How does a coin with multiple rim bumps get into an MS63 holder? The close-up photos are somewhat deceptive in that the website for advancing the picture (an arrow superimposed over the image at right) partially obscures the photograph. But the second photo of the coin in the slab leaves no doubt this is a damaged coin. Pitty the bidder who didn't look at both photos before bidding, though to be sure the coin sold WAY under what a problem-free example would have fetched. Seems to me the damage should have been mentioned in the description. Or they should have left the description out altogether because this sure isn't the trophy coin that Heritage is describing. Russia: Alexander III gold 10 Roubles 1894-AГ MS63 NGC,... Russia | Lot #30365 | Heritage Auctions (ha.com)
Given the coin's comparative rarity, seems like a case of market grading to me. Not an uncommon occurrence.
It is the lowest mintage of just over 1000 pieces. Had it been one of the higher mintages, market grading wouldn't have been applied, IMO
Being a gold coin, they probably gave the coin as pass for the small rim bump issue. I've seen silver coins with worse rim bumps in straight graded slabs.
Your correct, it should be a AU-55-58. Here is a Milan graded MS-60/ would be a sehr schon (VF) in Kunker auction.
'Market grading'? What the hell is that? Herein lies a major inconsistency of TPG grading. Wear is wear, knocks are knocks, corrosion is corrosion and scratches are scratches whatever the rarity or not of the coin. If you want confidence in a given grade, it would help if standards were adhered to. I can't find anything on the Sheldon scale to suggest that grading is affected by rarity, or is it simply smoke and mirrors by the TPGs to satisfy those that collect by numbers?
Market grading has been going on for a long time. Very common even before certification. I have seen plenty of coins sitting in straight graded slabs that were dipped or lightly cleaned. Market grading may happen to a seated dollar that looks good but, may have been lightly cleaned. The coin could look like an AU 58 but, based on market grading it could be put in an AU 50 or 53 slab. I collect seated dollars and in my opinion a majority of the straight graded dollars have been messed with. If you see an extra fine seated dollar that is light in color sitting in a straight graded slab, I can almost guarantee to you that that coin was messed with. In the 19th and early 20th century there wasn't a good way to protect coins from the air around them. So over time they would tone and over time the silver coins may even turn black. Good collectors in the past knew about this problem so they tried to protect their coins as best possible. Some would even go so far as to put lacquer on the coins.
I'm fully aware of that, which is why I question the wide acceptance of a variable standard (sic). No coin should be graded more leniently simply because it is rare. A TPGs business model is based on the provision an accurate assessment of it's condition, which to give the label credibility should be rigorously applied. We all know they don't, but that doesn't make it right. An assessment of rarity is the cumulative knowledge of the collecting community and should have no bearing on the assigned grade. Knowledgeable collectors will know which things are rare. Those that don't should be reading avidly to catch up. I would agree that many coins have been lightly cleaned in the past. For any coins with wear, that is a result of rubbing, which in practical terms is no different to cleaning. Differences in colour can easily be a function of time, as well as the degree of rubbing. The question is, why do they let them pass? If they claim to weed out cleaned or doctored coins, then they should stick to their principles. If it means rejecting 90% of submissions, so be it. The whole question of what gets a straight grade and what is body-bagged is moot. You regularly see inconsistencies where verdigris is either classed as environmental damage or ignored. Saxon coinage can be rejected for one peck mark, yet accepted with many. Coins can be repaired and straight graded. It depends which way the wind is blowing. Given the sums of money involved at times, this inconsistency is important. I wouldn't want to spend tens of thousands over and above what I would spend on something that had had its value uplifted by a repair. We all know why it's done, as Proof 64 Deep Cameo has somewhat more appeal to collectors than UNC details (scratched), and so the money rolls in......... The oxidation of silver is well documented, so black silver is not an issue. Look on it as acceptable environmental damage. It certainly increases the likelihood that the coin has not been messed around with. Lacquered coins are a pain in the ****. But if it was the only one available, I bet most people would put up with it.
The grading should be "mint state" is a coin that shows NO wear. It should be as perfect as when struck. Of course worn dies/ poorly trained mint staff (guy who swings the hammer/ misses his mark) allow certain coins to pass as MS. But when I see milled coinage like a 1889-CC Double Eagle pass as a MS-62/ when it should be a AU-53/ seems a joke. The Francesco Sforza MS-60 Ducato was grade by previous auction house (Ranieri) as "q spl"= near EF/ so how does it get graded as MS-60??????
I agree with the idea you are expressing, that it happens, and all too often. But that doesn't make it right. Simply put such things should not happen at all. What they are doing is turning a blind eye to the coin, they are giving it a pass when it doesn't deserve a pass at all - because of its scarcity. If the coin was graded honestly and fairly, it would not receive a grade at all, it would be labeled Unc Details because of the combined damage done to the coin by the 3 rim dings. And granted, none of the individual rim dings is severe enough to warrant that by themselves, but combined, they absolutely warrant it. The coin should be a no grade and labeled as a problem coin. And it appears that everybody who was bidding on the coin knew this, was aware of this, which it brought such a low realized price.
Proves my point. If you're playing at this $$,$$$+ level, you should know the 'system' inside-out, know the game and know how to play the game. I'm sure none of the serious bidders on this coin are worried at all about whether market grading is 'right' or 'fair'. They're likely more concerned about the 'genuine' status more than anything else, which the TPG market grading provides.
"Market grading" my bum - more a case of grading the submitter than the coin itself. I own a 1911 Italian 50 lire in gold that has the rim knock and it got condemned to AU-58.
Plus the 1894 AV 10 R mintage 1004 is not rare. Schlumberger states abundant ex. avaliable on market. Definately not worth 10K.
The 1911 10 Rubles or Chervonetz has a reported mintage of 50k, in reality the numbers are far greater because the Soviets were striking them in the 1920s to use in international trade since they couldn't convince western countries to take Soviet gold, ie the 1923-5 10 rubles of the RSFSR.
I can't ever recall seeing a 60 that was even remotely mint state. Tongue in cheek, MS = mostly smooth seems more appropriate for the lower levels. In the real world, 60 is EF at best, with genuine uncs not really available below 64 and even at 64 you have to look around. I do have a former 61 in the collection that was better than a 65 of the same type however, so occasionally you can find a cheap bonus. And on a different point relating to inappropriate grading. In the view of other members, at which level does a repair become acceptable enough to get past the TPGs and warrant a straight grade instead of details? I'm assuming when it become unobtrusive after a finite time allocated to the grading, but would appreciate other views as I'm not sure how much time is spent looking, nor what they use as a reference for comparison with the submitted coin.
So have I, but that is not to the detriment of the purchaser. However, a repaired coin that gets past grading and is given a straight grade is a different matter because the purchaser of said item is presumably buying it in good faith that it is undoctored in any way based on the reputation and assessment of the TPG. Therein lies my reason for asking the question in the post before last. And yes, I can give examples.
