Question about grading standards for Proof Morgans

gmarguli, posted: "Right, we just call those Specimens today."

Yep, another "gimmick" some of the time.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Hello Insider. This is an easy one to answer. If you take a Perfect Mint State 70 Silver Eagle and cut it perfectly in Half, you, now, no longer have a MINT STATE coin. You have a Post Mint Damaged coin which can Never be graded any grade. It is an altered coin and in this case it is an altered coin to look like a perfectly split planchet. I would put it in an ICG "For Educational Purposes" holder without grade to use to educate collectors on how a coin can be altered to look like a rare error. As an example, let us take an MS-63 1879 Indian Cent and skillfully alter it into an 1877 rarity. The die characteristics for an 1879 do not match the die characteristics for an 1877. ICG would encapsulate this coin without grade "For Educational Purposes". Although this example mentioned was an MS-63 1879, it is no longer gradable once it is PMDed and altered. I can see no logical reason why a TPG doesn't put a numerical grade on a problem Uncirculated or circulated coin. Unless they don't really know how to Details numerical grade by their standards. To use UNC Details without saying an MS Grade is like a weather man saying there is a 50/50 chance of snow. If it snows, he's right and if it doesn't snow, he's right. Now let me stand corrected, ICG is another TPG that gives a numerical DETAILS grade for details coins. I just checked some of my ICG Details coins.

 

Typo.....I meant 1907 High Relief Saint-Gaudens.....left out 1907 HR....NGC recognizes them, PCGS does not.

Covered in-depth in RWB's new magnus opus on Saints.

 

I think they did, GD.....here's a link for an auction of an NGC Proof High Relief Saint where PCGS says they don't catalog them:

NGC PF 62+ [Proofs Are Not Recognized by PCGS]

https://www.pcgs.com/auctionprices/item/1907-20-high-relief-wire-edge/9135/6209371940553985241

 

Bob Evancho, post: 5405582, member: 84595"]Hello Insider. This is an easy one to answer. If you take a Perfect Mint State 70 Silver Eagle and cut it perfectly in Half, you, now, no longer have a MINT STATE coin. You have a Post Mint Damaged coin which can Never be graded any grade. It is an altered coin and in this case it is an altered coin to look like a perfectly split planchet. I would put it in an ICG "For Educational Purposes" holder without grade to use to educate collectors on how a coin can be altered to look like a rare error. As an example, let us take an MS-63 1879 Indian Cent and skillfully alter it into an 1877 rarity. The die characteristics for an 1879 do not match the die characteristics for an 1877. ICG would encapsulate this coin without grade "For Educational Purposes". Although this example mentioned was an MS-63 1879, it is no longer gradable once it is PMDed and altered. I can see no logical reason why a TPG doesn't put a numerical grade on a problem Uncirculated or circulated coin. Unless they don't really know how to Details numerical grade by their standards. To use UNC Details without saying an MS Grade is like a weather man saying there is a 50/50 chance of snow. If it snows, he's right and if it doesn't snow, he's right. Now let me stand corrected, ICG is another TPG that gives a numerical DETAILS grade for details coins. I just checked some of my ICG Details coins."

TPGS do put grades on circulated coins with problems. MS problem coins are not graded numerically EXCEPT apparently by SEGS. I tried to explain the reason as best I could with an extreme example.

Here is the fact: IMO, any coin in any condition can be graded TECHNICALLY. That includes MS coins with problems as that SE: MS-70 cut in half. When you try to put a commercial value & GRADE on a problem coin in MS...

 

i understand your opinion. however, ms problem coins have certainly been graded. the label may not reflect it is a "problem", but it is graded.. market grading is the culprit in many cases, and not quite evaluating the coin thoroughly in the short time and grading load the grader has 9a thankless job) is also a cause.

would it happen with technical grading also? certainly.

imo, every coin should be graded technically, using agreed to standards that are not market grading standards as defined by the tpg/4pg, but by...say....the ana standards. at one time, pcgs used the ana standards, and even published same in the pcgs evaluation book.

i have long advocated that any tpg/4pg grader should be required to meet certain standards, and be issued an identification that certifies their ability, and every graded coin that is encapsulated should have an identifier that links it to the grader, so over time, the grader can be evaluated for minimum standards, and problem graders can then over time be identified and re-trained, etc. the grader should have levels of proficiency by series/types (error etc.) for the coins he/she is evaluating. the eyesight should be checked at a minimum 2x a year by a licensed ophthalmologist, for visual acuity, color spectrum, etc.
the certification would be good for employment by any tpg/4pg and/or other entities that would want to hire such persons-museums, banks (i am thinking financial instruments held as a family trust for example), and/or a hobbyist/collector/dealer if they want.

in my opinion, the tpg/4pg should not be applying a "commercial value" on a coin that is graded by the tpg/4pg.

that is simply making a market.

do they do so? of course. it is a business for profit.

it is still an opinion, no more and no less, and as such, it is rare there will be agreement.

