MS-69 Coins Before 1950: How Many ?

GD, you are doing it again. You use gobbledygobbledness and deft subject re-direction to deliberately confuse the reader. What 2 technical grading differences? 3 basic criteria of what? 9 different criteria of what?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Any thoughts, GD?

 

Sigh... I note that you did not post the rest of my post, that I posted "hidden"..i.e. attached to your post in pink....with the expectation that you would get the point, that I consider your condescension when you post, to be the driving controlling need, as you continue to do here.

Silly. I am not impressed by your obfuscation and misdirection and confusing commentary, designed to present yourself as the Numismatist Extraordinaire. If you are happy, that is all that matters.

 

Please, now you are bordering on Clownish, and the My Daddy is bigger than your Daddy syndrome.

Need? Childish pouting designed to show all the boys and girls you are Biff.

Read yourself....pride is one thing. Annoying gobbledygobbledness is another. Condescension is always at the heart of the majority of your replies to members.

You use "I"....as in I did this and I did that and I built the Brooklyn Bridge and I brought Erudition and fact and the only true philosophy of the Gods to the numismatic world....you have been doing this for as long as I have been reading CT.

You have a need to show off. Do so, it is your Right. It is my Right to comment on Blarney and annoying braggadocio.

For an intelligent fellow, it is a mystifying anomaly for a person that claims the "I" accomplishment in so many different fields of endeavor.

What I do note, is that you did not logically and without gibberish address the minimum of 1 question that I presented. Those cows must be dying in the prairie from embarrassment.

 

Just want to say that the debate on Market vs. Technical Grading...and the comments from the posters....I know it gets heated at times, and maybe repetitive, and maybe it's all been done a few times before in our cyberspace archives.

But I do learn alot from the back-and-forth....so to those of you who took the time to post and contribute, I thank you. This is why I joined CoinTalk in the first place and became a sponsor for the first time, too.

Thanks !!

 

Not many Numismatic books have ever been written, by attacking another's perspective.
You read it and file it away,
And of thought.
As far as the last 69 brought up. The hazes and dark areas on the high points are just an effect of the lighting and aperture.

 

Preach that condescending Grading Philosophical Religion, Brother!

...that your need to be condescending to members when you post is not only annoying, but rude, and rude to the extreme when you continuously do so?

Now we are getting somewhere! It is you, not the other guy.

Here we go, again. Explain technical grading, and the only 3 things that make up technical grading, and the changes in the 2nd and 3rd edition that are different from the 6th or 7th editions, that describe the 9 points of grading, that don't match with the 6 points in the 4th edition, and......what did this supposed technical grading leave out that has confused you and converted you into being a disciple that assumes philosophy is fact?

Yes, I know....buy the books to understand the gobbledygobbledness.

Sigh.

Well, what is it?

 

GD or anybody else, have you seen this interview with John Albanese ? Fascinating, IMO.

https://coinweek.com/a-cac-grading-service-coinweek-interview-with-john-albanese/

Go down about 1/4 of the article....right below the pictures of the $10 Eagles...he is talking about 1985 and a bubble in some Type-2 gold coins (before my time)....and explains how if you DIDN'T accept market grading...you went out of business (if a dealer) or didn't buy/sell any of those coins if a collectors.

Albanese is doing what GD says -- calling the coins AU-58's -- and the other savvy dealers/graders/early-TPG'ers are saying they go for unreal $$$ and you have to call them MS-63's.

Any of you vets who lived through this have any thoughts ?

 

I skimmed it and that concept of grading to value is stupid. Sheldon's original concept is stupid. Just because someone in a current market is willing to pay 63 money for a 58 doesn't make the 58 magically into a 63. When the market goes back to normal but you've slapped 63 on a bunch of 58s you've lost your reputation as a grader.

It's interesting that they're spending "millions" on master grading sets that will never change.

 

The issue comes down to this. An AU-58 with great eye appeal is worth as much or more than a so-so technical Mint State piece with average or less eye appeal. When I was building my collection of early coins, I regularly paid MS-60+ money for AU-58 coins. That’s why “market grading” made AU-58s into MS-62s. Conversely, the entire grading standard for AU 50 to 58 pieces has been lowered.

 

I guess it's because we think price and grade are linear....they aren't.

But as long as 95% or 99% or 99.9% of collectors THINK and ACT that way, the market will bend in that direction.

 

You think that's the case -- or maybe just with AU-58's ?

I don't see too many overgraded or "pricey" AU-55's or AU-53's.

 

I'll gladly compare my "Grey-Sheet" pricing for your list of credible offerings!
https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nk...&_odkw=st+gaudens+20+gold+AU&_osacat=0&_sop=1 LOL!

 

I have seen a lot of overgraded AU-50 coins over the past year or so.

 

I'm not certain who/what establishes the current particular Numismatic "standards"!

It's believed that an objective comparative differing evaluation of 2 similar graded coins could show one being of a greater grade than the other!

I'm generally a buyer of the higher technical/market U.S. Gold TPG graded coin.

I concur with your general observation, since Doug has informed us that the TPG standards haven't changed recently.

I have past TPG graded coins that often differ in field/devices from those currently posted!