GTG 1820 Large Cent

I believe there is. And like you say meant for a different discussion.
Not rolling my eyes just looking up to your post.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

This thread became so much nicer with the ignore button

A coin without circulation wear is MS. A coin with circulation wear in is not. The 1941 half has no circulation wear and minimal marks (especially compared to the MS-64* posted earlier), so I still say it is undergraded. My standards are consistent with what I had established before.

 

Believe there is what?

 

LOL.

So you just ignore the friction or does it not matter? Weak strike, we have different definitions of minimal tick marks ect. The funniest part is that it's your own bashing of TPG grading that has caught you here. Many of us want a fluid grading system, but your own words on grading matter

 

Crossover. It did not cross for some reason

 

It looks like sliding friction between coins to me under a 10x loupe (something I had not noticed before). But it is still not circulation wear. I’ve seen higher-graded Morgans and standing Liberty quarters with the same “friction” marks.

Strike has no effect on the grade until you get into the GEM category.

As I said, minimal “in comparison to the MS-64* posted earlier.” I have seen more numerous and severe (relatively speaking) marks on MS-65 coins, and definitely on MS-64 coins. Most here would agree.

It’s quite obvious that you are overly inflating every tiny issue on this coin only because you have an agenda to fill. Things would probably be easier for you if you would admit that the TPGs make mistakes. But you plainly think that the final decision on grade is always correct because they are the “experts.” This worthless discussion is what makes you worthy of an “ignore.”

 

How could an "expert" miss such an obvious rookie mistake?

Opinions shouldn't change just because someone wanted to upgrade and flip it

 

I decided to look at your last message to see what straw you would grasp on to.

I have never claimed to be an expert grader. I am extremely good at grading what I deal with (circulated classic US, UNC Morgans, some UNC classic US), but less so with stuff I shun (uber high grades, moderns, etc.). I have my limitations, so I do not claim to be an expert.

My only claims regarding the performance of the TPGs is that 1) they let a lot of cleaned coins get straight grades, 2) they occasionally let coins with obvious damage get straight grades, 3) they occasionally overgrade coins, and 4) they occasionally undergrade coins. Each of these claims are independently verifiable and provable. If you choose to deny them, you would only be displaying your ignorance. Numbers 2-4 are just human errors and should not be used to villify the TPGs as a whole, just that they are not perfect and not to be blindly trusted.

I have said that I agree with the number assigned 95% of the time. How exactly that fits into your vandetta that I think the TPGs are always wrong, I am not sure.

I have also said that the only complaints that I have with the TPGs’ standards are 1) their line which dilineates market-acceptable damage and not, 2) grading AU coins as MS, and 3) giving a bump over a technical grade for eye appeal. For 1), my standards are much stricter. For 2), grading AU coins as UNC makes the term “uncirculated” null, and I do not believe that should be the case. For 3), the “eye appeal bump” causes confusion in the market where one has to decide if a coin graded MS-65 is just a premium MS-64 that got a bump, or if it is actually a premium MS-65.

For the 1941 half, I did a GTG, and not a single person guessed below MS-65. That gave me confidence that NGC was wrong and the coin was worth cracking and resubmitting. That is why I was disappointed with the MS-62 grade.

https://www.cointalk.com/threads/went-crazy-at-a-coin-show-gtg-x3.316742/

 

That coin is insidiously creepy

 

This is really the whole point I was getting at. If you really believe in not grading AU as MS and that your standards are much stricter than you should believe the MS 62 is over graded which by what standards you are asking for it is. Friction is friction, rub is rub, it's either okay or it's not, trying to guess whether it was from being spent or some other reason doesn't change whether or not it's acceptable.

They were actually generous and you should believe that coin is overgraded by the very criticisms and beliefs you posted above. Would I agree with NGC after seeing that coin in hand, maybe maybe not but there is enough there to see they were generous with the grade by the standards you want.

 

Which is why I like it.

 

Before seeing the TPG grade, I was MS 61+/- due to scrape at chin and hit in front of eye for the obverse and MS 64 for reverse -net MS 62 or 63.

 

that's a beauty

 

So, are you going to change your standards at all to agree with PCGS? And before you go with the “I have not seen this coin in hand” excuse, NGC saw it in-hand and felt the color was good. They are just as much the experts as PCGS.

 

Wokka Wokka

 

Ok, so the first TPG net graded the coin and the second TPG bags it, but our resident coin grading savant thinks they are both wrong, for one reason and one reason only, he owns the coin.

Go cry somewhere else, I’m tired of indulging your petulance.

 

So your standards did change. The evidence is right there.

And when I bought this from Chris McCawley, he said it graded MS-62 because of the marks on the cheek, and that was all. If he’s not an expert in early copper, then I don’t know who is. And since (you said it yourself) PCGS places a higher emphasis on luster and eye appeal, it was a natural choice to send it to them to try for an upgrade. I was merely following your advice.

And for the record, I am not planning on selling this coin. I was just curious to see if it upgraded, so I am not at all upset that it did not upgrade.

Sorry you can’t see what has been plainly presented before you.

 

That’s one I think I would have cracked instead of crossover. They’re gonna be real conservative with a coin like that at the MS62 grade (since most agree it looks higher grade) because they’ll wonder if it was netted and if they see no reason it was netted they’ll still be conservative since they’re looking thru a slab instead of raw and they’ll DNC it anyways more than they should. In other words they don’t have the guts to upgrade it 2 points and will instead conservatively DNC it where raw it might 64 (but of course might details as well but if you’re not selling it it’s less of a blow).

Just my opinion on this particular coin which doesn’t need a grade to be awesome of course

 

What the hell are you talking about? How did my standards change? All I did was give my opinion about a coin on a coin forum from a series I don’t collect based off a photo.

My standard has always been to defer to to the TPGs and strive to understand their grade. You are the one who thinks that you are a better grader than the professionals at the TPGs.

The truth is that you agree with them when they give you favorable grades, yet blast them whenever they disagree with you, and cost you money. No worries though, I’m sure you will divulge to the buyer of this coin that PCGS thinks it has altered surfaces.