ANOTHER overgraded PCGS Morgan

If you would have read what I said. Instead of going in for all out rebuttal. I said it has extraordinary luster.
64 Contact
65 for the Luster (that should be the bump)
A plus for the toning.

The market has a job and that is to take accurately graded coins and give them extra money.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

The problem is though too many people struggle with pictures and realizing that seeing a dinner plate sized coin on the computer monitor is looking at a huge magnification ect. Not to mention the anti or I am the best grader agendas that come up and people commenting on series they really shouldn't be ect.

I can see a learning potential with newer collectors on circulated coins, but mid to high MS is a fools game off pictures alone to have definitive conclusions.

 

I don’t know man, people usually are pretty close to my guess the grades which are almost always mint state coins. It also helps to understand how each member grades. You can tell the people who are punitively conservative like Doug, as well as those who are in tune with TPG market grading practices like you and me.

Your point about the oversized photos is well taken though. I think I’m going to start including a slab shot (not label) in my GTG threads.

 

I too agree that both services color bump although PCGS often does so more than NGC. With that said, I very much have a problem with color bumping. Many toned collectors nowadays consider the TPG grade and then factor a premium over it for color; thus, it becomes a premium on a premium that is already built into the grade. Sometimes even a single point can create huge disparities. I know you will respond that collectors will simply adjust based on the coin, but the problem is that you - like me - are old school and actually learned how to grade coins. This is sadly becoming a rarity. It scares me but a very small percentage of dealers and an even smaller percentage of collectors can actually grade without plastic and foil crutches.

Put another way, there are probably a few collectors out there that will pay a premium over MS67 money for that "monster" (and not in a good way) coin in the OP. Normal MS67 money would be a burial on something like this. While I think the coin in the OP is an extreme example, before the most recent tightening PCGS was handing out 2-3 point color bumps like candy for true monster quality coins which is ridiculous. At that point the TPG is grading the color and not the surfaces, etc.

 

I am kind of throwing the baby out with the bath water myself. I will definitely concede some coins are much better evaluated from a picture than others it would be foolish for me not to admit that. The picture size thing is usually what gets me the most when its some minor hit that has been blown up so much ect.

 

“PCGS is right because they have to be right because they are the experts.”

Hmmm... does that not sound like blatantly circular logic from someone trying to promote blind faith in the slab?

Considering baseball tried to defend PCGS for this coin, he either does not know how to grade or will simply stop at nothing to promote PCGS’s decisions as flawless. Look at that tooling in front on Liberty’s face and the screwdriver hits along the neckline.



And when he does offer an opinion on grade that is proven incorrect, he will simply evade the attention by attributing his mistake on (inappropriately) using someone else’s standards.

 

So many people try and prove them wrong to make money. It’s comical really

 

I have already come to the conclusion that both of those are true.

Maybe one day he could actually think for himself. We could only hope.

I can already read his next response.

"Do you actually think that you are a better grader of all series of coins than PCGS?"
That's one of his best.

@baseball21 Should I keep going, cause I could write a book.

How to deflect and change the conversation on Public forums.
A reflection taken from the posts of baseball21

 

are you or aren’t you a better grader than the TPGs and CAC?

It’s a simple question

If you can’t say yes and prove it....... ride on feelings train ride on

 

Actually, that is one of my quotes and it’s true. After you declared that wear is damage, why should we take anything you say seriously?

Baseball21 is reasoned, logical, and knowledgeable. It’s funny that you and TypeCoin try to cast him as a koolaid drinker when it’s obvious to the entire forum that you are both haters with an axe to grind.

 

It’s a loosing battle trying to have reasonable logical factual based conservations with some people.

 

You know damn well that both TPGs make allowances for problems in 18th century & early 19th century coinage that they don’t make for more common coins from the 19th & 20th century. This includes tooling, scratches, and cleanings. In fact, I would be more impressed if you could find one of these coins with minor surface issues that was actually graded as a problem coin.

You have an absolutist view to grading that allows you to criticize the TPGs, but secretly, you understand exactly why they straight grade coins like this, which reduces your rants to mere petulance.

 

I don't really understand the constant bickering over the "damaged" coin argument. It is all a semantic game that depends on how broadly one defines damage. Under a strict, hyper technical definition anything that results in the degradation/depreciation of a coin's quality is damage per se; however, that doesn't mean that it is not market acceptable and unworthy of a straight grade. Under this definition wear (loss of metal), bag marks, ticks, and hairlines, etc., are forms of mild damage/faults that are expected and accepted on coins. More extreme forms like tooling, holes, deep scratches, etc., are not. Of course that too is far from black and white which is why have net grading and market grading. Look at many of those seemingly PQ early federal coins carefully as many are silently netgraded for old cleanings that are almost ubiquitous for some series/issues. Of course, this is what the EAC folks have done all along but they have been more open about it. That's just my 2c.

Edited to add: Any more and more, I'm finding that the net gradings are not limited to early federal coinage either. Even CAC has acquiesced a bit. Its tolerance of scratches is one of my biggest pet peeves.

 

Name one respected numismatist who considers wear damage? My point was that Pickin & Grinin takes fringe positions.

 

There probably is some hardcore, purist EAC author/dealer out there somewhere that adopts a hard line position. It all depends on what one's definition of damage is. Ditto for defining coin doctoring, market acceptability, and a long list of other numismatic terms that are thrown around loosely without one agreed upon definition or standard. I guess I am opening a can of worms now.

P.S. Define "respected numismatist."

 

Someone who doesn't take fringe positions.

Define a fringe position: Someone who thinks Weimar White is right.

 

Fringe doesn't necessarily mean wrong. Copernicus and Kepler were once considered fringe figures too at one point. At this point, it should be obvious that I am having fun with the two of you and jerking your chain.

 

I was just about to ask you, don’t you sleep?

 

Insomnia is awful. Fortunately I have the luxury of having the week off.

 

Interestingly I find them to be ambivalent toward toning, which often drives me crazy.
Without the toning I would have graded this coin up a notch, certainly with regard to others in my collection. I often find them N grading coins that I think are not AT so that they stay on the safe side. This is one of my recent acquisitions and the obverse is well along in the toning process with deep purples, gold, and a little magenta thrown in. A little more and it might have made it to terminal or black and been ungradable.