Slab grade follies – from EF-45 in 1974 to MS-65 today

@gmarguli, after I calmed down, I will give you this answer. "Give me a break!" If that's your "professional opinion," then it's wrong. If the assigned grade were MS-62, you would have a market grading leg to stand upon. At the MS-65 grade, you are way off base.

Here is the acid test for you. The Grey Sheet says this coin is worth $125,000 in MS-65. The bid is $23,000 in MS-62. If you were buying this coin for inventory, would you pay the extra $100 grand for the difference or any part of it? The answer is no.

This is just the modern version of the same old game. Sell in the high grade; buy in the lower grade; "clean up" as a result. This was what was wrong with the coin market before third party grading got involved.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

You keep bringing price into the discussion, yet are railing against the grade increase. I'm sorry, but "this coin sold for $500 in 1974" sounds like you're about to tell us a story about how you walked to school uphill both ways in the snow. What something cost back then is meaningless. What something costs in an MS62 vs MS65 slab is meaningless. The market will set these prices and you pay it or you don't.

The only question is, based on current grading standards, is this coin an MS65. My opinion, based on what I can see and comparing this example to a dozen other MS64-66 examples is that this coin does qualify at the MS65 grade level. Other than the planchet flaws, it looks like a very nice coin.

And I don't think you (and most people) understand what market grading is. It is the marketplace telling the TPG what the grading scale should be. Every collector wants a gem. Therefore, the TPG create gems. If this level of quality coin was viewed as an MS62 by the TPG, then the selling price of MS62 examples would be $125,000. And what is an MS62 today would be graded AU55 and selling for $23,000. The same supply/demand is out there. Price isn't going to change across the board.

 

Doubled post.

 

Doubled up post.

 

No expert grade but I see a fair amount of wear on Liberty's hair that coupled with the rim digs seem to put this admittly very nice coin out of a mint state

 

@gmarguli, One of the points you made is that professional graders accuse the amateurs of getting hung up on small defects. Might I remind you that once you reach the MS-65 grade level, small defects are often deal breakers. As a dealer, you obviously know that.

We shall agree to disagree on the grade for this coin. I’d give it a market grade of MS-62 with a real grade of AU-58. The rim marks, especially the one at 6k, below the fraction on the reverse is post mint damage. On an MS-65 graded coin, priced at over $80,000, that would be a deal breaker for me.

It is unfortunate that you feel the need to defend TPG screw-ups. They exist. If they didn’t CAC would have never gotten a foothold in the grading service market.

 

Here is an S-21 that is graded PCGS MS-62, Brown. How does this compare? This piece is ex Dan Holmes and Byron Reed. This photo is down loaded from the PCGS site. The coin is now in my collection.



For what it's worth, Bill Noyes, the ultra conservative EAC grader gave this one an AU-50, net EF45. He gave the which started this discussion EF-45, net EF-40.

 

If the rim marks are post mint damage, I'd fully agree that MS65 is not a worthy grade. However, I will give the benefit of the doubt to the TPG that they are planchet flaws. On a coin of this caliber, you know that the TPG didn't just assign it MS65 the same way they assign an 80-S Morgan an MS65 grade. These are the coins that their best graders look at.

As for your coin, I admit it is very pleasing. The differences I see are that your coin has a slightly weaker strike, a few more surface marks, and for me the big killer, has minor environmental issues on both sides. I would have guessed your coin was graded slightly higher than 62.

 

The reason I say that the rim issues on the first piece are post mint damage stems from the fact that the one on the reverse at 6k has a hunk of metal that appears to be above the surface. If that had been there when the coin was struck, the die would have flattened it. The dentiles are really mangled in that spot.

NGC has issues sometimes with very expensive coins. When I was shopping for a 1796 No Stars Quarter Eagle for my type set, an NGC coin was available at one of the Baltimore shows. It was graded AU-55, but it had a lot of issues. I heard comments from several dealers on the floor that the piece was over graded. This coins draw attention when they appear at a bourse. The coin was priced much higher than this one at $175,000.

For the record, the 1796 Quarter Eagle in my collection is NGC graded, so I am not rejecting the brand name. All I am saying is that you need to look at every coin on a case by case basis.

