eye-appealing toning they can just as well downgrade for ugly toning. Thus, as a technical matter, unless their published standards are but double-talk, PCGS (...and CAC, on this one) seriously thinks the eyeballs in their market don’t see this toning as a big drawback. If they did, they’d downgrade the market grade from its technical grade. But they didn’t. But then, we’re not the pros. Go on...
Question: Is market grading the fault of the graders or due to the pressure put upon them by the submitters with deep pockets?
Both, in my view, if the graders cave to it. Could it be any other way? We hold them both, or we accept the BS. That’s the choice. In coins, as well as politics, for that matter.
I stopped by the LCS yesterday and he had an 1888 O VAM (Scareface) that he popped out of a display (I believe one of 5 for each mint). The reverse has a donut toning...like a wine glass stain on a tablecloth. The coin was BU. Many might shrug at a stained/oddly toned coin, but sometimes getting past it lets you see something of value. 13391862rev_1.jpg (914×1200) (lccoins.com)
This coin you posted looks like a Denali compared that quarter in question. We can see the detail amongst the toning. You can't see much of anything on that quarter, as far as I'm concerned.
I think my 1860-S Seated Liberty Quarter might be at least MS63, thoughts? And here's the punch line.... [sad trombone] Hey, I still like it, it is what it is.
The tonings just making it look bad. There's a lot of examples out there that look like that in pictures including another one that was auctioned tonight as an NGC CAC. PCGS, CAC and NGC aren't all putting trash at the high end of the scale. Washingtons are notorious for having flat detail
In the current market it seems there is a premium placed on original toning by PCGS and CAC even if it is butt ugly like the quarter. I would be afraid of the market eventually shifting toward coins that have been attractively dipped or lightly cleaned, versus original but ugly. It’s one thing to spend 100 bucks on a turd with the right label for a registry set, but quite another to spend 4 or 5 figures. For that money I would want something that blows me away. Why should an UNC details with light hairlines sell for a bigger discount than something with ugly toning? Neither are representative of what the coin looked like coming off the press.
Amen KSorbo - If I'm paying for MS65 - I want to see what I believe is MS65 - and that is pretty nice. I'd rather have a decent looking cleaned coin than a butt ugly one at a much lower grade that isn't cleaned for the same price. Here's a good example of that -
I'm amazed no one has yet mentioned the obvious - that quarter was part of a 1951 mint set and remained in the simple cardboard holder for many years, acquiring the toning that these coins tended to get over time. Sure the toning looks horrible, but the actual state of the coin's details remain uncirculated, and as PCGS has determined by close examination, commensurate with a grade of MS67. CAC clearly agrees.
I essentially made that reference when referring to the 5 piece Morgan set/Scarface. To your point, it is what it is ignoring the distraction in appearance. TPG and CAC agree.
