1882-S MS66 PL Morgan

The southwest to northeast parallel lines over the cheek area of pictures 3 and 4 are clearly slab scuffs. I have seen dozens of NGC slabs like that. The lines in pic 2 (your red circles) aren't even on the same trajectory as the ones in pics 3 and 4.

Having photographed hundreds of coins in NGC holders, I know how lighting of the slab affects the scuff marks' appearance. Think what you want, but I still don't see any sign of a "wiping".

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Agree--the coin is not wiped, cleaned or in any way tampered with. It is a MS 66 PL coin, and I agree--I have had hundreds of NGC slabs that scratch in exactly that way.

 

I dont know where the 90%+ stat came from, but I would question it. I remember reading an article a few years ago (Coinweek? Coinworld? can't be sure) that they did a study by sending the same set of coins to multiple TPGs and very few of the coins came back with the same grades, and in fact some were off by a wide margin (one TPG graded a coin MS62 and another MS65, etc.).

If this is true, I think it calls into question the 90% accuracy rate. TPGs grade MILLIONs of coins - I just cant believe they get 90% right.

I will try to find the article I referenced and post it.

 

[QUOTE=" Third, while TPGs do get it wrong sometimes, they have a 90%+ accuracy rate, which is way beyond ANY layperson's ability to grade. Market grading is done by average individuals (How many times did owners of raw coins debate "my 1893s is EF, not high VF"). Basically, it falls down to judgement calls, and IMHO, the TPG got it right with this coin, and they generally do get it right.[/QUOTE]


If they had a 90% accuracy rate, wow that'd be impressive. Considering people make a living on solely cracking coins out and sending them back in for an upgrade, I would have to disagree with that statistic. There are people that grade to PCGS or NGC's standards better than they do and they do not work for either TPG.

 

The biggest problem is that there is no gold standard, so even the definition of "accurate" is not fixed. Even two extremely experienced people supposedly using the same ANA standards will often disagree on a coin's numerical grade. To measure accuracy you must have a known (true) fact to which to compare. Coin grading is inherently subjective, so that's never the case.

What you can measure is precision (or repeatability) of results. Which is what the article you're referencing did. And, in my opinion, precision (or consistency or repeatability of grading) is just as important as accuracy. In the study you're referring to (I believe it was back in 2003), PCGS actually had the lowest levels of precision -- that is, they didn't grade the same exact coin the same thing upon multiple submissions.

Crack-out masters thrive on the imprecision of TPGs, not on their immeasurable accuracy. If you play the crack-out game long enough and you're smart enough to know when to stop trying your luck, then we end up with a bunch of "low end for the grade" coins in holders that they shouldn't be in. It's usually pretty clear when a coin has been "maxed out" and no person in their right mind would dare crack it out and resubmit. It has been milked for all it's worth!

 

You are correct.

 

Yes, essentially. However, these coins are not randomly chosen and submitted. They are chosen on a reasonably suspicion that they are better than the TPG said they were the first time. Like I said, grading is an opinion, not a science. At this point, it becomes a numbers game.