Example of buy the coin not the slab? $10 Indian

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Look at this video. Note what PCGS says at minute mark 6:58 but then what they say at minute mark 40:52

I find this interesting, yet confusing.

 

This is an open forum where all have the possible right to express their opinion. I have allowed your ranting without subjective response (i.e. being able, and usually providing support for any opposing objective assertions). I abhor (may be too strong) individuals seemingly incapable of consistency to be objective, accusing others of certain thoughts/actions which can readily be shown false. Objectivity however requires one having the faculties/ability to accept truths.

I know it is probably futile to present the truth, but I'll try. The current "standard" using the publication I believe you'd have others accept as the only viable source, states for the discussed type coin in MS65 Grade: "No trace of wear; nearly as perfect as MS67 except for some small blemish. Has full mint luster and brilliance. A FEW MINUTE bag marks and surface abrasions may be present."

Your Honor, members of the jury, I believe you've viewed both referenced coins. A common statement used occasionally is
"a world that increasingly belongs to the few". I believe "FEW" in this statement refers to the "1%", a very large number accepted by virtually all without objection. May we assume that "FEW" is less than the MANY 99%, a large quantitative number less than others, but more than a couple ....? Since a specific number is unmentioned in the standard, could we possibly assume that the "FEW" stated is that of my quote? I believe possibly so, unless proven to the contrary, and that the initial coin linked/viewed, meets the standard.

The 2nd coin may also meet the standard, but it's believed that "market grading" criteria may have been applied to allow a vague definition of "SMALL BLEMISH".

I rest my argument!

 

I think what doug is saying is that the TPGs are kind of like a used car dealer. He tells you that high mileage car really isn't high mileage because they were mostly highway miles. Well, regardless of where the miles came from, they still show up on the odometer as miles, which accumulated. Whether or not you buy the car dealer's explanation is irrelevant. The car has many miles, in the same way an uncirculated coin has "cabinet friction." Regardless of what you are calling it, and make no mistake, you're calling it something, when you don't really know for sure what it is, it is at its core still wear of some kind on the coin. It only becomes market acceptable when you look at it and say, yes, I will pay an MS-whatever price for a coin with some wear.

 

IMO, his honor, the judge replies: "You have made a good case counselor; however, while I should have you arrested for contempt of court, I'll refrain due to the fact that it appears you have not studied the case.
Neither coin was graded MS-65 so most of your post has nothing to do with this thread. Additionally, there are many books, videos, and classes concerning how to grade. Since I personally don't follow any of them, I believe an intelligent, curious, and informed numismatist should know what they all say. I recommend you view the video also.

I rule both coins are over graded." Case closed!

 

I strongly prefer this coin.

 

You'll notice that the original coin that started this thread received exactly 0 bids. I, personally, wouldn't buy it as an MS64+, even with the CAC sticker.

 

It's my understanding that there isn't a published A.N.A. MS64 or + grade standard, so an argument would need to be presented for the nearest published grade which would allow proof of the coins grade parameters inclusion. Maybe you can provide the missing standard which my arguments will allow.

MS65 was also selected as it's believed that's the first grade which distinguishes a separation wear statement where the initial believed only acceptable standard allowed for retribution or damages states MS60 is to be without wear. 5 grades difference to argue damages. An argument possibly distinguishing deterioration of the grading standards, that has been valiantly presented by Doug on numerous occasions.

Your overwhelming perceived need to control, regardless of facts, is mystifying. Even as a hypothetical jurist you would disallow opposing arguments, or a verdict by the jury I addressed.

I believe you would be ideal foil/counter in a debate, argued before an objective jury.

As an admired frustrated opponent once said "don't confuse me with logic". I'll try not in the future.

Case Suspended!!

 

Suspended, suspended...This nonsense would be thrown out of any court in the land! IMO, you should start a new thread.

What in the world are you drinking? After tomorrow afternoon, I'm going to hole up somewhere, stop posting for a few days, print your reply, and do my best to figure this out. Bye...

 

Let's see, you want ME to go to Silly Town with you in order to help prove your opinion. Not happening.

 

What? Call me dumb as this is way beyond my comprehension.

Yeah, you got me there. I'm a control freak! I wish I could teach coin grading as you have done except in a way that was easy to understand.

 

You've established through your posts that you're not "dumb" (i.e."uninformed"), but maybe lacking the will to recognize fallibility. Doug has succinctly elaborated on the essence of that paragraph many times. The essence is that any coin with a "mint state" designation should meet the exacting definition of those words, thus: http://coins.about.com/od/coinsglossary/g/mint_state_coin.htm

The original A.N.A. standard defined in great detail the general condition of coins relative to their assigned grade, using the simple four letters that I previously discussed in a post. When the standard was changed, it's believed that objective individuals would in a litigious environment, determine intentional de-grading of the standard.

It's believed this "standard" change facilitated reduction of the prior values to which many had entrusted funds.

It's believed the industry/processes have de-graded since the initial A.N.A. "standard" change, for numerous stated seemingly irrational reasons that probably only a class action can correct.

JMHO

 

Some of your post makes sense. Some does not. For example, no coins graded by the old, not used anymore by professionals or TPGS standards of "no trace of wear" went down in grade to AU when that standard was abandoned except by the 2% of the old time
numismatic purists who will all be dead in ten years.

You can wish all you want but most Mint State coins in some series like Seated dollars, Bust half dollars, Standing Liberty quarters, etc. DO NOT MEET THE ANA CRITERIA for the MS grade. Virtually all of them have friction on their high points causing their original surface to be degraded enough to be seen with the naked eye.

Take a coin like that - blazing original luster, hardly any noticeable marks, yet a dull patch on the high points where the original surface luster is impaired. What should we grade it. You, me, @GDJMSP, and 1.99% of the purists say AU-58. The rest of the marketplace is in the MS-64 - 65 range due to the coin's eye appeal and value. I've left enough money on the table selling AU-58's that became MS-65's to buy a Porsche! I'm over it. As I wrote above, in ten years the 2% of us will be dead.

PS IMO, two reasons the ANA standards were degraded is they were unrealistic and EVERYONE wanted MS coins!