I just submitted and got back my first submission from PCGS, and I did the economy option, as this was my first submission and I wasn't really sure what to do. Now, I'm pretty new to coin grading, but not to grading in general. I grade trading and sports cards and have a pretty good eye, as well as a microscope and take a pretty good look at my coins. For the most part especially the pennies, I feel like the grades were pretty warranted and even on the Nickels they were pretty decent as well. I submitted some 1954-P nickels and I thought that some of them had a really good chance at getting full steps, considering, looking a the other full steps designated nickels I saw for that year, it looked like there was some decent wiggle room for what they consider full steps. I know most of my 54s weren't going to get it, and I was okay with that, but given that I looked at their site on what they designated as full steps, I think maybe I didn't get FS on 1 maybe 2 of my coins. My question is, is it because I didn't do a more max declared value submission I didn't get the FS designation, because it would be in a different price threshold, or are mine really not good enough? Below is a link to my order and I believe you can see the images online of the nickels as I got them with the imaging. Please let me know your thoughts, as I do wish to know if I'm delusional or something. Thank you in advance. https://www.pcgs.com/shared-orders/order-details/23226640
Well, you shouldn't have to pay for the FSdesignation. They are or they aren't. This one looked good for FS.
Yeah, I don't mean pay for it, I just mean, the economy service has insurance coin prices up to $300, but MS65 and MS66 for FS is over that price threshold in their database. So I'm wondering if it didn't get it because of that ?
I wouldn't think that. Maybe if you have sent the coins in too many times. I would think they might be playing a game. Just sayin.
let's talk about something we can see rather than speculate. If you can, please post a magnified image (JUST THE STEPS) of your best "shot" that you sent to PCGS for FS.
I agree that the cert #47812074 looks like FS. I have been disappointed too, when sending a Jefferson nickel for FS. And your economy tier/insurance value shouldn't have anything to do with the grade. Just the turnaround time. I have been told that hits to the steps will prevent FS. Here's one of mine that I thought would be FS, but I've been told the hit below column 3 is what prevents that.
That's the full-size TrueView shot of the steps. I'm not a Jefferson guy, but the steps under the third pillar look weakest and there's a whack across the steps under the first pillar. As for whether submitting under economy would preclude a higher than expected grade, it won't. Had they graded it 66FS, they might have bumped that coin up to the next service level and charged you extra.
In my experience, most coins folks think are FS are not even close. The coin above is an excellent example. It is not even close. I don't like it but here is the "thing." Somewhere in the past, some "ex-pert" genius-in-their-own-mind piece of potty scum convinced everyone else that in order for a coin to have all of its design CONSIDERED TO BE FULLY STRUCK THERE COULD BE NO DEFECTS IN/ON THAT PART OF THE DESIGN. Of course, this is an absolutely stupid, ignorant approach to grading because a coin's strike and the contact marks on it are two different parts of the "grading equation." Therefore today, a coin cannot be considered to be FB, FBL, FS if there are any marks across its design. NEVERTHELESS, a lot of "fudging" goes on with this and every other "so-called" standard! This keeps grading a complicated affair and pays the light bill for TPGS. .
@Insider I see what you’re saying and if I understand it correctly I think I agree. Applying those designation to coins as struck makes more sense. From the nickels I’ve seen it’s not like the weak strike on the steps is only in a small area that a contact mark would disguise. It would of course make the designation easier to get and have a negative effect on values, but I still prefer the as struck definition. After all a contact mark large enough to hide a weak strike should result in a details grade anyway.
I haven't brought it up, but in all of my 75 years, I have never seen a "red" nickel. Am I missing something?
You've steps all over those and whether they're full or just shy of full any potential bidder can see them. I'd value them accordingly. A few could get full someplace else. I believe the opinions here are somewhat although unwittingly biased knowing going in PCGS failed them. You shouldn't have told us that. Nice coins you got there.
I guess we have to come up with some extreme standards when trying to distinguish the upper echelons of recent modern coinage. But as an outsider looking in, it seems a bit over the top to implement a whole tier of grading criteria for a feature that requires a microscope to even observe. I don't know about everybody else, but I do not normally utilize a microscope when enjoying my collection. That being said, since I can't see it anyway, the tier of grading that I'd have to pay for would amount to nothing more than some designation on the slab ("FS" in this case). I do, however, see the allure in this. When there are so many fantastic looking examples of the thing that you want to collect, then you'll feel motivated to seek out a feature that separates your collection from the rest. But in cases like this, I feel that I would benefit overall from not getting caught-up in the first place. Matter of personal opinion of course, each to their own.
Thank you everyone for your replies. I appreciate it a lot. I'm aware I could probably get a lot of the stuff I grade for cheaper for my registery but I prefer to grade stuff myself.
My experience with PCGS is that if there is a mistake on an order that they notice, like on shipping, value, tier, acceptable grade range, arithmetic, etc., they contact you to correct the situation prior to grading the coins. Once questions have been answered and/or mistakes rectified, then grading occurs. That said, you can make mistakes on the form that won’t get flagged, like forgetting to check Gold Shield if you want it, checking reconsideration when what you really wanted was regrading, etc. Variety attribution is tricky. Some varieties get done automatically at no extra cost, like small vs large date on 1864 2 cents or regular vs capped die on 1879-CC Morgans. Other attributions you have to pay for, and they are listed on www.pcgs.com/varietyfaq. Things like FS, FB, PL, RD, etc. are not considered varieties but “designations”. When they are considered appropriate, they will be applied automatically to the numerical grade at no extra cost. Cal
Cherd, posted: "I guess we have to come up with some extreme standards when trying to distinguish the upper echelons of recent modern coinage. But as an outsider looking in, it seems a bit over the top to implement a whole tier of grading criteria for a feature that requires a microscope to even observe." I disagree. Material objects of any kind can be ranked as to how clow to perfect they are. For example, some folks are either too ignorant to know what goes into a "perfect" wine or they don't care. Other folks, experience "that something" just once and try to find it again. There are perfect coins. Some folks want the best there is. A full, sharp, unmarred design is one of those things. Any of the designations mentioned can be seen easily with "young" eyes or 4-6X so there is no need for a microscope. I guess you were trying for humor. "I don't know about everybody else, but I do not normally utilize a microscope when enjoying my collection. That being said, since I can't see it anyway, the tier of grading that I'd have to pay for would amount to nothing more than some designation on the slab ("FS" in this case). I do, however, see the allure in this. When there are so many fantastic looking examples of the thing that you want to collect, then you'll feel motivated to seek out a feature that separates your collection from the rest. But in cases like this, I feel that I would benefit overall from not getting caught-up in the first place. Matter of personal opinion of course, each to their own." I agree!
Where we've been failed with respect to this is the quantization of strike quality into "full" and "not full" for a few coin types where we all know that it's a continuum. For these types, the strike has also been separated from the coin's grade, where for others it has not. If you are buying Buffalo Nickels, Walking Liberty halves, or 1921 Peace dollars, you look at overall quality of strike as it compares to what's average and adjust your willingness to pay accordingly. If TPGs start assigning yes/no full strike designations to these, this part of the judgment process goes away.
