The Official CoinTalk Grading Experiment 9

Discussion in 'US Coins Forum' started by physics-fan3.14, Sep 13, 2019.

?

What does the coin grade?

  1. AU-55

  2. AU-58

  3. MS-60

  4. MS-61

  5. MS-62

  6. MS-63

  7. MS-64

  8. MS-65

  9. MS-66

  10. MS-67

Results are only viewable after voting.
  1. Paddy54

    Paddy54 Well-Known Member

    My first thought was a 66....so 66 it is ....let's see if years of grading 5 cent pieces has paid off.
    Sweet coin definitely eye candy.:jimlad:
     
    Chuck_A likes this.
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. micbraun

    micbraun coindiccted

    OK now it’s evening in my time zone :)
     
    Last edited: Sep 15, 2019
    C-B-D likes this.
  4. Paddy54

    Paddy54 Well-Known Member

    images.jpeg.jpg
     
    Chuck_A and C-B-D like this.
  5. bigjpst

    bigjpst Well-Known Member

    I went with 64
     
  6. physics-fan3.14

    physics-fan3.14 You got any more of them.... prooflikes?

    Alrighty, with 37 guesses.... y'all absolutely nailed it. Average guess was 65.08, actual grade is 65.

    I think this is a strong 65, as many of you identified, and I do think it has a shot at 66. However, I think this is most accurately graded as a 65. The luster appears average, the strike is good. The orange peel surfaces probably impede the luster somewhat. The mint-made planchet flaw detracts from the coin (it theoretically *shouldn't* detract from the grade, because it is mint-made, but in practice it often does hurt the grade just a bit). There are just a few too many marks in focal areas. Now, these are pretty small marks, but you have to remember that this is a small coin. So, good job y'all!

    GTG 9 obv - Copy.jpg
     
    Chuck_A, Paul M. and longshot like this.
  7. messydesk

    messydesk Well-Known Member

    This one got me thinking about TPG full strike designations currently used on post-Barber coinage. This one has hammered stars and left corn, which can be weak even on coins of higher grade. If TPGs noted this on more series, would the market respond? There are lots of striking idiosyncrasies for the Seated to Barber coinage that I would think connoisseurs of those series are aware of and would like noted.

    I just went and looked this one up as well as some other 65s and 66s. I think what kept this coin away from 66 is a combination of a few teeny weeny ticks on both sides, and lack of either color or really strong luster. Strike on some of the 66s is not as good as this one, but they have on otherwise very high-end look to them.
     
    Paul M. likes this.
  8. Mainebill

    Mainebill Bethany Danielle

    A little late but I voted 65 before I saw the results. Too clean for less. Few too many marks for 66 and a great strike
     
  9. gronnh20

    gronnh20 Well-Known Member

    I feel just the opposite. I think the designations that classify a coin with a strong strike ruin the underlings of these coins. Roosevelt dimes are a good example. Roosevelt dimes without a FT or FB behind the grade are basically worthless. When you find a year in which FT/FB designation is absolutely rare, then coins without that designation become valuable in high grades. Buffalo nickels have strike issues from start to finish in that series. Yet, there are no designations on slabs to indicate a well struck coin. One MS65 Buffalo nickel is priced the same as another MS65 Buffalo nickel. I as a informed buyer, of Buffalo nickels, knows there is a difference. Hence, I use that to my advantage to make a better buy over the uninformed. The TPGs take the numismatist out of numismatics.
     
  10. messydesk

    messydesk Well-Known Member

    A good point. Does the market appreciate this, however? If you're basically cherrypicking for grade, making the better buy, is it possible to realize as much gain on the selling side if the TPGs don't make striking characteristics more popular? As a Morgan dollar specialist, I know which dates are typically well struck and which ones are pancakes. A well-struck 90-O or 92-O or a sharply detailed 21-S is a special coin, but the overall marketplace only reacts when a TPG says it's OK.

    For Roosevelt dimes, was the decline of value of non-FB coins offset by the increase in value of the FB coins (i.e., same total demand for Roosevelt dimes) or was there an overall decline in the value of the Roosevelt dime market (i.e., demand for coins graded FB matched average pre-FB demand, but dropped for others)?

    A complex problem, mapping all the dimensions of grading into a price.
     
    gronnh20 and ldhair like this.
  11. LA_Geezer

    LA_Geezer Well-Known Member

    Ditto
     
  12. physics-fan3.14

    physics-fan3.14 You got any more of them.... prooflikes?

