I am completely stumped on this MS-67+ Washington Quarter

While I agree the coin is overgraded, it is not egregiously so. If you think this coin is an MS64, then you don't know much about the Washington Quarter series.

And while you claim that the TPG opinion has been checked by "tens of thousands of eyes" I call BS. To my knowledge, nobody commenting on this coin has actually seen it in hand. You guys are freaking out over an oversized photograph that is making very minor marks appear enormous. Until someone has seen this coin under a 5X loupe, I will accept the TPG assigned grade.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I would never bid on this coin without seeing it in hand first. I've already admitted I don't like the + grade and think it is a low end MS67.

 

The TPGs determine how grading works, whether you agree with it or not. And they have always graded holistically. If this coin has MS65-66 surfaces but MS68 luster and eye appeal, they will give it a higher grade than the surface preservation alone deserves.

 

I've looked through a lot of coins on HA and had similar thoughts.

 

So some coins certified by the major services are overgraded. Is that news? Kinda wonder about the CAC sticker, though.

 

The TPG's determine how grading works for people who don't want to learn for themselves. Otherwise, we'd all just take their opinions as Gospel, and if we did that half the threads on this Forum would disappear.

 

That's not at all what it means. They follow their own grading standards, and their standards set the market. An experienced numismatist strives to understand the TPG grading standards rather than throwing a tantrum when one of the TPG grades diverges from their own idea of what the standards should be.

And there is nothing wrong with questioning TPG grades as long as the goal is understanding. The sentiment is this thread seems to be just the opposite despite my repeated attempts at enlightenment.

 

Enlightenment? Enlightenment?

Lete's see. "They follow their own standards." Everybody knows that. Nothing enlightening yet.

"Their standards set the market" Who didn't know that? Still nothing enlightening.

"An experienced [and knowledgeable, I should add as many dealers with fifty years of experience don't know "jack!"] numismatist strives to understand [each] TPGS standards..."

That's the name of the game! Since I've read nothing enlighting yet, I'll add my own instruction - er, "enlightenment" here: While we strive to understand it, we don't need to agree that baggy coins with flash deserve excessive bumps in grade.

That coin is over graded by at least two points! Heritage is enlightened enough to know it. Many here , including myself, appear to be enlighted also.

Let's see how much some grading-label-reading registry set junkie is willing to shell out for the plastic mistake.

PS More enlightenment: There is a difference between "minor marks," "very minor marks," and minuscule marks. Coins in the top grades do not have "minor" anything. Prime focal areas also mean something for "enlightened" numismatists.

I'll defend NGC with every keystroke when they are correct. It's even possible that I know most of the folks who touched that coin at NGC and CAC. IMO, they all screwed up on this one.

 

Its the dealer that "butters their bread" that always gets their coins overgraded by the Services. 65 and maybe on a good day a 66

 

I'm sorry, but I don't see it that way and I will not be seeing it that way into the future. The TPG's have nothing to do with my opinion of a coin, and it is to slow your development as a numismatist to believe they do.

 

All I got to say is if "eye appeal" is the market grading standard now that grader was blind in one eye and probably didn't happen to see too well out of the other eye either for that matter.

 

Well, you could probably strike me blind too, but that's just me.

 

He was probably on mushrooms as well. The colors were "Far out man!!"

 

I'd be willing to bet the coin is nicer in person than it appears in these photos. I'll bet the luster is incredible.

Also, I'd like to point out that CAC only certifies the base grade, not the +. CAC means A or B for the grade (theoretically the top 2/3rds). Plus isn't well defined, but it implies it is better than the average.

Granted, I would have guessed 66 from those pictures - but I'm usually a point below the modern major TPGs. If you view this coin in light of the other 67's graded, this is a strong piece. And, after all, isn't that what market grading is?

 

I do talk to the older collectors/dealers. A fair number of them loathe the TPGs. A lot of what I spew out is what I have heard from these other collectors. I have also heard the horror stories of the pre-TPG days.

What if TPGs only authenticated the coins and gave a label grade (VF, AU, UNC, etc.)? I would think all of this gotta-get-it-one-point-higher-to-make-thousands nonsense would cease.

I have seen several dipped coins that got the CAC bean. To me, their opinion means nothing.

Unfortunately, the number of people that don't want to learn far outnumber those that do, because they think they don't have to since we have TPGs. That is the market base for TPGs.

 

They tend to prize originality more than the TPGs, but a dipped coin still definitely be with the market acceptable range - and even quite attractive. A vast number of Morgan's have been dipped, but can still be PQ for their grades.

Far more concerning are the couple of suspected AT'd coins I've seen with CAC stickers. They were quite convincing, but I'm nearly positive they were AT.

 

@Insider what is your opinion on market grading. Such at an AU Bust Dollar (with obvious wear) getting an MS grade. IMO, the practice is wrong.

 

Who said 67. Do the cheek marks count

 

I make bold statements like that all the time and we all have our own standards. For me, and I'm partially repeating myself here, I could let the eyebrow and even the cheek hit slide @ 66 if the coin was lustrous, had eye appeal, was O.S., and had clean fields (which it does). A focal breast hit on a Washington though, holds it back from higher than a 65 imo. That's usually not disputed? The multiple leg hits and multiple reeded edge hits drop it down to a 64. I could see it getting a star or + at 64 and might even be arm pulled to 65... but it would be arm pulling. I'm usually pretty damn close to spot on w/ WQ grades and have never read anything on eye appeal, or this or that, justifying a complete disregard for focal point issues in this series.

 

And all of this ascertained from photog and not 'in hand'.....