Featured GTG: 1922-D Lincoln Wheat Cent - there's gonna be a fight

I definitely don't like how they can take an AU details coin and arrive at a VF-35.

But I really like when the EAC graders explain in detail *why* the value is what it is (and after all, a grade is just a value, right? )

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

That net grade is value grading, plain and simple. Just like the toning bumps for high-end coins. The sharpness grade is technical grade.

 

Well, it was broken out of a PCGS holder that said "No D."

Here is this VERY COIN getting cracked out just so I can get a "No D" to fill that dumb hole in the Lincoln Dansco album:


Like the odd grading for the coin you posted, I guess, PCGS gets a lot things wrong, don't they?

 

Go to Heritage and do an archive search for "1922 1c weak vf25." There's a coin that sold for $400+. It's a No D that says "Weak D" on the holder.

 

Are you making fun of my coin?

Coins have feelings, too, you know.

(You said that there's gonna be a fight, so I figured that I ought to get this party started...)

 

The market sets the price, not the grade.

 

I'm putting the relationship of grade and value first: Marshall, posted: "The market sets the price, not the grade."

This is one reason why coins formerly graded XF are now graded MS and
sell for $,$$$,$$$ and most are OK with that easily provable FACT!

Thus, considering a coin's value when assigning a grade is probably the main reason the simple act of grading a coin has become complicated and subject to major swings and disagreements.

physics-fan3.14, posted: "...(and after all, a grade is just a value, right?"

No, No, and heck NO.

I understand this way of thinking. It has been foisted on all of us. If I ask a class, why do we need grading 99.99% will answer: "To put a value on it!" Just because that is the case, it does not make it true. A coin's condition is skewed by any attempts to value it. See quote below:

TypeCoin971793, posted: "That net grade is value grading, plain and simple. Just like the toning bumps for high-end coins. The sharpness grade is technical grade."

Ideally, grade the coin and let the market put a value on it as they do already! All MS-65's are not equal.

 

@C-B-D do some buffalo nickel GTGs and see how quickly the pitchforks come out!

 

I think actually have one that I submitted to PCGS and it came back Altered Surfaces. So I cracked and sent to NGC and they called it MS64. Lol

 

Paid opinion is what it amounts to. All being subjective. That's one thing that's really wrong with the authenticating services. It should be one standard but it's not.

 

Modern sellers like to gamble on cracking out coins and resubmitting them. They just keep doing it until they get the grade they want. This provides the TPGs with the incentive ti inflate the grade to meet customer demand. But if we know this, then we understand that knowledgeable collectors will also recognize the grade inflation. Some don't care and some, like myself, do.

I'd rather see an uninflated XF selling for more than adjusting it to an inflated MS62 at the same price. But too many buyers fail to understand the books the skim that tells them what value to assign to it at a particular grade. Those are premium, no problem coins. They now would almost universally receive CAC labels. Your XF details is less and often significantly less.

I understand the TPG lottery game and just disagree with it. But as long as people are willing to play along, inflation will continue. That 1960 VG6 details will become your 2060 XF 40. I just want the grade to stay consistent and the price to go up to reflect the market.

 

Probably much of the problem stems from being able to insure one's wares for some guaranteed amount. If you can't verify some value then insuring it can wind up biting you. Higher value is almost always assured via a slab. I don't particularly appreciate that but it's just the way our greedy world operates. If everyone wasn't trying to screw the other guy well, we wouldn't need these services. Everybody lies. Everybody exaggerates their stuff and everybody tries to whittle the other guys stuff down so they can get it for themselves. Greed is greed. It is what it is. Not much anyone can do about it.

 

The trueview looks overlit and.... terrible.

 

If only there could be one standard. Guess it's dependent on the dollars involved as it what it actually is. I would bet that if a person had this in some graded fashion, insured and then lost then submitted a claim that the insurance company would challenge the value (if it were high enough). Kinda makes the whole graded service companies seem something less than what they are (the final word). The ought to be ONE standard versus several that vary.

 

That's why grading should go through AI first, then human graders.

Charles Morgan of Coin Week wrote: "...the adoption of more formal standards of grading and, I believe, a hybrid approach where advanced artificial intelligence grades coins based on technical merit while human experts take factors such as eye appeal and market worthiness into consideration. Such an approach will be costlier, but in the long run it has the potential to smooth out many of the sins of our industry’s past. Technology that can revolutionize our industry exists and would be readily accepted by the market if it could demonstrably improve the product… the product being “certified coins”.
From: "The Future of Our Hobby"
https://coinweek.com/opinion/the-future-of-our-hobby/

 

Maybe that’s why they want a 100-point scale, so that they can raise the grade ceiling

 

I think we all agree that not all 65 are equal.

But you also cannot deny that the inventor of the Sheldon Scale was literally attempting to match grade to value. That is the fundamental basis of modern coin grading. The success of that scheme can be debated.

 

Sheldon was trying to establish a value where there was little market information available. But the Grade should not change. The point scale would. Two tweaks to his system is a basal value and a condition census premium. Changing the grade was never part of his system of value.

 

I agree that he was doing it in the reverse. What I'm trying to say is that there is a grade-value link, even today. For EAC grading, when they say it has AU details but nets to VF-35, what they are saying is "I would pay you VF-35 money for that coin."

 

Agreed.