The Official CoinTalk Grading Experiment 4

I wouldn't buy the top two if the they were charging MS-66* money. The 1880-S is a common coin in high grade, and a collector who knows his stuff is aware that better ones are out there.

The first one has some minor marks on the cheek and dull spot in front of Ms. Liberty's forehead.

The second one has a planchet defect on the cheek. When you get this grade level, those factors count. You don't have to pay big money for an 1880-S that has that. You will find another one without it.

As for the 1886, yes, that coin looks to be "all there" for the grade.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

The top two have what I considered MS65 surfaces but were market graded to MS66* due to the outstanding toning, luster, and resultant exceptional eye appeal. And in fairness, neither of these coins sold for anywhere near price guide, both had substantial toning premiums.

The 1886 is cleaner than the other two but there are still luster grazes and imperfections on the focal areas. It’s entirely possible that if I was able to photograph the 1885-S shown in the OP that I could make it look better than this 1886.

 

If it does not bring MS-66* in the market, it's really an MS-66*. Overgraded material in holders sells at discounts between dealers all the time. What do you think the Blue Sheet covers? Unfortunately it can also sell for "the full boot" to unsuspecting retail buyers who "grading challenged."

 

My grade: MS64 (Obverse: MS63; Reverse: MS65)

PCGS grade: MS66

 

Many people who buy rainbow toned Morgan’s don’t care if the coin is overgraded with respect to surface preservation. And I purchased and sold both of these coins above MS66 price guide. But you know all this, so I don’t know what your point is.

 

.

 

I am not a "toner guy." I will not pay stupid money for toning. I will pay premiums for attractive orginal surfaces.

As for those two dollars, I don't think that the toning is that outstanding. But if you have the customers, more power to you.

 

I said hypothetically "if" the coin was owned.
You missed the point.

 

That is your prejudice. I have sold coins just like those three for 10x premiums. I also think they are all within the 66 range, and may have gotten a slight bump for color. As far as desirability, that is a matter of choice. I like Paul’s taste in toning.

 

That doesn’t mean you don’t understand the toner market, I’m sure you do.

I used to think that the NGC star designation was silly, then I started submitting coins and to date, I’ve still never gotten a star. My point, the toning on those two coins is outstanding.

 

Are you asking if one owned it in a 66 holder but thought it was 63/64, would they still sell it for 63/64 prices?

Or are we assuming it’s raw?

If raw and I bought it for 63/64 money (because that is the grade I saw it at), then I would sell it for slightly over my cost (I’m not convinced many would stretch on a raw coin anyways nowadays).

If I somehow bought it for 63/64 money in the 66 holder, I’d be pretty surprised and willing to flip it for less than 66 money just to take a profit and get what I can out of something that I didn’t really love.

If we were talking about a monster toned coin that was graded 66 (but was a 63/64 in my opinion) and I loved the color, then I would not sell it for 63/64 prices.

 

I think we agree there.

I thought that the star was supposed to independently signify exceptional eye appeal by itself. Putting a grade bump on it as well is a double-whammy.

 

When the combination of luster, color, and associated eye appeal is far above the condition of the surfaces, the market grading of a coin is warranted. These two coins had supreme luster that you would find on an MS67 coin and the color was electric giving the coin MS67/68 eye appeal.

Surfaces 40%: 65x0.4=26
Luster 20%: 67x0.2=13.4
EyeAppeal 20%: 67x0.2=13.4
Strike 20%: 66x0.2=13.2
Grade: MS66

You can’t penalize the grade of the coin just because NGC created a marketing tool in the star designation. If those coins were in PCGS plastic, would you have a problem with the grade bump?

I hear you talk about the double dipping aspect of toned coins, but if the grade bump can be defended by using a mathematical formula as shown above, it really isn’t double dipping.

 

Rethinking, this is more of a ethics question.
Please disregard.

 

Yes. The star signifies exceptional eye appeal, making an inflated grade unnecessary. PCGS does not have an avenue to point out exceptional eye appeal except for artificially inflating the grade. That harms the market.

The fact you have a category for eye appeal inherently creates the artificial “bump”. The eye appeal should be an expected aspect of the grade, not an excuse to bump up the grade. Poor eye appeal limits the grade.

Eye appeal involves much more subjectivity and “feeling” than Surface preservation, luster, and strike. Coin grading should be as objective as possible. I exclusively use the latter three categories for grading and use eye appeal as a limiter when it is negative.

By “double dipping”, I refer to a coin being assigned an inflated grade (technical 65 graded 66) and bought as premium for the grade (sold for much higher than the going rate for a 66). You made a perfect example of this with one of your brother’s Franklins.

Not bumping the grade is hardly penalizing.

 

It isn’t a grade bump, it is the correct averaging of the grades of the different elements of grading. Furthermore, I didn’t create the category for eye appeal, the TPGs did. You are saying that it shouldn’t exist. I have a solution for you, start your own grading company.

If you want me to believe that coins with exceptional eye appeal shouldn’t be graded higher than those without, you are undertaking a futile endeavor.

 

They should only be priced higher. Not graded higher.

 

Price is secondary, the fact is that those coins I showed are better than your run of the mill 1880-S MS65 Morgan Dollar, and they deserve a higher grade.

Are you ever going to address my grading method that yields the MS66 grade, or are you just going to continue to ignore it?

 

Toning is just attractive corrosion. Chinese coins also have attractive corrosion affectionately called “patina”. These three Wang Mang knife coins are the same technical grade (EF).

This piece is extremely attractive with the “black mercury” patina with some blue and green highlights. This sold for $2400



This one is also very attractive with its blues, but it lacks the “black mercury” sheen. It sold for $2000.



This last piece is a dull monotone patina. It sold for $1400



These were all from the same auction in consecutive lots. While all are the same grade, those with better eye appeal naturally sold for more. No grade inflation needed.

 

So what, they don’t grade those coins the same way US Coins are graded. I could easily make the argument that those knife coins are of varying quality and don’t deserve the same grade.

Nice dodge though!