Hi there, Does anyone have experience if the reconsideration offered by PCGS may correct a grossly, incorrectly graded coin such as a MS62 which should likely be either a PR62 or perhaps an MS65/66. This happened to me on two particular coins. The difference between a grade point I'll let slide, since this kind of difference is understandable. But, when I sent in two beautiful coins, with no visible scratches or contact marks to PCGS and got one back as an MS64 and the other, a poor MS62, I was shocked at such a difference in perception, related to grading. Does the reconsideration take into account these cases and correct them or simply gives at best a 1 point increase to the grade without considering let's say, a data entry error on their part?
If they made a mistake with data entry, they fix the label. If they made a mistake in grading, they fix it. I'll bet there is a reason they gave it a 62. Any images?
Reconsideration is really not the way to go if there is a mistake with data entry. Check out this link.http://www.pcgs.com/reconsideration/
Harpagon - there are literally millions of incidents where collectors who have submitted coins to the TPGs for grading are surprised that the grades they received are so low. The vast majority of the time the reason the grades are thought to be low by submitter is because the submitter simply over-estimated the grades of their coins. Rarely is it a mistake on the part of the TPG. Yes there are label mistakes made. But usually that mistake will entail having the wrong date or wrong mint mark or even the wrong coin type on the label. And yes, the TPGs do sometimes under-grade a coin, but that is not a common occurrence. If anything the TPGs over-grade far more coins. Over-grading them is the most common mistake a TPG ever makes, by far.
Thanks guys for your input. I do believe they may have a reason for giving it a MS62 but that grossly contradicts their grading standards applied to other coins - even of the same year and type. Gradeflation I know about, but I'm talking of coins graded within max 18 months of each other. I doubt that grading standards were rigidly reigned in within that time. Example, I've had 5 of the same Siegestaler 1871 Bavaria graded in that time and I'm sorry, they're very loose with their grading, when I see grades flying from MS66 (overgraded) down to AU58 and they simply don't match faithfully their grade descriptions. http://www.pcgs.com/grades.html I can't say for most coins how the grading goes as I'm no expert, but my area, German state 1800 -1871 I know very well and I've had enough graded - identical coins included to see that the grading is flying around sometimes. A good example I found was on Heritage auction - there's an old thaler their which was sold as UNC excessive hairlines. Even the commentary by Heritage auction states that the grader had hairlines on his lens or eyeglasses. The coin has NO SUCH THING. The first photo of an MS66 graded Siegesthaler. Impressive! Sorry for the quality. It's currently on auction and the photo is what it is. I haven't found another PR64 Siegesthaler, but it would have been a very good comparison. The other two are mine, both graded MS64. I haven't even added the MS62 to confound the situation, since it's a Wurttemburg thaler. What do you think guys?
After re-reading your first post, and then this one, I'm not sure what you're asking us here. In your first post you said - Now maybe I'm not understanding correctly, but it kind of sounds like you are saying that a given coin, the same coin, could be graded either MS62 or PR62. But it can't, Proof is not a factor of grading. Proof is method of manufacture. A given coin can either be a Proof and graded whatever, or a coin can be a business strike and graded whatever. But the same coin can't be graded one or the other, it can only be one of them, depending on if it is a Proof or not. Determining whether a coin is a Proof or a business strike is a completely different thing than grading the coin. Grade has nothing to do with determining the method of manufacture. In regard to the TPGs being inconsistent with their grading, yes that is quite true. They are very inconsistent, even more so with world coins than they are with US coins. I don't think anybody would argue that. And it is my opinion that they are overly liberal when assigning grades to world coins, more so than with US coins. Now as to the three coins you posted pictures of, no I would not grade the first as a 66, at least not based on those pictures. Yes the coin is clean and relatively mark free. But it appears to have very subdued luster, I suspect because of the toning, but it does not appear to have sufficient quality of luster to be graded a 66, not in my opinion anyway. As for the other two coins, the 64's, the first has numerous hairlines both obv and rev. The kind of hairlines that are often found on coins that had been previously stored in an old coin cabinet. But it is relatively mark free except for a few rim bruises and tiny rim dings. And I'd have no problem with a 64 grade for that coin. The second 64 however, in my opinion that is a problem coin and not deserving of a grade at all. That coin appears to have been wiped earlier in its life, prior to its toning. It is the wiping of the coin that typically will cause that streaky toning because the wipe disturbs the luster in some places and not in others. And then as the coin tones in later years it shows those streaks of color differentiation that this coin obviously has. On the obv anyway.
Hi there, Thanks for your time GD. Yes, the original question, from which grew several ramifications have, was whether using the reconsideration service, there is a chance that they have, or would grade-up several points, not just the one if they saw there was a serious under-grading? Has it ever happened… or likely too? As for the proof question, I’ve have several concerns. A proof is a proof or it is not. I’ve always thought it to be such, except within the German grading system where it is attributed to higher grade uncirculated coins to indicate that it is a superlative example. It also is attributed justly so to Proofs that are manufactured as proofs. Now suffice to say, I’ve bought German Proofs that never graded as proofs, just high grade MS by the TPGs. This seems completely normal considering the Germans’ use the word proof rather freely. But, I’ve also had the opposite happen, a little too often I’ll add, that is, I’ve sent in mid/high grade uncirculated coins and they’ve come back to me as PR where there are no known examples of proofs actually existing for that type, at least according to German reference books and several people I know who are more in-the-know than myself. I do honestly believe that the grading applied to US coins is significantly more consistent and solid than with world coins. World covers too much material. I’ve collected for 20+ years and tend to be as objective as the next guy, albeit my work entails me to hone that quality every day. I started only six years ago going down the track of encapsulated coins, because I felt that for my personal collection it would be a godsend for my kids one day, should they not learn or be interested in this hobby, that when the time comes to sell dad’s collection they won’t simply have a bunch of raw coins that must be valued, sold etc. I tried to develop an idea of grading using the Sheldon scale, but when it is applied with some laxness at time, perhaps in relation to particular coins of a period, since Weimar coinage I’ve found consistently well graded, it’s left me disappointed to see, say a German Proof coin sold at a floor auction for XXXX dollars with fierce bidding, possibly one of the best grade examples if not best example of that coin, being encapsulated as a MS62, when the other MS62 that exists of the same coin in the “registries” is significantly and visibly worse for wear. Sometimes I feel, this might be a European thing, that to be a little more vague, as the old system allowed, actually suited the nature of grading better than a system that numerically ties you to a number. As for the toning issue, I’m again, perhaps a little European on this. I’m a strong believer that coins that date back to the 19th century almost always have been tampered with – it just comes down to whether someone catches it, accepts it, thinks it to be a pleasing patina or not, is willing to turn a blind eye etc. Anyway, thanks a lot for your input. Cheers! Roman
