Doug's - Guess the grade

Good God Mike - anybody with eyes can look at the two coins and see it. Do you really epxect me to believe that you can't ? Somebody with your knowledge ? Or are you, as I said - funnin with me ?

Even a novice can look at those two coins and tell whcih one is the nicer coin of the two. This is exactly why I chose the lower graded coins to start this thread. Because then there would be none of these arguments about pictures and what you can see and what you can't see. But OK, I'll play.

The Eliasberg coin, #1, is graded MS64, the other coin is graded MS62 (these are in post #63). You folks have seen the pics I posted, they were taken straight from the Heritage auction. If you check the properties of the pics, you'll see that they are even embedded links. I posted those pictures on purpose, because by looking at those pictures alone it appears that coin #2 is the nicer of the two because it has a better strike.

Now Mike thought that the #1 was nicer because he thought it had luster and the other coin did not. IMO both coins have an equal amount of luster based on those pics. But it is a debatable point I'll grant you, that is the nature of pictures when trying to judge luster. Both coins appear to be relatively equal in quality. It is only the quality of the strike that seems to stand out as the deciding factor as to which is the nicer of the two - based on those first pics alone.

But simply by going on those two sets of pics alone is misleading. You can't really see what it is really going on with each coin. You can't get a good look at the surfaces of each coin.

And for those of you who have not gone and signed in to see the blowups - here are those blowups. These allow you to see what you need to see.

The MS64 Eliasberg obverse -




The MS62 obverse -



Now by looking at the blowups it becomes patently obvious that the surface of the MS62 coin is covered with lots of little pimples from being struck with a rusty die. The coin also shows minor pitting, again the result of the rusty die. And what appars to be some black horseshoe shaped mark under the hair curls (which I have no idea in the world what it is). There are also several noticeable hits in the left field and a couple in the legends.

The MS64 coin shows none of this and is obviously ( to me and to anybody who looks at it in my opinion) the nicer of the two coins.

Here are the reverses of the two coins -

MS64 -




MS62 -



They are rather unremarkable except for the fact that the reverse of the 62 reinforces the same things the obverse did as in regard to which coin has the nicer surfaces of the two.

Now it must be understood that the pimples and the minor pitting from the rusty dies on the MS62 coin are indeed as struck issues. And while they affect the grade, they do not in any way stop or preclude the coin from being Mint State.

Now I will ask you - is there anybody who does not think it is obvious, besides Mike, that the 64 coin is nicer than the 62 coin ?

And for the sake of clarity, part of the reason that I posted these two particular coins was to illustrate that when grading these two coins, PCGS followed normal grading proccedures. They did not make allowances for this or allowances for that. They graded the coins as they should be graded - based on their condition.

And this is in direct conflict with the way they graded the coins that started this thread. It shows not one bit of consistency.

 

Pull the wool over your eyes ? I hope you are joking snaz. I am trying to pull the wool away from your eyes. I am trying to get you to open your eyes and see what is actually in front of them. Instead of this rediculous nonsense that the TPGs try to pass off as accurate grading - and the market accepts (only God knows why) - when it comes to these coins.

 

You know why you have that trouble Mike ? You have that trouble because you have been conditioned into believing what the TPGs tell you instead of what is front of your face that you plainly see with your eyes. You have surrendered, you have been made to believe that your own knowledge, your own abilities, are inferior to that of the TPGs. So the TPGs must be right and you must be wrong. That you have no right to question them. And why ? Because the market accpets it.

Well to hell with the market Mike, you do have the right. And you have the knowledge as well. It is time to stop being sheep and become people again. It is time to use your own eyes, use your own knowledge, and to call the TPGs on the carpet and demand changes.

Yeah I know, doesn't make it right though. Nor does it give the TPGs carte blanche to ignore obvious and severe damage just because a coin is old, or rare. And it dang sure doesn't mean that the market should accpet it either.

Yup, they sure do. But as I said above, they shouldn't.

 

Now I know you're joking !

Why even the mighty CAC said that coin was correctly graded snaz :whistle:

 

Mark - may I ask you, exactly what is it about this coin that tells you it was weakly struck ? I mean, I assume you are making that statement because of the lack of detail. But how can you, or anyone for that matter, tell by looking at that coin that the lack of detail is due to a weak strike instead just plain old fashioned wear ?

Why ? Do you really think there is some detail, or details, that those pictures, especially the blowups, are hiding or just not showing ? Do you think the pictures are misleading in some way, making the coin look worse in some respect than it would look if in hand ? If so, do you mind telling me in what way ?

I guess what I'm trying to say Mark is that when a coin is worn to that point, there really isn't anything for the pictures to hide or not show. There is no possible way there is any luster on the coin, so that can't be it. The pictures, especially the blowups, are greatly magnified so there isn't any detail that you could see with the naked eye that you can't see in the pics, so that can't be it.

So what is it that could possibly make that coin look better in hand than it does in those pictures ?

That's the thing Mark, will very worn coins there aren't any lies for the pictures to tell.

 

That's no secret Mike, I've always known that the market doesn't agree with me.

And certainly not me either Mike. I have no problem whatsoever with anybody liking a given coin for whatever reason they may like it.

The only thing I have a problem with is the TPGs, and the market accepting, having no consistency in regard to what defines a problem coin, and grading inconsistency.

 

Yes.

 

spock, if you would ever learn to use punctuation and grammar, it might be a whole lot easier to understand what you are saying.

Now this is your previous comment -

This is how I read that comment -

To which I answered - yes. Meaning, yes you are wrong. The 62 coin is not better than the 64 coin.


Now you please use a little punctuation and grammar and kindly tell me what this means ?

 

So you are saying that because the part of the wings close to the body are worn almost smooth and have no detail; and that because PCGS's pictures show some wing detail even on a VG8 coin - that this coin must therefore be weakly struck. And the reason for the lack of detail in the wings, the entire eagle even, is because of a weak strike.

Mark I'm sorry, but that dog just don't hunt.

If anything, your logic dictates that PCGS over-graded the coin. When a coin is weakly struck, it is the weakly struck areas that are worn down first, before all other areas. That is because the weakly struck areas are the high points of the coin, not the low points.

Look the rest of the coin on the reverse, the leaves, the legends, everything. The eagle on that coin is almost smooth because it was worn down smooth. Not because of any weak strike.


Look at PCGS's grading pictures. Their F12 coin has way more wing detail than either the 8 or the 10. For that matter, the 8 has more detail in the wings than the 10 does. But it is the obverse that counts the most - not the reverse. And in the grading pictures the 10 obv has just a bit more detail than the 8. And the 12 has just a bit more obv detail than the 10.

What PCGS is telling you is that they are ignoring the reverse and grading the coin based on the obverse. Problem is, PCGS also says that a coin must be graded by its worst side. And that's what bugs me - they ignore that rule, their own rule, with these coins.

As you have already mentioned, the obverse of the coin I posted appears to be of a higher grade than F12. Looking at the PCGS grading pictures, there is no doubt. So how does one explain the F12 grade ?

I'll tell you how - they net graded the coin. But then PCGS swears that they do not net grade. But here they are, ignoring the grade by worst side rule. Here they are ignoring the no grade for damaged coins rule. Here they are assigning a grade of F12 to a coin with a VF20 obv and VG8 reverse - a net grade.

I could agree with you if talking about an MS coin. I might even agree with you about an XF coin. But an F12 coin ? Gimme a break.