OK - let's play the grading game

1883 CC
PCGS
MS 65
MS 64
MS63
MS 61
MS 62
MS 61

NGC
MS 60
MS65
MS 64
MS65
MS 66

Have Fun,
Bill

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

In all cases, I graded the coins based upon my opinion then adjusted accordingly based on whether it was graded by PCGS or NGC.
Have Fun,
Bill

 

On the PCGS Ikes...

#1 MS63 - #2 MS67 - #3 MS64 - #4 MS66 - #5 MS64

On the NGC Ikes...

#1 MS65 - #2 MS67 - #3 MS68

I'll work on the Morgan's when I return home this evening from work.

Have a great day everyone!

Ben

 

Morgan Dollars---
NGC
1--MS66
2--MS65
3--MS65
4--MS66
5--MS65
6--MS66

Speedy

 

Why am I not surprised. Somebody is making a lot of money and somebody else is making a lot of commission on that somebody's lot of money. Can't wait to hear what they say those Morgans are...

 

WOW---that first one in PCGS holder is really bad....I don't see how it got MS67....I guess this shows more than ever to grade the coin by yourself and not look at the slab.

Speedy

 

I guessed that this was going to be the result, when you mentioned that you had a point! I just didn't get to this thread until you'd already posted that.

 

Your point is well taken, the standard deviation of EVERY grader's (forum member who participated's) grades is greater for the PCGS than the NGC batches, both for the Morgans and the Ikes. This indicates that the graders here thought the coins were more consistantly graded accurately by NGC than they were by PCGS. While it doen't prove your point, per se, it is compelling.

 

The coins were not of the same date and mintmark. The Ikes varied in both mint (D and S) and metal (clad and sliver).

Regardless, the post is an eye-opener. Learn to grade for yourself, always buy the coin and not the holder, and don't buy anything untill you can tell the difference...Mike

 

I tell you what....some of the Morgans looked better than MS65...the faces were clean and no big marks....I guess that this Art of Grading just keeps going!

Speedy

 

I was just reading something by Scott A. Travers called "The 10 Greatest Myths of Slabbed Coins," and #2 was "All slabbed MS-65 coins are created equal." Here's the article:

http://www.pocketchangelottery.com/article108.htm

The whole Eye Appeal factor confuses me. I've read that it can bump a coin up a grade. It's bound to be subjective to start with, and then the slab isn't hermetically sealed. So couldn't the eye appeal deteriorate over time, while the technical grade remains fixed?

I've also read that ICCS, the Canadian company, doesn't include Eye Appeal in their grading, so they're considered to be more conservative. This makes sense to me, since you should be buying the coin and not the slab. Seems to me it's my eye that should decide the appeal when I'm buying a coin. Am I being hopelessly naive?

 

What? Are they OUT OF THEIR MINDS. That would have me reaching for my lawyer very fast. I'll tell you this. When you hear stuff like this it makes me reconsider ever buying ANY coin in a PCGS slab....ever.

Ruben

 

I'm too late to play, but I'll tel you this, the 1st and 3rd coins do NOT look mint to me at all. In fact, the first one looks quite worn.

ruben

 

When you crop a jpeg you reduce the fidelity of the image. this is why it is called a lousy compression.

Ruben