Coin Talk 70 grade Coin Contest - no prize just fun

This is exactly what I've been trying to tell him. Since there is a limit and a line drawn there is no reason to believe something can't be a 70. They are not zooming in indefinately until an imperfection is found. It is how the system works to form an 'opinion' from a gathering of opinions.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I appreciate it but that is not why I don't believe in a 70. I don't believe in it because it don't statistically exist. And FWIW, a photo 5 times blown up is much larger than the photo of the reverse eagle. That image is about equal to the size of the coin on my screen and is 640x480. 5 times that is 3200x2400, a lot bigger than any camera I'm aware of can take.

I guess my issue is here that we should know what we are talking out.

Prove it. Don't talk nonsense. Prove that those 70s are valid and differentiable from 69's. Show me the statistical data on both false positives and false negative of the process. If you can't show it to me statistically, I don't believe it. I don't want made up wouldabes shouldabes allegorical clap trap. Show me the data.


Ruben

 

A closed mind gathers no new infomation.

Then answer this question. What Grading Stander do you use for grading any other type of grade...such as F15?
If you use any of the grading systems that are in place today then you either have a closed mind, or you have lost your mind because you used to be a smart guy.

http://www.cointalk.org/showthread.php?t=42568&page=5
In that thread right there we see:

So lets say that you decide that you grade useing the ANA's Grading System. So you are telling me that if you have a coin that under 5x, heck with 5, 10x fits what is listed above it still can't grade 70??? I think you are a smarter man than that...

Speedy

 

This is approximately what a 5x look looks like to the naked eye on 1280 screen, with more fidelity of course: warning 3.6 million bytes

 

I agree. And there are a lot of closed minds here, and some of them without much data to substantiate their position. And some so brainwahsed by marketing that they refuse to even question if data is needed.

I'm telling you that I can not SEE any data that validates a 69 from a 70 nor do I have any other kind of evidence that there is a consistent difference between coins graded 70 and 69.

BTW - this is the wrong thread for this. This is the thread where we are posting possible 70's and to see if we can find any flaws which would disqualify them. By all mean, your welcome to participate. Show us you best ungraded coin.

Ruben

 

I have no idea what you are using for a screen, but my settings happen to be 1280 X 1024. Your pic is about 24 inches across on my screen. (It is kind of hard to measure since it is over 2 screen widths.) A 5X pic should be about 8.5 inches diameter so, I do not think you are there yet.

 

You keep saying it and I keep saying so what. If the standard is the naked eye, BOY a LOT of 69s are misgraded and should be 70's/

Ruben

 

Thank you Speedy I don't think op understand the
grading system How can any collector believe that there is no such think as a MS 70 coin ridiculous.I'm with you Speddy.


Jazzcoins Joe

 

So now your eyes are the official standard!?

 

what are you talking about. A coin is some 4 inches across and 5 times that in magnification is about 20 inches, not 8.5. Of course the image is square. screen doing 1280 pixils across and standard images have 72 px per inch

Its really simple math. Look at the original? Is it about the size of a silver dollar? Yes? OK multiply its pixel size by 5. That is a 5x loop.

What people are not used to is being able to see the entire coin at once at a 5x magnification


Ruben

 

this is argumentative without adding anything to the conversation. My eyes can objectively see 20/20. sometimes a little better actually. If you want to question eye site, see an ophthalmologist. You still haven't produces a shred of evidence that the 70 grade is verifiable and valid.

Ruben

 

Unless you have some weird coin, that is a 2006 silver eagle. They are 40.6 mm in diameter. 40.6 mm = 1.598 inches. 1.598 x 5 = 7.99 inches. I apologize. My 8.5 was off a little.

 

Nevermind.......I should have known better.

 

No. I just studied some proof ASE's of mine that you will see here shortly. One is out of the case. The pic has no plastic covering it. I have perfect vision so I can spot things that some may miss.

At first glance, one 2006 that I had never studied this hard before, looks absolutely perfect. It may have a very good shot at a 70 if I sent it in, BUT, if I tilt it at just the right angle (it actually takes the right reflection to see it) at the end of the hand, there is a thin, 2mm hazy area, that theoretically could cost it and drop it to a 69. This will not show up on a pic. Only in hand. It is the only flaw I could find on it but a flaw none-the-less. A grader would more than likely spot this.

Ok, we're about to become pic heavy so I hope everybody's got highspeed.

 

Oh, yes I have. Just look at the NCG and PCGS slabs. Therefore they exist. Now you, the accuser, have to prove that they are wrong. You have presented your case before a jury of your peers and, so far, no one agrees with you. So far you have succeeded in proving my case to everyone except yourself.

 

What do you think? Thanks

 

Roflmao

 

Shot at 10 megapixels

2006 Silver Eagle. Still in mint case, but plastic removed for the first time. This being the one I just mentioned. Look next to the out-stretched hand. There are 3 pieces of lint and a tiny imperfection on the surface that does not show up unless tilted. Likely a PF69 because of it. How it happened is anybody's guess.









And a 2008...







....PF70. Somewhat hard looking through the plastic but at any angle, I could not see any hits, nicks, scuffs, haze, grease marks or damage of any type on this. That is all the criteria that is required. Very simple. There doesn't need to be a statistical average.



2006 Commemorative

Plastic removed again. Look perfect? Nope. The surface of this coin has very minor problems. Tiny spots, barely visible in the pics on both sides. Therefore this could not get a PF70.

 

nuts.

I can't think of ONE coin that is 4 inches in size....

And that is why this thread is sooo off. It is next to impossible to grade from photos. To grade a coin correctly you must be able to see a coin in hand and move it around to get the light in the right areas. Without the coin in hand alot of coins would look like 70's. A coin might look DCAM but with turning it in the light you can see nicks and places where the CAM is missing, and that of course might take it down to CAM, or even just a number grade.

You have started a thread that will never prove a point, or disprove a point. Totally useless.

Such a question should always be answered by this question IMHO.

What do you mean by that? and what would you take as verifiable and valid evidence?

Speedy

 

Nice post, nice photos, nice proof. We should now attempt to guess what ridiculous response Ruben will offer. My guess is that he will tell you to crack it out, resubmit it, and see that it will grade PF69. I will pay the submission fee if you want just to silence him. I know I said you can't grade proof coins via photos, but I feel very confident that it will repeat as a PF70 just from viewing the photos. Confident enough to put my money where my mouth is. Ruben $100 plus the grading fee says that coin gets another PF70 if submitted. Looks like put up or shut up time.