 

charley, posted: "i understand your opinion. however, ms problem coins have certainly been graded. the label may not reflect it is a "problem", but it is graded.." [yes, and the TPGS decides market acceptability. The same coin is either Unc Details cleaned or MS-61 or 62] market grading is the culprit in many cases, and not quite evaluating the coin thoroughly in the short time and grading load the grader has 9a thankless job) is also a cause.

would it happen with technical grading also? certainly. [Agree, because that's what TRUE technical grading was designed to do - actually describe the coin's condition of preservation from when it dropped off the press.]

[This is the wish of many but it will never happen:] imo, every coin should be graded technically, using agreed to standards that are not market grading standards as defined by the tpg/4pg, but by...say....the ana standards. at one time, pcgs used the ana standards, and even published same in the pcgs evaluation book.

i have long advocated that any tpg/4pg grader should be required to meet certain standards, and be issued an identification that certifies their ability, and every graded coin that is encapsulated should have an identifier that links it to the grader, so over time, the grader can be evaluated for minimum standards, and problem graders can then over time be identified and re-trained, etc. the grader should have levels of proficiency by series/types (error etc.) for the coins he/she is evaluating. the eyesight should be checked at a minimum 2x a year by a licensed ophthalmologist, for visual acuity, color spectrum, etc.
the certification would be good for employment by any tpg/4pg and/or other entities that would want to hire such persons-museums, banks (i am thinking financial instruments held as a family trust for example), and/or a hobbyist/collector/dealer if they want.

in my opinion, the tpg/4pg should not be applying a "commercial value" on a coin that is graded by the tpg/4pg.

that is simply making a market.

do they do so? of course. it is a business for profit.

it is still an opinion, no more and no less, and as such, it is rare there will be agreement."

BTW, "details grading" that is now practiced by the TPGS is as close to technical grading that we can find today.

 

i understand, and that is one way of "looking" at it. "close", in the sense that primates are close to humans genetically.

 

the TPGS decides market acceptability.

Nope, the market does and the TPGs respond by changing their standards to what the market wants.

imo, every coin should be graded technically, using agreed to standards that are not market grading standards as defined by the tpg/4pg, but by...say....the ana standards.

The problem with this fantasy is that coin grading involves opinions. Even with so-called technical grading, it is still just an opinion. If the ANA standards had been updated to reflect what the marketplace wanted, they would still be the standard. The ANA failed to do this and their grading standards became obsolete.

i have long advocated that any tpg/4pg grader should...

You should be a California politician. Throw in a bunch of fees and you'd be right there.

 

the market certainly changed their standards. that does not convert to collectors/hobbyists receiving the standards they wanted.

you had a different opinion in the past, iirc. during the logic posits and hypotheticals discussions on another board, and the extended discussion prior to and because of and leading to the cac entity, you may remember mark and i posited that there is a need to identify less than stellar coins....details coins/problem coins damaged coins/questionable toning coins/cleaned coins, etc. you were in the for column.

we suggested returning such coins to the submitter in a little flimsy bag was denying the coin as genuine. the suggestion was that these coins be encapsulated as genuine, in the same encapsulation as graded coins. after all, the collector was paying the same money for the opinion. you were in the for column.

that discussion expanded to the subject of grading. we opined that anyone grading a coin for a tpg should be qualified using minimum standards. the suggestions were as i stated above, although what is stated above is an abbreviated version of what mark and i discussed.

the discussion extended dramatically upon the introduction by mark, of the concept of cac. i identified this as making a market. you may recall that there was significant opposition to the idea, for a host of reasons. but, the most important benefit was that the coins reviewed by cac would be of value to collectors, because the quality of grading and knowledge of the coins would improve, and competition would force the tpgs to consider quality over quantity, and customer satisfaction. you were all for that, and not so enthusiastic on the making a market part.

