Case Study: 1938-S PCGS MS68+ "FB" Dime $364,250 - Everything that is Wrong with Our Hobby

According to the NGC Census, these are the populations for 1938-S MS67

MS67: 78/2
MS67FB: 69/10
MS67*: 2/0
MS67FB*: 0/1

All I'm saying is that the toning an eye appeal of that coin makes it uncommon. And after a cursory glance at the MS67s and 68s in Heritage Archives, none of them even come close to the eye appeal of this coin.

https://coins.ha.com/c/search-resul...60+4048+75+76+1589&ic4=Refine-MintMark-102615

Yeah, this is the more concerning aspect of the situation. I can think of two likely explanations. First, PCGS changed their policy regarding monster toned premium gem examples and are starting to reward them with top pop grades in an effort to value/market grade them. The second, and much more concerning is related to whose inventory this coin resides in. I have a feeling that Legend has direct access to the grading process at PCGS and gets to make their case for what the grade should be, unlike every other submitter on the planet. They simply get too many coins to upgrade for it to be a coincidence.

As for your hypothetical situation about what to do when a superior example is found, that is one of those problems that they will deal with when it arises. The only MS69 Mercury Dimes I know of are the 39-Ds, and although I have my own personal preference as to which one is the best, I would be ok with the knowledge that it is tied in grade with the others in that group.

It would seem that the coin should have been awarded a gold sticker when it was in an MS67+ slab if they thought it was a solid MS68. This also concerns me with respect to the submitter. Legend has direct access to CAC as well.

I don't know why they don't publish it, but I certainly am not the first one who postulated that this is how they grade the top ranked and ultra rare coins. I remember reading about this many times on both the NGC and PCGS forums. The only guy who used to talk about this topic much on Cointalk was Leadfoot who goes by MikeinFL on PCGS.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I’ll concede that “common” was a poor word choice.

I’ll rephrase by saying that the first grading at 67 by NGC showed that they thought the coin was special but not among the very best. Later PCGS came to a similar conclusion before changing their mind and deciding it was up there with the best. All of these grading events happened in a short period (all are new holders and the earliest sale was only around a year ago in 2018).

I keep hearing that being “in the know” is a conspiracy. But when some of the same people-like you mentioned with Legend-keep getting upgrades (while at the same time complaining about other crack out artists in their market reports), it becomes at least a bit suspicious.

 

It is grade inflation, which many members deny exist. There is a clear motivation for the grading services in the form of a continued revenue stream.

 

On another note, I am not so much bothered by the jump from 67 to 67+ - it is within what I would dub a zone of plausibility. A 68 would be bad enough, but a 68+? The coin has beautiful color but is hardly faultless.

 

Only if you believe Laura. Laura claims that crack out artists are "bottom feeders" while she admits that she cracks coins out too. It is more of a "do as I say and not as I do" type of thing. This also explains why she found it necessary to trash the Coin Facts archives to hide multiple grading events.

I think part of her reaction on the CU Forums was because of her hatred of Hansen, but as arrogant as she is, you would have thought she would be bragging about it. Instead she distanced herself from the coin bizarrely. Part of me wonders whether this was a Legend/house coin. I have no proof of that, and it is pure speculation. It wouldn't surprise me. I have seen Legend Numismatics coins end up in Legend Auctions and vice versa.

 

I don't think I have ever heard any member deny that gradeflation exists. The irony of this example is that typically, most people blame gradeflation on a deliberate loosening of standards whereas I have always blamed the inherent subjectivity in grading along with the financial incentive that accompanies an upgrade. However, in this particular case, I think it is entire possible that PCGS has changed the way they grade monster toned registry quality coins. It isn't that they loosened the numerical standard, rather it is an attempt to value/market grade these coins based on how they will perform on the open market.

We have talked about this before, and this coin is just another example to add to the list. That said, I don't see anything that would prevent this coin from being in an MS67 holder if it were blast white, whereas the $100K Franklin had some pretty obvious bag marks.

 

It isn't just toned coins either. I once collected PCGS MS66 Liberty Head Nickels. Look at several of these (or at least pull images from auction archives) and you will see a world of difference between coins certified in the last 3-4 years and older coins (solid blue label and before). Go through the Great Collections archives and compare to Heritage and Stacks-Bowers and you'll find generic 65 FBL Franklins ending up in 67 FBL holders with alarming frequency. I can believe that there are a few "one offs" at times, but there is a very clear pattern.

