How is this market acceptable?

Best explanation yet, and who says this thread isnt progressing....LOL

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I saw a seated lib quarter last week that had an X and it was designated as Graffiti. I have one with the same X so I'm assuming it's not 2 random scratches but was intentional.

IMO, if it was on the face it would be Details. But it's just not prominent enough. Great 25C.

 

This is an aside, but when determining FB would a grader conventionally use magnification?

 

I agree that there are many collectors who rely too heavily on the TPGs. But I don't agree that having the TPG provide more information so that those collectors can rely even more on the TPGs is the answer. Uninformed collectors bear the responsibility to become informed collectors or suffer the financial consequences. It is not the responsibility of the TPGs, coin dealers, or other collectors to protect them from their own ignorance. You propose that enabling is the solution to ignorance whereas I subscribe to a philosophy of caveat emptor. But this is a secondary part of the discussion.

The primary reason for our disagreement is that you think the coin is a problem coin and should not be considered market acceptable. To bolster your argument, you have now falsified the opinions in this thread to make it appear that the opinions on the issue are evenly divided. TomB does not agree with you that the coin is a problem coin. In fact, he also thinks you are making a mountain out of a mole hill and has suggested that you return the coin, the exact same advice that I gave you. He did say that he thinks that the marks are the result of improper handling rather than circulation but that is a far cry from thinking the coin is a problem coin.

Matt does agree with you about the market acceptability of this coin and that really surprises me given his comments on this subject in one of his threads about one of his coins.

1892 CC On The Way To PCGS Grade?

So you ask me "what straight forward answer are you talking about?" The answer is that Doug, TomB, and myself don't think this coin is a problem coin. Furthermore we agree with the EXPERTS at PCGS who assigned the problem free grade. You don't agree with their assigned grade so you would like to see a written description included with the numerical grade. To what end? All that will accomplish is to give you more with which to disagree!

The fact is that you don't agree with the assigned grade and think the coin is a problem coin. I disagree with your opinion but completely understand your desire to apply your own standards to the coins that you collect even if they are different from the accepted standards in the numismatic community. That said, my advice to you has not and will not change. If you are not happy with a coin, you should not keep it in your collection.

You may not like my opinion or the manner in which I express myself, but you will learn more from having discussions with those who disagree with you than those who you give you a stamp of approval.

 

I'm in full agreement it's graffiti or scratches to me its a damaged coin not a severely damaged coin but one I'd expect to get a details grade my opinion au-58 details and I think from the pics I'd see the damage more in hand

 

Well actually that was a lot more in line with how a response and discussion should continue forward and I thank you for bringing this back to a civil discussion. There IS an issue here and I am trying to learn. It's as simple as that. To dismiss that is not fair and drives folks away from even starting threads. Look at all the people who responded to this one if you don't think it had merit. This thread brought out many daily posters and even some mods who have opinions on the matter.

I didn't appreciate simply being dismissed or that because I thought differently than some of you that my ideas weren't valid or worth discussing. I am a young collector and yearn to learn more and more everyday. Stifling that or mocking that isn't constructive and I felt the need to defend my position.

As for the discussion at hand, I am unable to reply fully to your latest message but I did absorb your response and will try to respond when I can tomorrow.

Again thanks for bringing this back to a much more civil discussion and I look forward to hearing what else you and all the other folks have to say in response to my next posts.

I can promise you that your typing isn't wasted in responding to me and I really do want to understand better. I can be hard headed at times but that's just because I don't always go with the grain and have to be shown very clearly why I need to change up my thinking if there is a better way out there. I just can't always accept things blindly and feel compelled to question everything.

 

That's the gist of my opinion. Apparently the accepted standards dictate otherwise, but that doesn't mean I have to add more coins like this to my collection in the future.

If I've only learned one thing, it's that this is something that bothers me enough to check EXTREMELY well in the future to avoid making this mistake again.

 

All I can say is 'Coin Tuition'

 

Here's a similar example of a Seated Liberty quarter that I picked up a few months ago, graded AU50 by PCGS. Notice the dig in the ribbon in the motto next to the "N":



I didn't notice the ding when I first looked at the coin, and when I first saw it without magnification I had to get out my loupe to determine whether it was damage or just part of the ribbon design. It has great eye appeal in hand and has great luster for an AU50. My understanding of the grading of this coin is as follows:
1. PCGS did not give it a details grade because the damage wasn't severe enough and it is hidden in the devices, and is not in a prime focal area.
2. Without the damage the coin may have graded 53 or 55 but PCGS net graded it down a notch.

What do you all think? Is my understanding correct? I can definitely sympathize with treylxapi, as I can get a bit obsessive when it comes to defects and avoid problem coins like the plague. However, I still like this coin because of its eye appeal, and if I can't rely on PCGS then who can I trust?

 

And I will say this too I'm fairly conservitave about grading and I know we all have our own opinions To me significant marks and scratches are a big deal an old non abrasive dip that's retoned is not Is my opinion and feeling why especially on baggy large coins like dollars and $20s I greatly prefer a relatively clean high au to a low ms grade. If I can't afford a 64 or better I'm more likely to buy a clean looking 55 or 58. To me coins are about eye appeal. I like pretty coins to me its not about a registry set or extreme rarity (tho it's nice) it's about having coin I like and enjoy looking at again and again. And usually if I like them and they appeal to me most often not they appeal to others (unfortunate when at an auction!) and looks well for future resale

 

Why do people buy coins they don't like because they feel they have problems?
What's wrong with that? Why buy the damn thing in the first place?

 

See I dont have a problem with this coin nearly as much as the one I purchased. The feelings on my own coin have simmered down a bit after having it for a few days and reading this thread and analyzing and processing some information on grading standards etc..(which was what this thread was largely supposed to do in the first place).

Anyway, I dont like how your dig detracts from the coin either, but something about your mark just 'feels' more natural and likely an accidental hit from something. Another thing too is how the surface of your coin has retoned inside the gouge. It has that sort of dull gold patina over the surface (at least from the pictures) and has filled into the abrasion quite well.

My coin on the other hand looks like the scratches were 'fresh' as if it just happened. No time for retoning or anything. Which if it was pulled from circulation early, that would seem impossible to me since that shouldve toned back in over 100+ years. With that in mind here are the three most likely scenarios playing in my head.

1) The coin was 'circulated' and received the accidental hits making an 'X", then was stored properly for many years as to not tone and thus left the mark looking brand new.

2) Same scenario as above, but the coin wasnt properly stored, toned through the 1800s to the mid 1900s (Or anywhere up until present day), was dipped and then slabbed. Thus revealing the scratches as 'fresh' marks

3) Original scenario I had and felt was what happened. It was a recent scratch or mishandling resulting in the 'X'. Should be impossible as this coin shouldnt have circulated much past 1900 or the teens, if even that long due to the wear it received.

I know I am going against what people keep telling me, but I truly feel as if the mark is a contemporary issue that was caused by mishandling or mischief. Its just a combination of factors like the toning and fresh appearance of the scratches, the size and depth of them, etc.

As for how PCGS graded your coin, I feel its fine for an AU-50 and it is correctly graded.

 

Well understood there, but I think Matt is a pretty knowledgeable fella, not sure about you though Doug

For some reason I thought TomB was a moderator too. Dont know where I got that from.

 

At least when I was roll searching I had a guy in the area that marked the rolls he dumped with an X in either red or green sharpie.