Technical Grade vs. Eye Appeal

Photos would be better if you can, scans can be weird to read especially if people assume that it's a photo

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Yeah, well, I don't have the equipment or the time or space to do photos. Scanning is easier for me and I don't have to worry about lighting or focus or other technical stuff. I guess I could clean the image up in software, but that wouldn't show how the coin looks anyway.

 

If you have an iPhone or smart phone the pictures are just as good and often better than camera setups

 

Yeah, I have neither and don't need them.

 

@Coinsandmedals Great thread, here's an example of a coin I purchased raw and NGC graded AU53:



Here's an NGC AU55 version that sold for a couple hundred more dollars than I paid for mine:



I'll let you guess which coin I'd rather have

 

I have noted on other forums that P and N have trouble IMHO in grading consistency with Vicky proofs. I looked extensively at TWO deep cameo 1839 half crowns; one was 63 and the other 67 - the 63 is still posted on the PCGS census but not the 67. They appear to be equal in hand and in picture in all types and angle of lighting.

The problems are even worse for 20th Century 1920s-1950s Matte Proofs so buyer beware. Some are graded as low as 60 and every bit the equal of others graded as high as 66 & seems to either be vagaries day to day of grading or ??perhaps other factors that I will not name. Many instances that I continue to see year after year.
I looked at this specimen in hand and NO hairlines. The possible scratch, for example, on neck is a raised scratch from die; the reverse can be seen on PCGS census. Just one example...Incidentally the underlying "9" is over struck over a far right "9".

 

Under those assumptions, B, every time.

 

Definitely eye appear. This reminds me of one of my favorite purchases: a 1908-S gold eagle in PCGS (green label) XF-40. Despite the circulated grade, it's gorgeous and evenly worn; much better than the AU-50's I see floating around these days.

 

Hard to really convey the color, it's actually an attractive lavender tone that is splashed in an irregular fashion across the surfaces of both sides. Happens to be the Star variety. The No Star variety is a nearly all white. If there are more than one example of a design in the collection, it becomes less important if one coin has somewhat unusual coloration provided it is original, which in this case is very true. Were it a case of only one example of a design, I would probably hold out for something lustrous and very little tone. As for the grade, it's irrelevant because both coins were purchased raw then submitted for grading. MS63 and MS64 respectively.

 

@Insider ?

 

Eye appeal counts most in my world. Some TPG MS-64s look not as nice as German graded Fast St. (AU)

The Regensburg AV Dukat is German graded fast. st.
while the Koln AV Goldgulden is MS-64

 

Super looking coins, what does the obverse of the Regensburg piece look like?

 

Sorry, here it is: features the Doubleheaded Habsburg Eagle.

 

One aspect of how the TPGs grade that I don't particularly agree with is the grading of prooflike surfaces that are too impaired to get the PL designation. I typically consider prooflikes to have the eye appeal of a matte coin several points higher, so I find the grading to usually be too severe for the appearance.

Here's my example of the Austro-Hungarian 1848E ducat. Though it did not get the PL designation, the surfaces are fully mirrored. As such, the surfaces show light marks much more than on a matte coin. It is graded NGC MS60 (formerly PCGS MS61), however, this is a coin that takes my breath away on its eye appeal. In hand, the coin appears well struck, the fields are fully mirrored with heavily frosted devices, and the cloudiness is not distracting.




This next example is not my coin, but one that I noticed came up on Heritage earlier this year. It is the same as the above issue, but was graded MS64.




For an alternate view:
https://www.ngccoin.com/certlookup/4492501-012/64/

Now the 64 is a nice example, but to me, the hits in the obverse fields and the overall bagginess of the bust and weaker strike make the eye appeal worse than my MS60 example, and because of that I passed on this 4 point upgrade.

 

Here is my ....
Austro-Hungarian Empire
AV 4 Dukaten 1848-A Vienna Mint
Kaiser Ferdinand V 1835-48

I got this from Spink Auctions as a FDC Wonder what grade it would get from NGC

 

Agree on the PL thing, given a choice between two coins, I will happily accept a coin a point lower with PL fields especially when it is almost always seen frosty. For me, doesn't even need the TPG attribution, the coin itself speaks louder than anything they could say so it doesn't matter. Coin was from Lance Tchor.

 

Here's another couple PL coins missing the designation from Lance.

 

The TPGs are NOT gospel. They bring some levity to grading, but they IMO are not always equitable in grading either matte proofs or currency specimens with PL characteristics.
Unfortunately, they are relied upon, and perhaps overly so - and this is supported time and time again at auctions and sales.
It certainly is my hope that collectors (OK, others as well) will look at individual coins carefully, regardless of the slabbed grade.