Thoughts on cabinet friction from a professional grader.

Discussion in 'US Coins Forum' started by TypeCoin971793, Apr 26, 2019.

  1. Lehigh96

    Lehigh96 Toning Enthusiast


    I have not ever opened a bag of Saints, but the last time I discussed this topic on this forum with Doug, I reached out to Saintguru (JB) on the PCGS forum who has extensive experience with the series. I asked him about the assertion made in PCGS THE OFFICIAL GUIDE TO COIN TO COIN GRADING AND COUNTERFEIT DETECTION, that "the only Saint-Gaudens double eagles that do not have luster breaks on the breast and knee, usually caused by contact with other coins, are the proofs and counterfeits" (Chapter 5: Elements of a Coin's Grade, Wear). His response was that he agreed with the statement in the book. I don't know which set is his, but he has a top 20 set of Saints in the PCGS Registry and Steve Duckor was his personal mentor. In other words, I trust his opinion on Saints unequivocally . And if you are saying that there are in fact Saints that exist that don't show any friction, I will refer your own response that you gave me about Doug's use of absolutes (highlighted in red below).


    I agree that the use of absolutes leads to many disputes, but knowing Doug's black and white nature, I can't simply assume he was being hyperbolic without confirmation. I know he is reading this thread, perhaps he will opine.


    I was playing devil's advocate here, using Doug's own rhetoric to prove a point. By disagreeing with my contention above, you are agreeing with my larger contention that roll friction and incomplete strike are determinable, and coins that show this should not be graded as AU coins.


    In this paragraph, you seem to parse that from a technical standpoint, the coin is AU, but that based on the commercial market grading standards, the coin is graded mint state because they believe the friction was caused by coin to coin contact. This is the standard that the TPGs use, the standard that I agree with, and the standard I have been defending this entire thread. If you are also agreeing with it, I really am loss as to why we are still debating this.





    My point is that the coins that are currently net graded at MS61 or MS62 actually have MS64 luster, strike, and eye appeal. If we move to a system where we grade the coin numerically and then assign the AU or MS moniker based on wear status only, every coin that has been net graded by the TPGs over the years will be undergraded by several points.
     
    Jaelus likes this.
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. Insider

    Insider Talent on loan from...

    Thanks for your reply...

    This will be my only comment for you and everyone:

    DON'T BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU READ NO MATTER WHO WROTE IT OR WHERE IT WAS PUBLISHED!!!

    I don't have a clue who Saintguru (JB) is, but he must be a very important and extremely knowledgeable numismatist. Unfortunately, this quote in the the PCGS OFFICIAL GUIDE TO COIN TO COIN GRADING AND COUNTERFEIT DETECTION, that "the only Saint-Gaudens double eagles that do not have luster breaks on the breast and knee, usually caused by contact with other coins, are the proofs and counterfeits"

    Is just another example of some of the more stupid, IGNORANT, nonsense I have read (both additions several times) in that book - written by EX-COIN DEALERS!

    Think about it. If I wish to grade AU's as MS then I better make sure I convince everyone :bucktooth: drinking the Kool-Aid that they all come this way...LOL.

     
    TypeCoin971793 and Robidoux Pass like this.
  4. Pickin and Grinin

    Pickin and Grinin Well-Known Member

    I hold true to what I said. Think about it I said when you play the same game that is used by the few. I won't call names but you know who you are. Then it is not allowed. I am big enough to turn the other cheek but are you? If you wish for me to not call you out then stop the practices. It ruins threads that have good speaking points. Again I am guilty as charged.

    You mean the grading practices that started the TPG's. And those practices helped them get off the ground. It was only when the TPG's found out more money was needed to keep them afloat that grading standards were loosened to attract more submissions. How ever you want to call it. The old timers in this industry still know what each grade is supposed to look like, They know and have seen that grades have been loosened and in other areas tightened (rare).
    If you are for and want to believe the nonsense that the market is willing to accept then that is your right.
    You sir have a niche in the market that has made you successful. Your registry set is amazing. I have seen most of the coins and am willing to state that you have high standards for each grade and I am willing to agree that most if not all are within this antiquated grading system that you so much dis agree with on these threads. So to call these old timers out for the very thing they preach I actually see you in the same boat. What I don't understand is why you want to let the grading system to be even further subverted with the practices the TPG's use. Unless it is only to buy and sell to further upgrade your coins.
    Coins with circulation should never be graded MS. The same should hold true to the lower grades. If the market was truly left to hold it's own. The collector would spend more time understanding what a certain grade is supposed to look like and buy accordingly. A cabinet friction coin will gets what it is worth in the market place it doesn't need a fictitious number on the slab to say what it is.
    Unless we are working with the ignorant, It seems all to often that a dealer wants his buyers to be ignorant and I blame The top Two TPG's for allowing this to happen. Yes, the TPG's have allowed coins to be more mainstream and easier to move. But it has also made grading even more subjective than it once was.

