Why I don't understand grading

To me, what makes a coin attractive besides its overall design and historical significance is how it looks. I'd rather have a coin with an attractive surface and a few rim dings than one with perfect details but that is totally ugly. Take a look at this "MS64" coin racking up the bids on eBay. Ugly as sin in my opinion. http://www.ebay.com/itm/1906-NGC-MS...2886106?pt=US_World_Coins&hash=item4d288e255a

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

eeew. It is an ugly one.

 

I wouldn't buy that coin even if it was 50% off...

 

I have to agree this should not have been graded. Heritage and other large submitting companies do get items graded that generally you or I can't.
Money and high submission is why this was graded. Client must be right or allowed is the reason.

 

And not just that they got it graded, but such a high grade. How does that happen?

 

What is with the uneven coloring? The coloring looks a little like the surface of the coin had chipped/peeled off, but... Dang, that does look corroded!

But, doesn't (ugly) toning look like this, too?

 

That doesn't look corroded, not at all. It's just an irregular (and somewhat unattractive) toning pattern. The rest of the coin looks to be of superior quality - good strike, and very few marks.

To me, that looks like a 65 that was downgraded a point for negative eye appeal. I see absolutely nothing wrong with this being graded this way.

 

The details are nice but it is so ugly that I wouldn't want it in my collection.

It sold for $23, by the way.

 

You can get a raw UNC with better eye appeal for $10, even less if you keep an eye out

 

No Doug, I still wouldn't say its corroded.

The pictures you posted are blurry and wouldn't show a textured surface (I'm not familiar with the series, but it is not unbelievable that the portrait is textured). At least one of the comparisons you posted is clearly circulated and polished. There is no way to compare these coins to what I am assuming is an early die state, but in any case has vastly superior pictures.

And despite what you may claim, I am going to tend to believe the in-hand professional opinion of the graders at NGC over your blurry picture comparisons. Every single time.

 

That's two different coins. The slab shot shows a diagonal line of toning that isn't present on the close up shot.

Nevermind, I looked at it longer and it is the same. I guess that's why we shouldn't use such powerful magnification to look at coins.

 

All sorts of weird things can be seen. Check out the Error Section.

 

It doesn't matter who said it. I am usually going to believe the in-hand evaluation of the professional graders above the speculative prognostication of armchair graders, judging by comparisons with blurry pics.

 

I don't see corrosion, but I see an unattractively toned coin. The coin is 90% silver, and who knows under what conditions it may have been stored for the past 108 years.

I think Doug is comparing apples and oranges by posting pictures of clearly polished/cleaned examples. All I see on the bust of the OP-posted coins is satiny "fresh from the mint" luster with 100+ years of toning on top.

There are plenty of unattractive properly graded coins in plastic of all flavors. Just because a coin is ugly doesn't mean it isn't properly (technically) graded.

 

PS -- the coin sold for less than $23. Is that really "racking up the bids"???

 

You don't know that for a fact. LOTS of world coins have what you're calling a "grainy" look -- that does not in any way imply corrosion. That kind of "micro-porosity" satiny luster look is all over the place on Morgan Dollars, are they all "corroded"? Doug, I think you're drawing at straws on this one.

Below is a Portugal coin in my collection that has a bit of this "porosity" look to it. It has nothing to do with corrosion, and everything to do with the preparation of the planchet, the state of the die, and the completeness of the strike.