 

Wow, this was just an awesome thread!. Can I have 2-3 minutes of my Saturday back?

 

That's incredible, John....this might be the most extreme example of gradeflation I've ever heard about, granted I'm not a full-time numismatist like many of you.

(1) Do you think that the gap from EF-45 to AU-58 was the bigger problem or the jump from AU-58 to MS-65 ? No official grading in 1974; TPG's came into being in 1986/87.

(2) Do you think regardless if it was a 1-time mistake or a consistent misgrading....could it happen on more popular coin series like Saints or Morgans as opposed to Early Cents ? I'd say no, but....

Brilliant observation !

So if you have a true MS coin of that type, it's got to be an MS-66 or MS-67 from the same TPG, right ? It presumably looks alot better and if they really consider the other coin an MS-65 -- that it truly reflects their grading standards and not a 1-time mistake -- then a true MS-65 has to go higher.

Of course that begs the question....was it a 1-time mistake or a consistent grading approach ?

 

Isn't it fairer to say this is an outlier...an extreme case...and that in most cases....TPG certifications/grades NARROW the range of guestimates of what a coin should be graded at and sold at ?

Nothing is perfect, including grading.

 

The EF-45 grade was too conservative, even in 1974. That's not the problem. The problem is jumping from AU-58 or MS-62, which could be OK under today's grading standards, to MS-65.

MS-65 for early large cents like this is a super premium, super rare grade (when assigned properly) that should be reserved for what is truly the very best or close to it. The $125,000 catalog value reflects that. When you over grade these coins, even by one point, it allows too much play in the price. It makes you think you are getting bargain, at a 5 figure price, when you are not.

That is tough to say. Both of the major services make grading mistakes. Sometimes it's too low, but more often it's too high. The over graded items are the type of thing that sits in a dealer's inventory forever or ends getting consigned to auction.

There it depends upon what the bidders think of it. It is over graded, but attractive, it might go for a high bid. If it's a mess, it might get bought in for another try, or it might be one those bargains you think you missed until you see a good picture of the coin or see the piece in person.

 

I agree. That coin should be AU55-58. 62 with the issues and porosity would be a "not really like but not going to fall on a sword over" grade. 65 is an insult.

 

For the MS-65 grade, this might be an outlier. The services are usually quite strict when it comes to MS-65 or higher for something that is really rare in that grade. This coin is among the finest known for the Sheldon variety, but not among the VERY FINEST KNOWN for that Sheldon number. Noyes rates it as # 11 or # 12. Putting MS-65 on it is a bit of sticking your neck out. That means you have to call the best one MS-67 or 68. Early large cents almost don't exist in those grades.

For lower grades, it can be another story. I have seen some very disappointing scarce coins in low end Mint State and AU holders.

 

Why are we having so much trouble determining if it is AU vs. MS ?

If we can't even agree if it was circulated or not, then quibbling over numbers is ridiculous.

Does it have wear or not ?

 

It's not Mint State, but you can't buy AU-58 graded coins like this unless it's in a very old holder. The coin I posted in the MS-62 holder is an AU-58 in my opinion, but AU-58 is not what it used to be. Now you pretty much have to pay Mint State money to get the real AU-58.

 

I hear you sir, but that is not the game anymore. Honestly I support it if they only come out and say it and not lie still saying "BU" or "AU". Just list the number grade. They are moving to a point where the number grade is it, and uncirculated or not is irrelevant. Basically, trying to overcome the original sin in US grading, that being dividing all coins in BU or Circ, with BU by definition a "higher grade". I would choose most of my 58's I used to collect over most 63s, since they were simply nicer looking coins. A big old ding is not "better" than a touch of wear on the highpoints.

Having said that, this is not a 65 to me in any regard.

 

For those people saying the coin is not an MS65, I'd love for you to defend your reasoning without pointing to what it graded in the past. Based on current MS65 grading standards, what about this coin precludes it from receiving that grade in your expert opinion?

 

I do not care what others say it graded in the past. I see obvious high point wear and porosity. I do not think either belong on a gem.