    Take the TPG's out of it do you really want a coin that has seen circulation, has cabinet friction, or one that is inferior to others in the same grade?

    If you wouldn't want one of these coins then why would you accept that the practice is commendable?
     
  5. Lehigh96

    Lehigh96 Toning Enthusiast

    The comment isn't stupid, ignorant, or nonsense, it is merely hyperbolic. But when I see one of the biggest players in the Saint registry game backing the comment and I see coins like the Duckor MS67 shown below, it gives credence to the passage.

    [​IMG]

    You type this last statement as if you weren't complicit in the very behavior your are condemning. Earlier in this thread, you wrote this:

    This means that you agree with the market grading practice of assigning mint state grades to coins with high point friction.

    And for proof, we only need to look at your comments about the Duckor MS67 shown above.

    So you can't decry the passage in the PCGS book when you and your company are essentially using the exact same market grading standard when grading Saints.
     
  6. Lehigh96

    Lehigh96 Toning Enthusiast

    I have no idea what you are talking about. I wasn't playing a game, I had a legitimate complaint about Insider's posting style and even his own wife agreed that it was problematic. Your claim that I was using that complaint to avoid the subject matter is absolutely ridiculous and patently false. The basis of my complaint was that his posting style was preventing me from making my counterpoints, because I couldn't clean up his posts using a smartphone, I needed a computer. Furthermore, now that I have access to my computer, I have responded to Insider's posts, proving that there was no attempt to dodge or deflect.

    Additionally, the only one attempting to ruin this thread is you, with your incessant trolling. The assertion that I, and others that you won't mention, are ruining threads, is in itself trolling. The basic problem is that you don't respect dissenting opinions to your own, and have repeatedly trolled both myself and baseball in many different threads. You wanna debate me, fine, have it at, but kindly stop trying to impugn my integrity on this forum with these silly attacks.


    The evolution of grading and the implementation of market grading practices such as allowing for roll friction is considered progress by many collectors, including myself. I have clearly illustrated in this thread the injustice that would befall the Saint Gauden's series if we reverted back to the "wear is wear" philosophy and graded (almost all) of them as AU coins.

    Your other assertion that the TPGs have loosened their standards to stay afloat is preposterous and not even worthy of a response.


    All that proves is that if you are a collector, you can still have your own collecting standards that are more conservative than those employed by the TPGs in order to demand a higher level of quality. The fact that I can accept the TPG grading practices while choosing for myself which of their coins meet my standards should prove that the constant attacks on the TPGs are completely unnecessary.

    That said, I own several coins in my collection whose surfaces are not good for the assigned grade and that were market graded to a higher grade due to exceptional eye appeal and luster. Two that readily come to mind are my 1944-S and 1949-D.

    [​IMG]

    Now imagine this coin was blast white, would it be graded any higher than MS66? My answer is absolutely not, but I also firmly believe that the coin is accurately graded.

    [​IMG]

    One only needs to read my coin description in my registry set to see how I feel about this coin: "Powerful violet centers yield to vibrant sky blue and rainbow bands of gold, pink, sapphire, yellow, cherry red, and lime green at the peripheries. A solid strike and thick mint frost in combination with vibrant powerful rainbow toning push this coin with MS66 surfaces into the MS67 realm."

    My standards for quality are my own, but I don't, and have never seen the application of market grading principles as a "subversion" of the grading system. I understand the exceptions that they make, and think that most are logically based.

    The key word being "circulation." Coins with roll friction have never been in circulation, they show high point friction as a result of coin to coin contact during storage or distribution, in the exact same manner that coins obtain surface marks. So while you are concerned that coins with actual circulation will be graded mint state, I am concerned that coins that are actually uncirculated will be graded AU due to high point friction caused by coin to coin contact. The TPGs solution to this problem is to grade coins with extremely minor high point friction as mint state coins unless there is some evidence of friction also present in the fields. I find this a fair solution to the problem and a policy that allows for the highest percentage of coins to be accurately graded.
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2019
    RonSanderson likes this.
  7. baseball21

    baseball21 Well-Known Member

    The other issue is that it's really hard to have legitimate discussions with someone whose basic premise is in my day we did it better and the TPGs are evil. Everything being complained about happened before there even were TPGs but somehow PCGS/NGC are still at fault I guess. The old timey grading didn't even use all the MS grades so many were rounded such as 64s being rounded down so while some may think they had a tighter scale it really was just less accurate with more rounding.

    Not to mention that their grading was already a departure from their previous generations but since they were the ones making the adjustments I guess it's okay it just shouldn't ever be adjusted again. There also should have been the foresight to say maybe we should have an actual 1-70 scale not a 1-58 with a 60-70 stacked on top of it with a hard line over a single issue such as rub.

