OK, first let me apologize at having only obverse pictures and for the darker of the two which comes from a catalog. I think this may demonstrate a point that I have been trying to make, and that is that PCGS is not able to reliably grade such coins; I will not make any other implications at this time. Please Guess the Grade:
OK, my bad. These are two different coins. And again I apologize for no reverse pictures... Which do you readers feel shows a superior obverse? I will give grades out tomorrow morning as to what PCGS saw fit.
OK, well not so much interest but the first was graded at DC67+ and the second at DC63. Uh, no, is all I can say. There are no hairlines on the second as those are die prep lines; also the coin has what used to be called "aluminum foil" toning which is original and quite unusual; it is also a date overstrike seen best with the under struck 3 and 9 being to the right of the overstrike datals. I am concerned that the grading system is corruptible to a degree at worst and possibly just not reproducible or reliable at best. There is also a lot of money at stake for buyers & sellers.
We have a Canadian TPG firm (CCCS) that grades very conservatively. I had a previous coin that NGC graded MS-64 they gave it an AU-58. The American TPGs are more liberal in their grading, esp. hammered coinage. I have seen where Kunker will grade a MS-65 hammered coin EF. Mint state should be "no wear" a UNC. coin.
There wasn't much interest because you didn't post anything that would be anything more than a complete WAG for grading. I'm not trying to be mean, but first and foremost grading requires both sides of the coin. It also needs better than screen shots of a catalog and then a picture that washes everything out. Grading from pictures definitively is already a fools game with high MS, and the ones you provided you can't do anything more than guess. The second coin doesn't have that color or appearance in hand. It doesn't have "aluminum foil" toning it's just how the picture is making it look. DCAM coins often get that washed out look in those types of pictures. There is a lot of learn about grading that random one sided pictures don't even come close to telling the story of.
Yes of course, but also easy to criticize, and agree these are not optimal but what I had at the moment - these in fact are at least as nice as any Brit coins posted on here in recent times; however, I think you may be missing my central point - I do not feel that PCGS or NGC are the end-all in grading and that there is some chance that the source of the coin DOES affect grading, no matter how much they deny it. I have seen this many times, and obviously can not post such on either P or N sites. Have you held either coin? Just wondering how you would deny a personal observation. I will stand by the in-hand assessment as being very similar to the picture and in fact it does possibly as much as any Victorian silver I have seen, and that is a lot. I will say I have collected the series for over 25 years and have often been asked for in-hand opinions, and am well known to Steve Hill, Neil Paisley et al in Merrie Olde Englande. I can assure you of the aluminum foil appearance of the later, and is highly unusual. Somewhere I have pictures of it.
I think you missed my central point as well. You provided no evidence of such accusation in this thread and the CU one that got basically no attention as well. PCGS is even a publicly traded company where whistle blower laws would protect someone outing such scams yet no one who has made these accusations has ever come up with actual evidence.
No, I did not as you had none of contribution other than a rather poorly attempted "brush back"; and were full of accusation instead. I broached a fair subject by way of introduction of an example. There is no accusation, but rather a suggestion & note your reaction to be rather severe and itself accusative in nature. I asked you a simple question to which you have not responded: have you seen the coin in question or not? You made a statement which would indicate you had and that I did not appreciate or know what I was looking at. Many of us have likely seen examples of coins where the subjective aspect of the grade has shown through, to put it mildly. What in the world are you doing even bringing up whistle blower laws in such a discussion or forum? Perhaps this is an area of concern on your part? Discussions related to grading subjectivity or difficulties in reproducibility are fair game. You may have some ax to grind, I was touching on a subject that has come up again - perhaps the tale of the Emperor's New Clothes ought to be brought up. Why would you take it to another level?
