Guess The Grade 1924 St. Gaudens

So do you? Do you blindly buy and sell based upon these standards, or do you look at the coin? If the TPG can make up whatever grade they wish for a coin, then pretty mcuh by definition what in on the slab is "right" because the TPG has no real standards to be held against. So, again, do YOU accept this "widely accepted standard" or do you actually look at and grade the coin YOURSELF before buying?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

That is a rhetorical question. Everybody looks at the coin, prior to buying, whether or not it is in person, or via images online. I disagree strenuously that the TPG has no real standards---they use the Sheldon scale, and experience to grade a coin based on established rubrics. Nobody said that you must accept these rubrics--you can create your own anytime you want. However, the coin hobby seems to feel differently than you do--most folks do buy graded coins, and have reasonable (albeit not blind and unwavering) trust in the ability of a TPG to validate their purchases and sales.

 

I refuse to believe that the submitter has anything to do with the grade issued. These companies...although you may not agree with their grading standards, do have to maintain some level of non-biased behavior to stay in business. Claiming that the identity of the submitter plays a role in the grade given is a "Tin Foil Hat" statement.

 

Really? And you also believe 18th century coins are held to the same standards as 20th century ones, or 1916d dimes are the same grading scales as other mercury dimes? I have seen so, so many exceptions for such groups as to have to conclude its intentional.

 

I never said that...but I do believe that if I submit a 1916-D Mercury Dime and a major dealer submits a 1916-D Mercury Dime they will be held to the same standards.

 

I wasn't thinking as much about one-offs. If a major collection comes in, or a very large consignment, do you really think no one is aware of its "importance"? You do not see pedigreed coins receiving higher grades than non-pedigreed ones? I have, but maybe I am just dreaming it.

Btw, if you admit key dates and other coins get different grading standards applied to them, how do you feel about that? Does that seem fair? Isn't this proof the TPG grades according to consumer demands, and not to what the coin actually is?

 

I have seen major pedigree coins get higher grades. I was thinking you were making that claim that submissions by major dealers get better grades verses submissions by smaller dealers or collectors. I will agree with you that coins from famous collections do get a little extra bump sometimes.

I have seen people here make the claim that the TPGs are biased towards major dealers and I disagree with that. I thought that is what you were saying.

I think there are 2 ways to look at this. First, I think the consumers want their key dates to be higher grades. That is what the consumers want and the TPGs cater to the consumers. I also don't think it's just key dates that get special treatment. Many dates in various series are graded differently than other coins in the series. Look at the 1880-S Morgan Dollar. The TPGs are far more strict when it comes to grading this coin than they are with other coins in the series.

On page 3 of this thread you literally quoted a comment that I made that said exactly that.

 

I will give a simple answer to the key date issue. I have NO PROBLEM if a key date gets a tiny bump in grade, due to its exclusivity. Do you expect a 1909SVDB to be graded the same way as a 2012 Lincoln Penny? That would be preposterous, as the key date has exclusivity built into it--this is a hobby where subjectivity isn't by any means ruled out. There are rubrics, as I said, but if there is no room for flexibility, why bother collecting at all? Look at toned coins--one person's treasure is another's tarnish, and I am not being sarcastic one bit on that.

 

I simply cannot comprehend this answer. So what is the population limit to such variable grades? I have some AU 1880's SL halves with mintages WAY lower than any 20th century coin. Should they now be MS62's due to their rarity? Or is this a secret list of coins that someone has compiled that get a secret grade bump due to whatever reason?

Stupid me, I was taught the grade was the grade, irrespective of the value of the coin. I own VG coins and have no problem with it. Just because my coin is a draped bust dollar, (1803, again with a mintage WAY lower than a 1916d dime), I am ok with it just being a vg. I am not "ok" with someone calling it a F "because its rare and exclusive".