 

Given the fact that Legend only deals with PCGS, it becomes even more suspicious IMO.

That said, based on the photos I have seen, I think the MS67+/MS68 grade is accurate. It is also a little concerning that all three times the coin was graded FB and CACed twice, yet the bands look a little questionable from the big photo at the start of the thread.

 

Said it before; I'll say it again...

There's a difference between collecting, and investing.

Nothing wrong with 'our hobby' - collecting. Probably lots of nefarious unsavory-types involved in investing.

 

That is a crazy price! Great thread and excellent research on the history of it. Multi-millionaires can buy whatever they want, so if they want "the best according to PCGS and CAC," then they probably don't care what they pay for it. They're just glad to own it. Maybe mega-grade coins like this will become trendy, and the ultra rich just have to have them. Like that MTV show Cribs... where they show off their 6 Lambos and Bentley's that they bought, "just cuz."

 

Follow the money.

 

I can't honestly blame Laura or Legend for this behavior. Legend is a business; they exist to make money. It's in their interest to play the game by the rules as they exist and maximize their profits. Unless they had a hand in persuading PCGS to change their policies, then I pretty much hold them blameless for playing the best game they can.

It's kind of like how I feel about rent control. I think rent control is terrible public policy, but that doesn't stop me from living in my rent controlled apartment.

 

I'd go about $5 for that.
If you are going to spend that kind of money, get a special coin.
Not a mass produced coin which falls under created rating criteria.
Let's take Full Bands for example.
Would a coin grade 68+ that didn't have full bands?
It shouldn't. So that extra money raising criteria is unnecessary.

 

So it's like @EyeAppealingCoins said; Laura/Legend take the...

It makes sense too. One can chide others, hopefully lower competition, and then reap the benefits.

Somehow it rubs me the wrong way.

 

Not really anything to do with the topic at hand but might be of note that a certain Legend big shot was recently banned from CU. Apparently the mod got a little fed up with her bashing a billionaire collector over his Eliasberg challenge, which that said Legend big shot, isnt involved in building.

Maybe out of spite she will start selling more NGC coins lol

 

That'll be the day! But I am also not a member, so I don't have a clue about who this may be.

 

I thought she was retiring anyway.

 

1. I am not criticizing those who crack out coins for upgrades. I do that myself. After all, who would leave large sums of money on the table? I am critical of Legend because she talks down and criticizes others for doing the same thing she does. It is hypocritical. It you call others "bottom feeders," insinuate that they are unethical/destroying the hobby, and play holier than thou then you should have clean hands and not engage in the same thing you criticize others for.


2. Laura did take credit for convincing PCGS to remove the extra images in Coin Facts, and she discussed it freely on the PCGS Forums. It wasn't innocent either. She wrote that she lobbied them because the images hindered her ability to bring new blood into the hobby and to tell them that coin grading was consistent over time. If you read any of her blog posts or other posts on coin forums, pretending she believes that grading is consistent over time is laughable and facetious at best. If it wasn't for her hand in removing the images, then I couldn't attribute blame to her.

 

She's been claiming that for years now. When you think you're the center of the numismatic universe, you're not going to give that up easily. It sounds like I am bitter and that claim is based on my dislike of her, but it is not.

She derailed the thread on Hansen's collection on the PCGS Forums dozens of times interjecting her clients and their collections into the thread slamming Hansen's collection as inferior to her clients' collections, missing the entire point of the thread. She constantly engaged in self promotion countless times in serious threads spamming the boards. We counted over 200 mentions of Simpson alone in that thread not to mention her other recurring cast of characters (based prior to deletions by moderators and Laura's banning). She ridiculed every change Hansen made to the sets she had previously built. She claimed she had no interest in working with him (yeah right), and admitted jealously that he was receiving so much attention. She has previously claimed to be among the top 10 or so most knowledgeable dealers in the country. She repeatedly claims that she sells more rarities than others (a potentially debatable claim although she has handled many rarities). She constantly brags about her "zillionaire" clients and implied that other top collectors like Hansen could be left with her crumbs. She bullies those who disagree with her. She is a narcissist IMHO. Narcissists don't give up power, fame, or influence (real or imagined).

 

Sounds like @baseball21 to me.
Always putting themselves in a compromising position.