Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;TypeCoin971793, post: 3229290, member: 78244&quot;]Then I guess the dozens of dealers I have talked with who have sent in many times more coins than both of us combined were just imagining things with the patterns of their grading results. Same thing with dozens of colletors observing the grades of coins in the latest holders. I guess every single one has an overactive imagination.</p><p><br /></p><p>PCGS’s grading has actually netted me much more than what I have lost, so financial damages are not the reason for my complaints. And a lot of those were because of subjectivity or because I missed something. The 1803 half is the ONLY coin I sent in to PCGS where I felt slighted. Does that fit into your agenda?</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Easy. Just pretend that the grade is right unless it is glaringly wrong (major missed damage, etc.). They are resubmitted in the holders, so it is easy to see the previous grade.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>That 95% figure applies to the whole gamut: early US, Morgans, moderns, late classic US, etc. Some of these goups have standards which are more-strictly defined and adhered to. When you isolate early US, that percentage becomes much lower, probably closer to 75%. Most of that 25% is because I draw a much stricter line for acceptible cleaning and environmental damage levels. I don’t see many where I completely disagree with the number assigned, and more often then not (on Facebook) I am defending the number assigned from those who don’t understand why the coin looks the way it does.</p><p><br /></p><p>I will say that much of the 57th St Hoard was overgraded by NGC. That is one of the major exceptions to what I said above.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Maybe because they did not trust themselves to assign the same grade each time?[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in