UK 1 penny toned

That is obnoxious. I don’t collect other people’s opinions. I collect coins with value. Certified coins are generally more valuable than their uncertified counterparts. You are fairly new here. There are lots of serious collectors, who are quite experienced. We grade just fine. Many of us collect what we like, and what we consider worthwhile to own.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Sorry if you take offence at that, as it wasn't intended. All I was saying is that a coin with a TPG label is another person's opinion, because the person submitting doesn't have a say in the grade assigned. Any person buying the label is buying an opinion independent of their own. Yes, all coins have some value and the US does attach a premium to slabbed coins over raw, such is the market. Yes I haven't posted a great deal on here, but that is not important and yes there are plenty of serious collectors not just here, but across the world who can grade. Hopefully we all (not just many) collect what we like rather than being told what to do. At the end of the day it is just a hobby.

 

You need to work on your grading if you think your 61s are better than your 65s either that or you're talking about basement slabbers.

Complete nonsense. There is not lottery to submitting

 

I didn't say my 61s are better than my 65s, I said I have had coins with 61 labels that were better than (a similar type) in a 65 slab. The coins in question were NGCs which I presume doesn't fit the label of basement slabber. Most of the time they are in the right ballpark relatively speaking, but the inconsistencies are frequent enough to ensure caveat emptor applies.

I said resubmitting shows the process to be a lottery. If the grading process was definitive, you could never get a different grade on a resubmission. If you resubmit and get a different grade then you have to wonder is it the first or the second that is right or wrong? Are they both wrong (because both can't be right)? I understand fully why resubmissions occur because bigger numbers mean bigger bucks, but that doesn't mean the revised higher or lower grade is right. It just happened to be the opinion on the day.

 

They wouldn't which would go back to my initial statement about understanding grading more. There's basically no 61s that would ever look better than a 65 unless the person is missing something about it. 61 isn't a good grade, it's often a coin dangerously close to being a details coin. There are 58s being held back by a tiny little bit of rub where arguements could be made, but barring a mistake like a mechanical error I've yet to see a 61 that looked better than a 65.

Again that is completely false. There are plenty of coins that are borderline that can go either way on any given day depending on what the grader values more. Grading is and always will have subjective aspects and just because a grade chance change and still be right doesn't mean it's a lottery

 

This will go round in circles with neither convincing the other, so I suggest we agree to differ and move on.

Probably best not start a discussion around details coins and what should or should not have been.

 

OK, I will tweak the bull on this bit:
I try not to toot my horn, but there are some sub-series in the British later milled that I may know something about, and in conjunction with some of the most respected dealers and experts in the area have really wondered about what is sometimes appears a lottery system with regards to TPG grades in these series. Examples would include 20th century matte coins, Victorian 3d where they just do not get types right, or grades for that matter, and on a frequent basis; not only that, they do not listen to educated input or to documentation as to type and many times make errors as to what is frictional cleaning to the coin post strike (as opposed to, say, die prep) which seems to be obvious but I guess is not. Certainly, caveat emptor! And know your coins...