Guess the grade: GOLD

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

"You gave up on me listening to your opinions?" Exactly who died, and when did the coronation take place? With all due respect, Doug, you may be a moderator here, and a big cheese. You are definitely experienced and have expertise in coins--no denying that. You're even a nice guy, with whom I agree sometimes, and disagree sometimes. However, the patronization really isn't necessary--my opinion is as valid regarding grading as yours. We both may be right, which I suspect--there's a middle ground that isn't so doctrinaire. You dismiss the accuracy of TPGS, and their consistency--I advocate for them as the best thing that has ever happened to the hobby. No disrespect meant, as this is a discussion of two very different views on a subject pertinent to the hobby. However, there is no scientific proof that yours is any better than mine, or vice versa. Both are opinions, and are views of two people with a different view of a hobby in which they've had many years of observation and experience. However, you are really NOT in a position of convincing me, and likewise, I am in no position convincing you that you're wrong. We agree to disagree.

 

A lot of folks made crazy money cracking PCGS old green holders and getting a higher grade. Same with the old PCI green 10 digit holders. It's been picked over at this point but many will still pay a premium thinking it may grade higher. Standards have changed. Look at ANACS. It has been all over the place over the years.
I could go on but there is no way I'll buy that standards have not changed.

 

how many coins? I myself have seen more than 500k coins. my eyes back and neck wish it weren't so

 

GD do you like to be a moderator in distress

 

Morgandude, it's ok to be wrong. Everyone is from time to time. Take a deep breath and accept that you're wrong sometimes. Everything will be ok.

 

The " new standards" have changed, and we all need to except that ! Now we have bulk program ( 100 coin min. times 14 dollars a coin=1,400.00 dollars ) and then they also want to do regular grading too, for the same coins ! Anyone that grades coins today knows there's quite a difference between a ms-67 bulk grade, and a ms-67 regular grade ! It's all about the money today, not the grading !!!!

 

it is.

 

While I agree with you in a general way that Doug typically grades coins at least 1-2 numerical grades below the TPG's, he has a very valid point with the coins posted in this thread.

You might recall the long debate I had with Doug where I defended the fact that the TPG's routinely grade St Gaudens $20 with high point wear as uncirculated coins. But the crux of my point in that debate rested upon the fact that there was no wear in the fields of the coins. The first coin in this thread shows what I would call pretty obvious wear in the obverse fields and the 3rd coin has a similar look, though it could be an photographic effect caused by the proof-like surfaces of the coin which is why I guessed MS62PL.

The fact is that some of the coins in this thread appear to be circulated coins from the photos and Doug is not the only person who thinks so. I submitted my guesses after reading the first post only and even I had one of the coins as AU58.

My major problem with criticizing PCGS's grades in this case is that I don't have first hand knowledge with these series of coins and only have a photograph to judge the coins. There are certain dates of Jefferson Nickels that have a curious luster profile in the fields of the coins that will cause a non Jefferson collector to think the coin is AU rather than MS. Perhaps that is what is happening with these coins as well but I have serious doubts about that.

I don't want to get into a debate about a change in numerical grading standards over the years, but it is undeniable that the TPG's are market grading coins with high point wear as uncirculated coins. I have no problem with that as long as the wear is contained to the high points of the devices and can be contributed to roll friction. But roll friction can not explain wear in the fields like the coins in this thread.

To the OP, Matt I am very interested to know what grades you thought these coins would achieve before you submitted them.

 

This, to me, is a very healthy view of grading, and isn't as "black and white" as some who dismiss the credibility of TPG grading entirely. That was my point from the beginning. Paul, I do agree that TPGs do have a different standard for grading high point wear on Gold, especially the high relief variety. Given the "softness of Gold" as a metal, this might be undue leniency on the part of the TPG. I did think, upon looking at the three coins that all of them were low level uncirculated, and that was my point. It seems that "low level MS" is AU to certain folks.

 

the day you start saying high point wear=uncirculated coins i will quit

 

TPG grading standards have definitely changed... no doubts among most all collectors who have been around long enough to see it first hand... and you really didn't need to be around all that long to see it.
AU63 is recognized as a grade... maybe not among TPG's, but it is among collectors.
... and it is recognized across more series than just gold.

 

Simple fact is many of us are having a hard time grading the same as the new blue over white PCGS graders seems to be telling some of us something.
I have had to make several returns of purchases since the first of the year because of this. Getting to the point of if they don't have a extra set of eyes approving the grade I am reluctant to buy now.

 

And some will say that others don't know the difference between low level MS and AU, because their standards are unrealistic.

 

Am I the only one who's seeing broken image links for Matt's post #21 in this thread?

 

Apparently.