Interesting Grading Decision

To the contrary, it's been my experience that you're far more likely to have a previously graded coin (by another TPG) returned as a "details" coin from NGC than PCGS.

I have 3 examples of $5 Gold Indians NGC "details" stated coins being offered "for sale" with an ANACS similar coin, currently on this site.

As stated in the offering, the coins were examined with a 10x loupe, not finding any standard deviation associated with the extreme "improper" cleaning indicated. The ANACS coin indicates a proper grade if uncleaned, having similar surfaces to the NGC coins.

After receiving multiple previously graded Type I $20 double eagles along with other valuable coins returned as "details", I've just had "bad luck".

JMHO

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

You'll be in for a rude awakening if that's what you think will happen. It's ready been explained to you multiple times yet you keep comparing other grades to the no D. Are you actually interested in learning or just here to try and bash them?

There is a huge difference between actual mistakes and what people call mistakes. The overwhelming majority of what people call mistakes actually aren't they just think it should be different and it doesn't mean the one calling it a mistake is right

 

Agred, but I think some threads heree at CT have clearly shown some coins with grades from the TPGs that were WAY off. Not 1 but 2 or 3 or 5 numbers off. Sometimes more !!

 

Personally, I don't find this example of net grading a coin instead of details grading particularly egregious. The Stack's description states there are only 8 coins above VF, and the both TPGs routinely "rank" coins with such rarity rather than grade them as they would with more common issue. The scratches are not immediately damning from the slab photos and it only became clear to me what the problem was until I viewed the oversized photos in the Stack's listing.

 

When all is said and done, are we dealing with “standards” from the TPGs or “guidelines?”

Hope I’m not starting World War III...

 

The 1922 no mintmark (Die pair 2) is graded by the reverse because the obverse die was completely worn out and the detail was worn out on the die. A MS-70 1922 no mintmark (if such a thing existed) would have mint luster, but would still only show the design detail of a G-VG coin on the obv. The rev die was a new one so the grade is determined by the amount of wear on the reverse.

 

So they are grading the die, not the coin. I get it now.
So if some moron tried to do your job and screwed it up, based on this, it would be just as good as the job you could have done. He/she just wasn't capable. Right?
The grade is what it is.
Again, I'm not just talking about the 1922 No D, alone. Several coins (Rarer and more desirable) are overgraded. I thought I said that.
But, speaking of learning, learn to read ALL of the statement before you reply.

 

I am seeing it happen! Regularly!
And Yes, I actually came here to bash them. Read what I said. Yes, I was bashing them.

 

Oops! Guess I put a burr under the teachers saddle. But he don't know it, I'm sure. He said his piece and exited this conversation 2 pages back.

 

I know you aren't talking about JUST the 22 no D, I even agreed with you and pointed out the same thing with the 16 D dime. Also the post of mine that you criticized was referencing a post of yours where you were ONLY referencing the 22 no D. (it is also possible to reply to just part or one statemtent in a post, you don't have to address all the points/subjects.)

 

True, but since there is no right grade anyways like it's a math problem so some opinions carry more wight than others and the TPGs also got to see the coin in person. The times when they really are in what were they thinking territory are far far less than the times where someone else is just saying they're wrong when they really aren't