 

You're just looking to argue. I stated my feelings--don't agree, that is fine, I already said that not everybody feels the same way about TPG grading. Moreover, in your illustrative example, your comparison is not valid---low mintage is not the only aspect to exclusivity of a coin. Survival rate, number of examples existing in said condition, overall mintage of the key relative to the series, etc are all factors. This isn't a "one answer fits all" situation. SO WHAT if my 1893s Morgan gets an XF 45 grade, instead of an XF 40 that it probably should have gotten. The situation is still very much the same, and the market responds accordingly--nobody is taking about gross overstatement of grades.

Likewise, TPGs are tough on ultra-common dates, as there are so many of them. Anybody here crying because PCGS is particularly tough on 1882s Morgans, but might be more liberal with an 1889CC? Hardly.

 

I personally don't care for the idea that key dates get a grade bump...but frankly it doesn't really matter. It doesn't really affect the value. It's still a supply and demand issue. If the normal thing to do is grade 1909-S VDB Lincolns with a touch of wear at MS62...then that will raise the supply of MS coins and drive the price down.

I do believe however that the characteristics of a given date should be considered. You can't grade an 1880-S and an 1892-O Morgan the same. They are different coins...yes they are from the same series, but they are so different they can't be held to the same standards. The same thing is true about a 1909-S VDB and a 2009-D Lincoln. They aren't comparable.

Now, like I said before...I'd like to see a 1909-S VDB and a 1911-S held to the same standards. But, that's not what has happened but due to supply and demand the market corrects the price accordingly.

 

One sentence reply--PCGS follows it, so it isn't wear.

 

Just give it up. That coin is MS.

 

Yes, you are the one who has no common sense and it is easy to prove.

Please explain how a Saint Gaudens Double Eagle that has spent its entire existence in a sealed mint bag can have "wear!"

PCGS does not call it wear. They call it "luster breaks" because they understand that it occurs due to friction between the coins while in storage. A concept that seems to completely elude you no matter how many times you are told.

You seem to hold the ANA standards in such high esteem as if some numismatic deity wrote them. Has it ever occurred to you that the ANA rules that you covet with such zeal are wrong, and that the TPG standards have evolved to address a grading problem that the ANA rules do not? You say there are not exceptions, but you are quite obviously wrong, and so is the ANA. That said, I don't believe that the ANA standards actually say that. I don't own a copy of the ANA standards but I would be very interested to see what they have written about roll friction.

 

I have a copy and I don't see anywhere in the dictonary of grading terms section any mention of the terms "roll friction" or "cabinet friction" or anything that would fall under that umbrella.

However, under the St. Gaudens $20 section...it only mentions the presence of wear up through AU58. Starting with MS60-62, in the column for luster it says "may be original or impaired" and MS63 says "may be original or slightly impaired." That certainly sounds like luster breaks to me. I know it only allows that through MS63, but it certainly seems that the ANA guide allows for luster breaks not from wear on St. Gaudens Double Eagles in MS.

This is from the 6th edition of the ANA guide.

 

A "luster break" does not a "worn coin" make, as I have said before.. A lot of the higher relief coins, that have engraving that is more prominent than average have one or more "luster breaks" in the overall appearance of their surface. This is a design issue, rather than a handling or wear issue. I still feel that storage or contact MAY play an issue in this, but just by design, the die may have made slightly less contact in one area of the metal, when striking the planchet--this happens VERY often in 1921 Peace Dollars that are MS, and even gems.Obviously, dies were not as sophisticated in those days as they are now, and were obviously not laster cut. So, there is no surprise that a "high design" with lots of detail and a large diameter coin such as the Saint will show a luster break, and still be solidly MS.

 

I saw that when I made my previous post...but I was looking for some kind of mention within the ANA guide that allows for luster breaks in MS St. Gaudens Double Eagles. Based on how I am reading the MS60-63 grade breakdowns...it sure looks like they make an exception for this coin. It specifically says that "impaired luster" is allowed on lower grade MS coins. To me, that means some minor luster breaks.

I agree that the ANA grading standards are more strict than that of PCGS...but it sure seems like they understand that it is common for this coin to have luster breaks when it was no circulated. They don't go so far as to say that source of the impaired luster is important...but they certainly imply it.