I was hoping others wouldn't mind taking a look at this one from a previous auction and telling me if they misgraded it, or if a mark like the one on the front of the jacket would truly not stop a 67 grade if all else is good. I've always tossed coins like this aside as not going any higher than 65 even if the rest is perfect. Am I being too hard on my coins, or was NGC too easy on this one? Thanks in advance for the help! http://coins.ha.com/common/view_item.php?Sale_No=29042&Lot_No=22074#Photo
I am sure these guys don't mind joining heritage to check out the full-size images but I personally find all the info they need a little intrusive... sorry..
Dayriser- Many of the members here are already members of Heritage, so I didn't think they would mind logging in and taking a look. I would highly recommend joining though. You can get a wealth of information about grading by studying the images as well as auction values of coins.
Well Heritage has a good reputation generally... I was just surprised that they hype this free registration for all the additional features and then they ask for my ebay username and my paypal username... I understand that they are optional, but what in the world kind of business could they possibly have asking for those two things?.. It is almost worse that they make it optional... I might feel better if it were for some type of security verification or some such thing...
I am sure it has mostly to do with by your joining, they are allowing you to buy coins. Your past record of paying might have a little influence on how they handle you. jallengomez - In my opinion, that coin is overgraded.
I don't know much about grading, especially the differences between ms grades, but that grade seems high for a contact mark that noticeable.
Those graders make some good money for what they do. I don't. remember that when weighing our grades.
I'm pretty sure that is not a contact mark. If you look at the way the light plays on it, a shadow on one side and light on the other, that indicates that the mark is raised. A contact mark is not raised. I think that is a die chip. And if it is, then from a technical point of view the TPGs do not consider it as impacting the grade. It is ignored. Even so, I would still say the coin is over-graded.
Thanks Doug. I didn't think about it maybe being a chip. So technically though, if it were a contact mark, one that large should stop it from going past a 65 shouldn't it?
It should stop it form even getting a 65 IMO. Even if it IS a die chip. On that point I have a personal disagreement with the grading standards. To me, die cracks, die chips, of suficient size, and the like are flaws. And any flaw of that nature should stop a coin from being graded as Gem or above. The market disagrees with me on this.
I'm new at learning to grade, but I would think that technically die flaws should stop a coin from rising above a certain level. I have seen coins that had chips or cracks that I would be comfortable paying 65 prices for, but not higher than that. Once I get beyond 65 I want my coins increasingly more perfect; not just in post-mint marks, but also in die condition.
Well to me the market's theory is not logical. Coins are body bagged for planchet flaws that are beyond minor. Coin grades drop on coins with flaws - contact marks are flaws. Die chips and die cracks are also flaws, they can't be considered to be anything else. Yes, they are as struck and thus the coins with these flaws can be considered to be MS. But since other flaws limit the possible grade, these flaws should limit the grade as well. That would be logical. The only time that I would change my mind would be if an entire issue were only known with every example having the same flaws. In other words if every example of a certain date & mint had die cracks, or die chips then I could see the better examples achieving a high grade. But as long as there are examples known that do not have the die cracks, or die chips - then the ones that do should not be treated the same.
Doug, How about examples where the flaw is large enough that it is a collectible error, such as a cud? Do you think these top off around 64 or so as well, or should they be graded in a "the rest of the coin is a **" manner?
To me errors are no different. For example, grading a coin that is struck off center so that you have half the coin's image and half a blank planchet as MS is beyond rediculous. Yes, it may be as struck, but gimme a break.
