The Official Grading Experiment, Phase 2, #3

Discussion in 'US Coins Forum' started by physics-fan3.14, Feb 15, 2020.

?

What does the coin grade?

  1. AU-58

  2. MS-60

  3. MS-61

  4. MS-62

  5. MS-63

  6. MS-64

  7. MS-65

  8. MS-66

  9. MS-67

  10. MS-68

Results are only viewable after voting.
  1. physics-fan3.14

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

    The "black spotting" you're seeing is not wear. Those are contact marks. Basically, the lustrous surface was hit by something and disturbed, and you're seeing shiny metal underneath. This is not wear - wear would appear flat and dull. These are contact marks.

    I really only own one Liberty, and she's a 64PL.... However, take a look at this recent Bust Half purchase. She's graded AU-55, but shows exactly the sort of dull luster in the fields that we're talking about. See how the area around the stars is bright and glowing? That's the luster. Now compare that to the field in front of her face - it is dull and muted. This is an AU coin and shows exactly how wear will affect the luster in the fields.

    Now, compare the luster on this coin to the OP double eagle. You'll notice there is absolutely no dulling of the luster in the fields. Even an AU-58 will have some patches where the luster is dull. You just don't see that on the UNC Liberty in this thread.

    1119-1-o.gif
     
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. physics-fan3.14

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

    There are a number of different reasons why various members have guessed the way they have. I will point out, however, there are a lot of very experienced and very reliable graders who have guessed accurately within a point of the TPG grade, and have admirably explained the anomalies seen in the pictures provided. 66% of guesses on this thread were within one point of the TPG grade, despite the voluble protestations of other members! A brief review of this thread and other recent GTGs should quickly identify certain members who are normally spot on, and others which are often several points off. I'll let the readers decide who to listen to for grading advice.

    While many throw up their hands and say modern grading is ridiculous, or grading from pictures is useless... experience has shown that people with the proper skill set are quite successful at it. @messydesk has a nearly 100% accuracy on these GTG threads. If you try and learn, and listen to the ones who are more often correct, you too can be successful.
     
  4. ddoomm1

    ddoomm1 keep on running

  5. TypeCoin971793

    TypeCoin971793 Just a random guy on the internet

    It is extremely difficult to find such a pic of a $20 gold with those attributes because very few Saints that are AU58 have high-quality pictures, and very few $20 liberties graded AU58 with decent pics are accurate for the grade (most are overgraded by a level or two). I will look, but in the meantime, here is a great bust half that shows the hairlines well:

    CBAB4B03-92E0-4C20-93CE-A5F55BA9D293.jpeg

    In images, the hairlines are most apparent on AU-58 PL coins. This bust half has a PL obverse.
     
    GoldFinger1969 likes this.
  6. TypeCoin971793

    TypeCoin971793 Just a random guy on the internet

    Here is a great example of the difference between coin-on-coin friction and circulation wear. On Liberty’s breast and belly, you can see disturbed luster, but they still have a reflectivity apparent in the pics. However, on the right leg and the eagle’s breast, you can see the dulling resulting from circulation wear. There is a difference in appearance between the two, and it should be helpful to see them both in the exact same pictures. This graded AU-58 BY PCGS.

    961B51E4-74FF-42CF-A7AD-70379E738530.jpeg

    Here is another PCGS AU-58. This one exhibits faint hairlines I referred to earlier @GoldFinger1969 . Look at the obverse fields at 3:00 and 9:00 near the rims. However, the bust half above s far more apparent than this coin.

    6986B6A1-222A-4BED-B5B3-E52BAC1718D8.jpeg
     
  7. GoldFinger1969

    GoldFinger1969 Well-Known Member

    Type and Physics, I learned more in this thread than in weeks or months of reading CT in the past.

    GREAT job !! :D:D
     
    TypeCoin971793 likes this.
  8. Pickin and Grinin

    Pickin and Grinin Well-Known Member

    What about the issues with satin obverses VS polished surfaces?
     
  9. TypeCoin971793

    TypeCoin971793 Just a random guy on the internet

    What do you mean?
     
  10. Pickin and Grinin

    Pickin and Grinin Well-Known Member

    I guess I had my mind on Pl early die state coins maybe left over proof dies, and business strike satiny looking surfaces, and how differently they wear. Hopefully Physics has one or two of these in phase 2.
     
    GoldFinger1969 likes this.
  11. TypeCoin971793

    TypeCoin971793 Just a random guy on the internet

    They wear the same, but they just appear different. On PL coins, it will result in a magnified scratchy appearance in the fields. On satin coins, they are far less noticeable, but the dulling of the flow lines is what jumps out.
     
  12. geekpryde

    geekpryde Husband and Father Moderator

    I believe you will admit that you see plenty of over-graded TPG coins, maybe even the rare under-graded coin. I also see now that you are trying to select coins that you feel are properly graded by the TPG for your GTG polls, something I didn't realise until you mentioned it above. This creates a situation where people now know you are judging them on how similar they grade to you and PCGS, and people are thus more likely to understand your polls to be "Select the grade the TPG assigned the coin", and NOT "Select the grade you think the coin should be".

