Increasing amount of Problem Coins in Detail Free Holders

You've hit upon one of the main reasons why any savvy collector takes any TPG opinion as advisory. The only exception I make to that rule is ANACS and VAMs, because the guy they have doing that is better than any one of us will ever be at it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I agree with the main point that more details coins are getting numeric grades now than in past decades, but I also think that the two example coins here are not details grade.

 

As an intellectual exercise how can we actually compare with pre TPG era grading? There is subjectivity in grading but there were also a lot more rip off artists before the TPGs and were not comparing companies to individuals grading.

I actually would like to hear an actual argument on how we could compare say a slabbed coin grade to pre TPG coin grades when now theres companies doing it and before it was whatever the seller felt like for the most part.

 

TPG's have been around since the 80's. What I am saying is that it's more liberal now with coins that have issues than it used to be. Not making a comparison with pre or post TPG era as you call it.

 

I'm aware, but here is the part everyone always misses. There was no internet in the 80s, even in the 90s it wasn't close to what it was today. Today people are exposed to tens of thousands of coins they would have never known existed/looked like back then but we're somehow comparing their grading standards in cold hard facts based on the information that is now available today that was not then.

We make these blanket statements when the real truth is the first half of the TPG existence people/s experience with grades was what a show or their local show had, where as today you can find almost any coin they've graded essentially. But no one ever accounts for the fact that back then you only saw what people wanted you to see. The amount of information available today is infinitely more than before for what they grade and how, and that doesn't even get into the issues of trying to grade from photos as opposed to in-hand.

 

The gold coin posted by the OP is clearly either struck over another coin, or struck more than once. I think what you're seeing as "a gouge" across the head on the obverse is actually remnants of the original coin striking that was not struck out by the 2nd striking -- since it was the highest area of the coin, and it only appears on the deepest parts of the die.

The 2nd coin I believe to be die preparation lines. Your argument that a coin shouldn't have die preparation (or die polish) lines because only 10 were struck is actually counter-intuitive. The very first coins struck with a newly prepared die are the ones most likely to exhibit die preparation/polish lines. As more coins are struck with a die, the fine die-prep lines into the die soften and eventually disappear.

While I don't believe either of the coins posted by the OP to be details worthy, I do agree with the general premise that the TPGs (particularly PCGS lately) have become sloppy and have put some real dogs and problem coins into problem free holders.

Just my 2 cents...

 

Regarding the first coin yes it is struck twice but I don't think it comes even close to explaining the huge gouge on the coin. Look how minor the double striking is; barely noticeable. The gouge is clearly recessed which is why I have to hold to my assertion that it's just plain damage.

I'm also a bit confused as to why you would think the very first coins struck with a new die are the ones most likely to exhibit die polish lines. Why would a new die need to be polished and thus exhibit die polish lines? It's brand new

And secondly even ignoring that for the moment and assuming your argument is true, I repeat that none of the other 5 or 6 provas of this exact type that I've viewed have this kind of lines. Even if the die-prep lines in the die soften and disappear you can bet 100% that's not going to happen after striking just 20 coins.

 

Because that's what it takes to create a die. That polishing is part of the production process, and it's the reason for Prooflike fields.

 

The first coin: if you follow the "gouge" line it traces out part of the design on the host coin. You can see similar on the reverse, but not as deep. This is to be expected as such leftovers are more prominent on the higher profile design areas than on the lower ones.

As for the second coin: it doesn't make sense for this to be post mint damage if it goes right up to the edge of the profile features and does not cross them. There is no question in my mind looking at this coin that it is anything other than something on the die pre-strike.

 

So you are the expert everyone should defer too?

 

Going forward I would appreciate it if you could just reply to me in a lump sum manner. You are of course free to do as you wish but I think much meaning gets lost when you decide to respond to me according to snippets of my previous statement. The chances of miscommunication increase greatly

- It definitely is possible for someone with a passion who grades coins to study up the available material on the issue. I don't really understand why you assumed I would think otherwise. The claim that I am making is that it is impossible for any person or even group of people to become an expert on all coin series throughout history to grade each coinage type differently which is how you envision things should be.

My simple and humble argument is coins should be graded the same and in turn the specialized collectors who collect the series will be able to judge the coin for what it is.

Calling a coin what it is isn't doing a disservice to anybody. It's objectively stating the truth. Nothing more and nothing less

 

I'm not an expert on anything. I've merely collected Albanian coins for quite a long time and have been fortunate enough to see quite a few in hand.

 

I would be confident in deferring to him when it comes to Albanian coins. The matter being discussed here is not specific to any country/type.

 

Regarding the second coin it does make complete sense. The scratches on the coin are from rough handling and if a coin is handled roughly then the scratches just occur wherever they happen to occur. With a coin like that they show up, meaning they are easily seen, because the fields are wide open with nothing to help hide the scratches.


Neither of us will change the opinion of the other but it's worth noting that the collector base for stuff like this is quite thin and if I and just a handful of people who collect Albanian agree with me then the value of this coin in the future will be alot less than the price paid recently at auction

 

I do appreciate that explanation. I wasn't aware of that to be quite honest

 

If it's a matter of randomly occurring scratches, the distribution would be random and even as well. There is a very high amount of lines in the fields, but hardly any on the struck features. That makes no sense for cleaning, polishing, handling or anything else besides die polishing.

 

I would not. He has made it clear he is not sophisticated enough to understand die states and strike quality ect. At the end of the day its a picture and he was proven too be unknowable about his complaint.

 

Because you of your own words.....

I did you ignored them until you acted like your words were twisted, they were not.

 

@baseball21 you keep starting new accounts and being nasty towards people. Your opinion may be correct, but your delivery is very aggressive. Surely you have something better to do?

 

I am not sure who you think I am, but this is my first account on this site.

If you disagree with something I would love to debate it, forces me to reassess my opinion, however if you're just another joke that can;t discuss issues so they attack the person I surely will ignore you and do have better things to do