The Official CoinTalk Grading Experiment 4

I want to change my vote to AU-58.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Question for those who chose a lower than gem grade...
If you could be convinced that what looks like hits on the portrait, are indeed stains, or luster breaks, and perhaps add in "perceived" grade-flation, would you up your grade ??? (be honest)
I've seen very knowledgeable members here become, shall we say upset if their grade didn't match the TPGS.
Remember, we are attempting to grade from poor pics, while the services have coin in hand, and multiple "experts" need to agree on it. After all, we are attempting to guess what the TPGS put on the label.
Can't wait for the next one.

 

Stains (NOT attractive toning), luster breaks and easy to spot marks are not the characteristics of the MS-66 grade. To rate that grade, you need to have to look for problems. They should not be immediately evident.

I voted MS-63. If when I saw it in person, the marks in the close-up were not as obvious, I’d up it to MS-64, but I really don’t see a Gem MS-66 here.

When I was dealer, I sold a lot Morgan Dollars in the MS-64 grade that had very clean cheeks. I even sold some MS-63 graded coins that looked like they might have upgraded, but I didn't try them. Back then (1995 to mid 2000s) if there was big price increase for the next Mint State grading point, the services tended to be very conservative about giving out that extra point. I guess that's not the case today.

 

I believe we are grading photographs, not coins. Things can be completely different in hand.

 

You're absolutely right, I believe. I'm so used to the other way. I guess I would probably choose a lower number then, but learning to read their photography is key and these are terrible pics for grading purposes in my opinion.

 

Again, that is your standard for grading, not the standard employed by the TPGs. Most of the Morgan Dollars I have owned have not been MS66, they were mostly MS64s with incredible rainbow toning. However, I have found three MS66s that I used to own that have surfaces that are not completely covered in toning to hide the luster/frost breaks (see below).





All three of these coins have obvious luster breaks in the focal areas of the coin. I'm not sure how many TPG graded Morgan Dollars you need to see before you admit that you are using a different grading standard than they are, but I for one am already convinced.

PS. all of the photos of these coins were taken in 2009 and they could have been graded many years before that.

 

As a longtime collector of Morgans, I would buy ANY of those three as 66 coins, and have sold very similar ones graded 65+ and 66 at the designated grade with no problem (plus substantial toning premiums). Likewise, I have bought Jefferson Nickels from you, graded as 67, and have no problem with the TPG grade. Some folks wish to create their own standard, and so be it—good luck to them. TPGs do err, but for the most part, their accuracy is right on, MOST of the time.

 

Ok, this is the 2nd time you have posted about this. Let me be clear, I don't care. If someone else, even someone as experienced as @johnmilton challenges my opinion of the grade, I am going to defend my opinion, vehemently. What is most bothersome about your post is that his name is not included in the people tagged. After all, he is the one who is telling everyone else they don't know how to grade, despite the fact that his grade is 3 grades lower than the TPG assigned grade.

Futhermore, when did I say his grade is wrong? I simply stated that he is employing a different grading standard than both the TPGs and many of the Cointalk members.

 

I'm aware of that, and I don't have a problem with it. I just want him to recognize that he is using a different (more conservative) standard and that he is going to be lower than the TPGs quite often. He is the one who is telling us that there is no way this coin should be graded higher than MS64. That statement alone indicates that he is unaware that the TPGs are using a different standard of grading.

 

No need to feel offended. I tagged you because you said he was wrong:

johnmilton said: ↑
It is “ridiculously high” if the coin doesn’t make the MS-66 grade in the first place.

Lehigh96 said:
The coin is a solid MS66, you are just salty that you were wrong and that I blew your example out of the water.

 

That would have been fine in the “old days,” when we used G, VG, F, VF, EF, AU, MS. Those days were far more subjective, as there are varying degrees of EF, and at that time, the standing joke is that everybody bought at MS, and sold at AU. Given TPG standards, there is far more room for mathematically quantifying something that used to be much more up to personal judgement, subjectivity, and personal taste, as opposed to something more precise.

 

I would also like to point out the Heritage Cataloger comments for this coin.

"1885-S $1 MS66 PCGS Secure. Frosty luster glistens on each side of this Premium Gem, showcasing sharp design elements and exceptional surface preservation. Delicate gold and greenish toning surrounds the outer peripheries, leaving the interiors mostly brilliant. Only a few faint grazes are visible on Liberty's cheek, preventing an even finer grade from PCGS"

Not only did the cataloger see the luster grazes, it was his opinion that they are faint and that they are the only think holding the coin back from an MS67 grade. Now, I'm aware that it is the auction companies job to paint each coin in the best possible light, but in this case they are actually recognizing the feature that is causing all the discussion, and telling us (who are at the mercy of the photos) that the luster grazes are not as pronounced as they appear in the photos.

 

Are you implying that the current "standards" being used by the TPG's are more precise and less open to interpretation than in the past?

 

HE WAS WRONG!!!!!!!

At no time prior to the reveal did he say anything to the effect that his grade is MS63/4 and that he fully expected a much higher grade from PCGS, he expected the reveal grade to match his own.

That doesn't mean he isn't entitled to still think the coin deserves an MS63 grade, but it certainly means HE WAS WRONG!

In addition, he posted another coin as an example of what an MS65+ should look like indicating that the coin didn't have luster grazes. I responded to that post showing that there were indeed luster grazes on the coin and that the the beauty shot was hiding them. Neither he, nor any of the member of this forum challenged my analysis of those photos. In my book, that makes him WRONG AGAIN!

 

No, I am directly stating that TPG standards are less subjective. Nothing implied.

 

Yes. We are suppose to grade what we think the coin is.
Not guess at what the coin graded at. I knew in all my guesses I was going to be
a point low. My standards aren't higher, theirs have come down.
Coins that used to be considered AU are now grading MS.

 

Let's flip this....
If you wouldn't want to pay 66 price for this coin because you believe it to be 63/64.
If you owned the coin, would you sell it for 63/64 price???

 

Stands to reason that one who feels the coin is a 63/64 never would have paid a 66 price to begin with and would not be out anything when selling.