    People wanting to be "right" will outnumber the people who interpret your polls as asking how THEY would grade the coin. It reinforces itself, as people say "ooh, I was right again" and their own standards float closer and closer to PCGS. Then the few people still grading it by their own standards look more and more like old fashioned pessimists, or contrarians, crazy old kooks, or just plain bad graders.

    So while you might think because you and PCGS agree on your example coins, those statements are not equivalent. The results of your polls would be quite a bit different (I think) if you specifically stated which one you are looking for to begin with.

    I'll be honest, I have answered you polls both ways. How I would grade, and how TPG graded. For me it wasn't about being "right", it was more fun to mix-and-match. I bet some other members did that too. Taking them as stand-alone polls, and not a portfolio of grades to show how good or bad of a grader a person is.

    I would love to see coins that you radically disagree with PCGS on. That would be a lot of fun. Don't hint at it, just mix them in. I bet you see examples all the time, that at least would keep members here on their toes, and not always trying to be "right". It would also help members who are new to grading for themselves see that PCGS is not infallible, and they are not 100% consistent, and that even you, the GTG Poll God, don't always agree with them.
     
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2020
    longshot likes this.
  13. Paul M.

    Paul M. Well-Known Member

    I was late to the party, but I guessed 61. I saw a 61 obverse and a 65-66 reverse, but I thought the obverse was just plain ugly and not enough to bring it up to 63.
     
    GoldFinger1969 likes this.
  14. physics-fan3.14

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

    Some good points there, geek.

    Yes, I believe anyone who looks at coins regularly will see overgraded and undergraded coins. I think the majority of them are properly graded, but there are outliers.

    In my opinion, this is a good thing. I also think the education and discussion around grading in these threads is valuable. Someone can say to themselves - I would grade this coin EF-45! Or, I would grade this coin MS-68! That doesn't make it right. It means they need to learn more about the grading process. The more we all learn about grading, the better - and the more consistently accurate our grades will be.

    That is one perspective, I agree. However, and this is a discussion that several of us have had many times over the past couple of years: the fact is that grading has evolved. If someone grades the same way they did in 1960, they are not going to have an easy time in the modern collecting world. I wouldn't say they are pessimists, necessarily, but I would sometimes say they may have old fashioned ideas about grading. Again, I don't want to offend anyone with these threads - but the fact is, NGC and PCGS are the current standard in our hobby. To retain some objectivity in this study, I have to use their grade as the standard that I'm comparing CoinTalk to.

    As I mentioned earlier, I don't actually think this would significantly impact the outcome. Because NGC and PCGS are the standard, I think many collectors have already somewhat aligned with the way they grade. Many, if not most, collectors will generally tend to fall within one point plus or minus of the TPG grade (as is evidenced by these polls). You then have some outliers (significantly more than usual in this thread) that will affect the average. I understand that, and that's one of the drawbacks of grading from photos.

    Those types of threads are also highly educational. They can make for fantastic threads, if approached as a learning tool instead of a vendetta (as they sometimes do). However, I am trying to determine how accurate CT is - and my theory is, the wisdom of the crowds will tend to produce, on average, a correct answer more often than not. In order to do that, I need to know what the correct answer is for comparison - and I've selected NGC and PCGS grades as "correct answers."

    If you had a hundred people guess the weight of a cow, but everyone had a different opinion of how it should be measured, you wouldn't get a very good result. The cow is put on a scale and weighed, and that's the answer. The wisdom of the crowds comes in by averaging all these guesses. Someone might guess 900 lbs, but someone else might guess 300. Well, if the cow weighs 600, then the average guess is probably going to be pretty close to correct.
     
    GoldFinger1969 likes this.
  15. longshot

    longshot Enthusiast Supporter

    So...
    60% think it is overgraded.
    31% think it is correctly graded.
    9% think it is undergraded.

    :DJust talkin'. Keep 'em coming.
    I think if some of us looked at gold more we would have done better.
     
    GoldFinger1969 likes this.
  16. physics-fan3.14

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

    Perhaps.

    As I mentioned, there was quite a lot of down-ward guessing on this one.

    Another recent thread had a far more normal distribution:

    18% thought overgraded
    58% thought correctly graded
    24% thought undergraded.
     
    longshot likes this.
  17. GoldFinger1969

    GoldFinger1969 Well-Known Member

    Wait a second....so you're saying that the high points are "protected" (didn't get hit from circulation wear/rub) but the LOWER POINTS -- the fields -- did ?
     
  18. TypeCoin971793

    TypeCoin971793 Just a random guy on the internet

    not at all. They are both equally unprotected and thus both show the first signs of circulation wear
     
    GoldFinger1969 likes this.
  19. physics-fan3.14

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

    What he's saying is, the high points are a very small area and if there's just a bit of wear, it may be difficult to see (especially in pictures).

    However, the fields are a wide open area. A bit of rub here will be seen as a much larger area of disturbance, and will be easier to see, especially in a picture.

    The "protected areas" he refers to are where the devices meet the fields - in the nooks and crannies around the stars or folds of hair or such. These protected areas of the fields are not the wide open fields where you'll see a disturbance, and so the luster will remain in these areas for a long time. Even as low as EF-40, you'll often see luster in the protected areas of the fields (not the devices, or high points).
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page