    Good question. I know that there are some series where collectors already seek out well struck examples, even though the TPG's don't designate them. For example, I know that Susan B. Anthony collectors seek out Full Talons. And I know that Walker collectors seek out Full Thumb, and Buffalo collectors seek out Full Horn. There is already a premium paid for these examples, even if it isn't codified or recognized by the TPG. I'm kind of surprised that they don't recognize those yet.

    I have long said that I'd be in favor of a generic Full Strike designation, applicable to all series. That may be difficult because you'd have to clearly publish what determines a "full strike" for that series. However, I know that many collectors are in favor of it (and already seek out fully struck coins).

    You do have the counterpart, however, of people who don't prioritize strike designations. For example, @Lehigh96 has stated many times that he prioritizes eye appeal over strike. So, it's a tradeoff.
     
    Chuck_A likes this.
  13. Lehigh96

    Lehigh96 Toning Enthusiast

    While that is true, if I collected a series that was more dependent upon strike, like Buffalo Nickels, I would be more strike conscious.
     
  14. physics-fan3.14

    physics-fan3.14 You got any more of them.... prooflikes?

    In my opinion, there is a huge difference between a well struck FS Jefferson and a softly struck no steps Jefferson. But again, that is my own opinion. When I collected Franklins, I only bought FBL. That was my choice.

    I still prefer a well struck coin, but with my PL set other attributes outweigh that.
     
  15. Lehigh96

    Lehigh96 Toning Enthusiast

    Not saying there isn't, but the TPGs don't care about strike unless it is below average with Jefferson Nickels. Look at how many MS67s aren't fully struck. With Buffalos, the strike is a big part of the grade.
     
  16. physics-fan3.14

    physics-fan3.14 You got any more of them.... prooflikes?

    I think the heart of Larry's question is this: If there was a strike designation for Buffaloes, say, Full Horn, would strike then be such a big part of the grade? Would that then be encapsulated in the FH designation, and the rest of the coin is graded as other coins?

    Can we divorce "strike" from the other aspects of grading by designating it as a separate qualifier?
     
  17. messydesk

    messydesk Well-Known Member

    TPGs are usually lagging behind collecting trends rather than trying to push them with regard to grading (labeling is a different story), and this is a good thing. Look how long it took PCGS to get on board with PL designations. Cameo proofs weren't designated until the early-mid 1990s. It took enough marketplace demand that standards could be established. I am surprised that Roosevelt dimes had their full strike designations defined before "full thumb" Walkers, but perhaps this is a case of the squeaky wheel getting the grease.

    The odd thing about full strike designations, however, is that they're all-or-nothing. An extremely well-struck 26-D or 27-D quarter or 53-S half that just misses its respective full strike designation, but is at the 95th percentile in terms of strike is treated like a typical one. It almost begs citing the fullness of strike with the certification as was done with the old ANA certs, but then this horribly complicates pricing. Do that, and you may as well cite the surfaces, luster, and eye appeal scores, too.
     
    Paul M. and Sunflower_Coins like this.
  18. physics-fan3.14

    physics-fan3.14 You got any more of them.... prooflikes?

    Yeah.... I'm really ok with that.
     
    Sunflower_Coins likes this.
  19. messydesk

    messydesk Well-Known Member

    I think I touched on this in my previous reply. A "strike" qualifier is binary -- yes or no. The strike component of a grade is more fine grained than that. Remove strike from consideration and you have an issue saying that coins with below average strikes that are less desirable by collectors being considered equals to those that have typical, but not full, strikes.
     
  20. Johndoe2000$

    Johndoe2000$ Well-Known Member

    Aren't they already included... "Market Grading" ???
    All these criteria are subjective upon individual tastes etc... (eye of the beholder)
    If the now accepted (TPGS) market grading is to be replaced, the change needs to be quantifiable, not subjective IMO. We still don't always agree with the step designation (Jefferson) or full bell lines (Franklin) etc...that are technically sound. Why would we try to add even more criteria that can be subjective ?
    I'm sure the TPGSs have plans for more changes in grading practices to keep folks sending, and resending coins to get the newest slab designations.
    As mentioned numerous times, the TPGSs control the market. They are a business. Businesses need to make profit. More coins graded, more profit. Even when changes aren't in the hobby/investors best interests.

    OTOH- I would like to see the four main criteria for grading (wear/condition, strike, luster, and eye appeal) on the slab in some way. This would take some miracle to actually be utilized. Who else but the TPGSs could even begin to make this happen. Perhaps it is/has been discussed in the boardrooms ???
    They have to have a few new ideas being discussed to help keep the people coming back for more.
     
    Last edited: Sep 17, 2019
  21. buckeye73

    buckeye73 Well-Known Member

    I posted 65 before seeing the reveal. Nice coin. Would not have been surprised with a 66.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page