Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;GDJMSP, post: 2662799, member: 112&quot;]I have no doubt that it does, but are those 62&#039;s really 62&#039;s ? </p><p><br /></p><p>Ya see, you can&#039;t just look at the numbers on the slabs and assume the grade is accurate. Your own words prove that, for how could a 60 look as good as a 62 ? And when were those 62&#039;s graded ?</p><p><br /></p><p>It&#039;s truly a complicated situation. When you started this post you titled it as being about coins in old holders. You did that because, you just like most other people accept and believe that coins in old holders would be upgraded if they were graded today. In other words in old holders are a good thing.</p><p><br /></p><p>But what are you acknowledging when you think that way ? You are acknowledging that grading standards have changed, and changed drastically. Some people don&#039;t even realize they are doing that, others do. </p><p><br /></p><p>If you go back far enough on this forum you&#039;ll find where I used to say that I agreed with the grade assigned by a TPG about 85% of the time. But yet in today&#039;s world I will say that the TPGs over-grade, and sometimes grossly over-grade, about 90% of the time. That&#039;s a complete 180, in fact a bit more than 180 !</p><p><br /></p><p>Now my grading standards haven&#039;t changed, but the TPG grading standards sure have. They have become much looser and much more lenient. And the fact that you yourself believe that those coins being in old holders is a good thing, proves that you believe the same thing I do ! The same thing pretty much everybody believes, but yet they fail to consider it and take it into account when they compare coins. </p><p><br /></p><p>You asked what I&#039;d grade that coin, OK, let&#039;s talk about the coin. Look at it, in particular the obv, but you will see some of it in the rev too. See the black crud caught around some of the legends and stars ? Well how do you suppose that black crud got there ? What we call black crud is nothing more than a combination of ordinary dirt and grime combined with body oils from people&#039;s fingers and hands. And there is absolutely no denying that it is there on the coin. But if the coin were truly uncirculated then how did the black crud get there ? That&#039;s your first clue that the coin is over-graded - even based on pictures.</p><p><br /></p><p>Now look at the cheek, and the jaw line, and the small area just behind the corner of the lips. See how much darker those areas are, how the luster is broken ? There&#039;s even a little bit of it on the hair in front of the headdress. It&#039;s pretty hard not to see it. That&#039;s wear, plain old ordinary wear. </p><p><br /></p><p>Couple that with the black crud that could not possibly have formed on an uncirculated coin, and you know, just plain know that the coin is not unc !</p><p><br /></p><p>So what would I grade it ? The wear is minimal, I don&#039;t really see much of it anyplace else except for a tiny bit in the fields just in front of the neck, so I&#039;d probably give this one a 58 - based on the pictures. If I saw it in hand I might drop that to a 55, but that&#039;s a maybe.</p><p><br /></p><p>In today&#039;s world, coins that are graded 60, 61, 62, 63 and even some 64s - are really nothing but AUs. But back then, when these coins were graded, 85% of the time they were graded correctly. That all stopped in 2004, and it has only gotten worse since then, much worse.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in