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

Discussion in 'US Coins Forum' started by C-B-D, Sep 21, 2019.

  1. Insider

    Insider Talent on loan from...

    C-B-D, posted: "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."

    The "Altered Surface" grade is very deceptive because A/S includes anything from "market acceptable" to "fraudulently doctored." Apparently the TPGS's disagreed or one :eggface: may have missed something obvious! :jawdrop::facepalm:

    Prez2, posted: Paid opinion [from knowledgeable professionals] is what it amounts to. All [grading not authentication] being subjective. That's one thing that's really wrong with the authenticating services. It should be one standard but it's not."
     
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. Prez2

    Prez2 Well-Known Member

    Deceptive marketing fits. I just wish there could be one solid standard. One paid person's opinion over another though is what we have. All about salesmanship over everything else is certainly par for the course though.
     
  4. Insider

    Insider Talent on loan from...

    Prez2, posted: "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."

    There CAN NEVER be a grading standard. Grading is less strict than it once was and that killed any attempt at precision. When a coin can be professionally graded "X" and a month later graded "Y" by the same TPGS we have a huge problem. Besides, when a grading standard was presented to the public - most refused to follow it!

    physics-fan3.14, posted: "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.

    Yes, the problem in a nutshell. At the time it was published and decades afterwards, the descriptions for each grade in the Sheldon system were very clear and VERY STRICT. That's the strict grading that formed the basis for the TRUE "Technical Grading System." Value had nothing to do with determining the grade - only the condition of the coin as described in the Sheldon System was important for each grade. The fact that Sheldon then brought a way to guess a coin's value by using multipliers like 6X or 30X HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DESCRIPTION FOR EACH GRADE! I'll guarantee that 90% of the members of this website have NEVER read those (now outdated due to commercial interests & gradefation) descriptions! I'll also guarantee that 99% of the collectors/dealers in the USA, NEVER CONSIDERED what I just wrote. We have all been taught that a coin's grade determines its value.

    The fact that all MS-65 are not worth CLOSE to the same amount of money proves there is a flaw in the "Commercial" system as devised by GREEDY :hungry::greedy::D COIN :hungry::greedy::shifty: DEALERS :smuggrin::p who had both hands, both feet, and their face in the "grading pie! :jawdrop::wideyed:"
     
  5. Prez2

    Prez2 Well-Known Member

    Then a universal value can never be obtained. Pity. That virtually insures corrupt behavior, making accurate insurance protection impossible.
     
  6. kaosleeroy108

    kaosleeroy108 The Mahayana Tea Shop & hobby center

  7. -jeffB

    -jeffB Greshams LEO Supporter

    Ed, you're logged in as the wrong alt.
     
    Johndoe2000$ likes this.
  8. Johndoe2000$

    Johndoe2000$ Well-Known Member

  9. schnickelfritz48

    schnickelfritz48 Well-Known Member

    How's this, a split grade, AU-55 obverse, VG-8 reverse. What does one do in situations like this, the 1922-D is a prime example.
     
  10. Johndoe2000$

    Johndoe2000$ Well-Known Member

    It seems you grade it MS63. :woot:
     
    C-B-D likes this.
  11. Prez2

    Prez2 Well-Known Member

    Nah you just keep sending it in till you get the grade you like.
     
    Marshall likes this.
  12. Michael K

    Michael K Well-Known Member

    In the true view there are gouges in this coin which should disqualify it from mint state. Even if the die was so old and worn it put those gouges there, it doesn't matter there is too much metal missing.
    Between the N's on the reverse and under the E in LIBERTY on the obverse.
     
  13. Marshall

    Marshall Junior Member

    I have no problem arguing with the decisions of TPGs. They offer insurance, but their expertise is suspect.
     
    TypeCoin971793 and Johndoe2000$ like this.
  14. Mike Thorne

    Mike Thorne Well-Known Member

    Several pages ago, I assigned a grade of MS62 BN to the OP's '22-D. Thus, I wasn't surprised that it had received a grade of MS63 from PCGS. To all of you who assigned a grade based on the lines in the wheat stalks, without regard to how the coin looked otherwise, I'll tell you about an experience I had many years ago. While visiting a coin shop in Houston, the proprietor showed me a roll of BU 1926-D Buffalo nickels. Each coin had blazing mint luster, no hint of wear, and an amount of horn on the buffalo that would require a grade of VG8 if you were slavishly committed to grading based on the amount of horn. These coins were at least MS65, but they had a terrible strike, which was often a problem in the '20s at branch mints. That's why you need to study and read the grading guides and look at thousands of coins.
     
    Johndoe2000$, chascat and C-B-D like this.
  15. Britany

    Britany New Member

    Is a 1903 Indian head penny worth anything?
     
  16. C-B-D

    C-B-D Well-Known Member

    A dollar in Good to Very Good condition. Please start a new thread with pictures instead of starting a new topic on this one. Thanks and welcome!
     
    Sunflower_Coins likes this.
  17. C-B-D

    C-B-D Well-Known Member

    Different die pairs, though.... Die I verses die III.
     
    Johndoe2000$ likes this.
  18. whopper64

    whopper64 Well-Known Member

    AU55 due to 1922 being a lousy year for strikes. There seems to be wear around the necktie.
     
  19. C-B-D

    C-B-D Well-Known Member

    10721673-7E6B-43BA-A3B8-A83C03D1F4ED.jpeg
     
    Sunflower_Coins and Johndoe2000$ like this.
  20. Johndoe2000$

    Johndoe2000$ Well-Known Member

    This pic looks better. After my brutal lesson I've learned on this thread anyway.
    Thanks for the education @CBD. (and everyone else that participated also)
     
    C-B-D likes this.
  21. TypeCoin971793

    TypeCoin971793 Just a random guy on the internet

    I’m talking about the marks and the like
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page