Featured Should a significant mark in a prime focal area prevent a gem grade?

We will have to agree to disagree.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

That is a beautiful coin, the marks on the chin almost look like a beauty mark or mole,maybe even a dimple, (a dimple on a DMPL?) I do not think it is as majorly distracting as the op's examples.

 

I agree 100%, unfortunately I don't see it happening any time soon though.

Btw Doug how would you grade the Morgan I posted.

 

I agree. Those standards are written for a reason, they are guidelines if you will, for how a coin should be graded.
Grading is subjective, but it needs to be that way following guidelines that have already been set for you, you can't just make up your own rules because you think if one mark wasn't there it would be higher so it deserves a higher grade, guess what, that mark is there, the grade should be affected because of it.

 

A pretty PQ 64 don't you think?
I'd buy the coin at a 64, I'd buy it at a 65, but I wouldn't buy that coin at a 67 for sure.
A 66, possibly, but I think there is a chance to get a better one.

My question is, what exactly is your argument for MS64, do you really think the two marks at the chin, and the marks under the "W" in WE and whatever is going on near the "T" in trust could knock that down to a 64. That is really harsh grading.

 

Not seeing the argument for the MS64 anywhere, seeing plenty stuff of why it is a MS65 and not a 66 or 67 though.
But I think I see what you are getting at.

 

Right. I just misread your post.
Thanks Doug.

 

Doug, the main thing we have to remember is that TPGs DO NOT GRADE COINS!!!! TPGS value coins - they assign a price to them. Market grading and technical grading are not and cannot be compatible - Technically, a mark on Liberty's cheek may preclude a 65 grade. But in the marketplace, will the coin fetch a 65 price? If so, then the TPGs will assign it a 65 grade. And hence, PCGS's "grading standards" become merely more than suggestions.

 

This thread is getting somewhat convoluted with the various discussions. This does not mean the thread is poor and in fact I think this thread is great, however, it can also lead folks to get confused about who is writing to what point. I have quoted your first text in two places where I think you have essentially boiled down your position and will state the following and then explain my statments-

You and I, as well as Mark, know what we are doing and would likely agree on 80-90% or more of the practical aspects of this hobby, but that does not mean that we cannot come up with different philosophical aspects of the hobby and that these differing philosophical aspects of the hobby need not be proven incorrect.

I have put some of your text in bold and will address these points. Purposefully, I will leave out all discussion as to how PCGS grades since they do not in any manner adhere close to 100% to their published guide and therefore I think it best to leave their "theory" seperate from their "practice" for this discussion. I believe that this might show a difference in reading the ANA Grading Guide. Note that I am using sixth edition, which was published in 2005 and that a newer edition may be in print.

1) All three of these comments indicate to me what I see as the problem with grading - people don't follow established standards. They instead choose to make up their own standards that suit them and meet their own personal criteria.

There is quite a bit more of your text that goes with this throught, but this will do for the moment. There is a subtle difference between what I believe you are stating and what the ANA states in its grading guide. That is, you seem to believe that those folks listed in the ANA guide actually came up with these standards from some internal consensus and that this consensus is likely logical and based upon their cumulative experience. This is absolutely incorrect. The ANA guide states-

Lest a reader get the wrong idea, this book reports the grading being used in the marketplace. It does not create it.

Additionally, the ANA guide states-

The official ANA grading standards do not seek to influence or establish current grading practices, but to report, clarify and explain them.

In both of the above quotes I have used bold text where the ANA guide has used italic text.

That is a fairly powerful yet subtle statement and most folks have never read it within the ANA guide. It is stating that the bevy of heavyweight names listed within the ANA guide are interpreting current market use of the terms instead of defining the use of the terms. Is this important? You bet. In reality, those who are currently contributing to the ANA guide might disagree with a few or a vast number of points within the guide, yet they are only reporting and not defining. Does this matter? Yes. Why does this matter? Well, it matters because the way I grade can potentially affect the next ANA guide since the ANA is reporting the market rather than defining the market.

2) So somebody please tell me, where does the idea that we may choose to forgive or allow significant marks in prime focal areas on coins graded MS/PF65 come from ? Where does it say that the rest of the coin can make up for a significant mark in the prime focal area ?

The answer to this is an extension of my answer in the first point. That is, the text in the ANA guide is the result of a brokered consensus among various names within the hobby making an effort to describe the grading practices within the hobby at the time of publication. Any attempt at such an endeavor will never be completely accurate, will always be necessarily general in its points and will have knowledgeable folks who passionately disagree with small portions. I grade a coin based on the totality of the coin, which I believe is a more logical way of grading. However, I will also admit that it is a more complex way of grading since I attempt to keep all variables in my head at one time and do not typically resort to rampant disqualification because of a single aspect.

My intial post in this thread stated-

I voted "No". The reason for this is because I grade coins by looking at the entirety of the coin, which includes marks, strike, eye appeal, surface quality, likely original strike details and remaining detail. Therefore, each component is a bit fluid for me.

This is actually pretty darn close to what the ANA guide has written in it since the guide specifically states "contact marks", "hairlines", "luster" and "eye appeal" in its discussion of MS grades. I had added "remaining detail" because I was expanding what I wrote to include circulated coinage.

Sooooooooo...where does that leave me? Well, I think our interpretations of most aspects of grading will have enormous overlap, but in certain areas we will disagree. This most assuredly happened with the "Who's Who" list in the ANA guide and will happen in the future, too. I believe we have a firm grasp on what is the reality of grading and also how this might differ from the theory of grading and we would both agree that in those cases where we disagree on a coin that we have the luxury of walking away from the transaction.

 

Somebody check Jason for radiation exposure.

Chris

 

Please explain it to me - in all seriousness, if I am wrong (or if you think I am wrong), I truly want to know.

 

Doug,

You are confusing me a little. It seems that you have been advocating the established standards for grading which say that YES, a significant mark in a prime focal area would prevent a gem grade. I assume that you meant to say the answer is YES.

This whole discussion really boils down to how we interpret the grading standards. You interpret them to clearly mean that any major mark in a prime focal area of the coin limits the grade. Others including both Tom, Mark, Raider, and myself believe that their is intentional ambiguity in the established standards that allow for exceptions to be made to the general rule.

I think we can all agree that under normal circumstances, a significant mark in a prime focal area will limit the grade of the coin to MS64. However, there are rare instances that a coin will have a significant mark in a focal area but otherwise display the characteristics of a superb premium gem coin. Raider's Morgan is a good example even though I disagree with the assigned grade of MS67 which means they ignored the mark completely.

IMO, adhering to firm rules will result in just as many improperly graded coins as are from using a holistic grading method. There is no written standard that can account for all of the different variables that occur while grading coins. Without ambiguity in the standards, our grading efforts face inevitable failure.

Paul