2 end points occurred ...the tpg in question started encapsulating the previously mentioned problem coins and identifying the coins as genuine, and cac was off and running, and making a market, including buying back a coin cac graded based on their market need.

in other words some improvement were made to the hobby. and you did not describe these improvement as fantasy then.

what you choose to identify as fantasy, is an ever continuing process of change, and the need to improve the offering of a business entity. opinions can be standardized, by strict requirements of minimum standards. we do so with almost all other professional financial positions. after all, is that not what a tpg grader is, and is offering via the opinion.....a decision that has financial consequences?
a financial planner gives an opinion. the cfp still has to conform to a very strict standard and be licensed. same with a real estate agent, a home builder, an insurance salesperson, etc. all give an opinion. the difference with the tpg/4pg model is no strict publicly stated financially responsible minimum standard for graders exists, and no disclosure of the qualifications of the grader exists, and there is no accountability. is it such a burden to require that a grader pass an ophthalmological exam? would you as a person submitting a coin not want that? why would you not want a method to track the record of grader of a coin, for verifying expertise? why would you not want the grader to have passed a minimum standard requirement for the coin series/type he/she is responsible for grading?

none of this is fantasy. it is good business and smart business and meeting customer expectations.

remember all the talk re. electronic grading? the sniffer? the robotic grading? all were based on one premise...improvement of the final product: the grading.

on the subject of ana: the standards were not changed to update what the market wanted, that is fallacy. the public elected a board that was hellbent on keeping up with the jones family, instead of sticking to the core standards that members wanted, which included wanting as much accuracy via technical standards as could be achieved, and with as much numismatic knowledge that could be continuously added.
the board chose profits, marketing and market grading, abandoning their sated mission. collectors/hobbyists were disappointed, again. so, the only path to follow left was the $ path, the market grading game, and here we are. their original technical grading standards are obsolete because collectors/hobbyists/dealers let them become obsolete, by not demanding quality and responsibility and standards of the tpgs/4pgs. we have met the enemy.....you know the rest.

i appreciate the humorous attempt to negate an opinion that does not agree with yours, but i am right where i should be: advocating improvements and change for the hobby.

i do not know what you are referring to by the phrase california politician, but i assume it is a method of condescension. i have experienced same before. i don't mind.

 

Can someone give an example -- GDJMSP or Insider I'd love to hear YOUR opinions -- of how market grading overtook technical grading in the grading of 2 large-field/devices popular coins, Saints and Morgans ?

Give us some examples of stuff that used to count against your grade that was treated more leniently after 2004 or in the present.

Because this wasn't quantified in the past, maybe it's something that you can't know until you see it in hand ? For instance, maybe decades ago Super Gem (MS-67 or higher) could not be given if you had 3 or more bagmarks or hairlines on the reverse or obverse. Or maybe it was 4 or more. Whatever...but today, it's more.

 

I don't think this directly answers your question, but have you seen Morgans in PCGS "rattlers" (their first generation holders)? Though not a large sample size, 90+% of the "rattlers" I own and have sent to CAC have gotten stickered. I'd say it was about 50% success for newer generation holders.

A better test of current vs old grading practices would be to crack a Morgan out of a rattler, resubmit it now, and see if it grades higher.

There's a general consensus that early PCGS/NGC grading was much more conservative than it is today. "Experiments" such as the ones described above bear that out.

Here's a recent example from my collection. 63 is a very conservative grade for this coin, I bet if I cracked it out and resubmitted now it would grade higher. I wouldn't do that though, because the premium of a rattler + CAC sticker is worth more in this case (the price between 63 and 64 isn't drastic for this date).

 

https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/1907-ex-hr-20-lettered-edge/9131

Ummmmmm.........

 

Yeah, I've heard that Rattlers and OGH holders pre-1995 sell for premiums because the grading standard back then was "tougher" which would also lead to a higher CAC sticker rate like you noted.

Well, in theory you'd want to do it with a larger sample size but I don't think we can find that many Morgans in Rattlers or OGH whose owners would want to do that.

Yup, and why identifying the years for various slabs was such a topic at sites like these before the TPGs put them up on their own websites.

Totally concur.

 

The 1907 EHR Saint would be considered a pattern, BB21, whereas the 1907 HR is considered a coin.

Yes, I think all the 1907 EHR's are graded as Proofs.....I think PCGS has one that is now graded PF69.

 

PCGS recognizes Proofs for the years they made them like Sandblast or Matte. There are lots of Proof Saints for various years.

It's just the 1907 High Relief that is debateable.