    It's really not that complicated for someone to objectively look at how grading has evolved and seen that in every instance it is the market that evolves it, but some still just want to try and attack the TPGs at every turn
     
    Jaelus and Lehigh96 like this.
  8. eddiespin

    eddiespin Fast Eddie

    Confucius say, "Young man not know much."
     
    Pickin and Grinin and CoinCorgi like this.
  9. Insider

    Insider Talent on loan from...

    @Lehigh96

    :rolleyes: I should have expected a better comprehension of the English language from you.:smuggrin:

    Additionally, I've posted here for a few years and I'm surprised that anyone can mistake my PERSONAL position on anything. Anyway, let me make it clear to you...again. :yawn:

    I don't agree :rage: with the fact that AU's are called MS by anyone - EVER! That includes every TPGS I've worked for (except for two - INSAB, the first TPGS and PCI after 1990 and prior to 1995 where MS coins were not AU's). At the others, as an employee, I must follow the company guidelines whether I agree with them or not. I am not the grading finalizer. Unfortunately, many coins I grade AU-58 go out as MS anyway. You should know that "market acceptable" covers a lot of sins. :p

    The comment quoted from the PCGS Grading Guide is 100% uninformed crap! These coins exist with full mint luster on the breast and knee. Luster breaks caused be the pressure of stacking don't make a coin AU.
     
  10. Insider

    Insider Talent on loan from...

    Now, this is much better. It's lucky you don't work for a TPGS. Then you might need to swallow those high standards. ;)


    Lehigh96, posted: "Your [:cigar:] other assertion [:bookworm:] that the TPGs have loosened their standards to stay afloat [:jawdrop:] is preposterous [:bucktooth::wacky:] and not even worthy of a response."

    :yack::yack::yack::yack::yack::hilarious::hilarious::hilarious::hilarious::hilarious: Are you sure?
     
  11. CoinCorgi

    CoinCorgi Tell your dog I said hi!

    @Insider How long does it take you to add all of the Smilies and colors and fonts?
     
    Lehigh96 likes this.
  12. Insider

    Insider Talent on loan from...

    In this case it took about 40 seconds to alter the normal post. Truly makes posting here great fun!

    This change took less than 3 seconds.
     
  13. CoinCorgi

    CoinCorgi Tell your dog I said hi!

    Yeah, turns out I wasn't really interested in the answer.
     
  14. Insider

    Insider Talent on loan from...

    :arghh: I'm usually not interested in troll :troll: posts and rarely reply to :bucktooth: posters but I considered you :bookworm: to have a serious (though humorous and unimportant) question.
     
    CoinCorgi likes this.
  15. Lehigh96

    Lehigh96 Toning Enthusiast

    There is no problem with my comprehension, but one of my pet peeves is when an employee of a company blames others in that company, usually referring to them as "they." You are not a data entry clerk, you are one of the top graders, and you are a part of "they!" You don't get to draw a salary from a company that violates your own principles and then proclaim that you were only following directives. If you believe that AU coins are purposefully being graded MS and are deceiving uninformed collectors, then you are complicit in the practice. Honestly, it makes you look like a sell out!

    The comment in the PCGS Grading Guide is hyperbolic, but in a general sense was backed up by SaintGuru on the CU Forum who is one of the top collectors in the PCGS Registry for Saints. Of course there are extant Saints that show no high point friction, but since the overwhelming majority of them do show stacking friction, my overall point is still valid.
     
  16. Lehigh96

    Lehigh96 Toning Enthusiast

    That comment was really meant to include only PCGS and NGC, and until someone provides me with proof, then yes, I am sure.

    ICG Guarantee: The grading of coins is an exercise of professional judgment and opinion, which can be subjective and may change from time to time. As a result, ICG shall assume no liability of any kind whatsoever and makes no warranties or representations to Customer for any grade assigned by ICG to any coins.

    ICG Guarantee

    NGC Guarantee: In order to raise a claim under this Guarantee, the owner of any NGC-certified Coin believed to be not genuine or overgraded must submit it to NGC under its Appearance Review service. If NGC determines, in its sole reasonable opinion, that the Coin is not genuine or that the correct grade for the Coin is lower than the one originally assigned, NGC will provide one of the three remedies described below.

    NGC Guarantee

    Both PCGS and NGC guarantee not only the authenticity of the coin, but the assigned grade as well. ICG plainly states that they might change their standards. If either PCGS or NGC deliberately changed their standards by tightening them, they would be committing fraud.
     
  17. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    Knew there was a reason I haven't been reading this thread :rolleyes:

    I don't whether to quote scripture - "you know not what you say"

    Or TV shows - "You know nothing Jon Snow"

    Guess I'll go back to not reading it anymore now.
     
  18. Insider

    Insider Talent on loan from...

    Lehigh96, posted: "There is no problem with my comprehension, YES THERE IS! but one of my pet peeves is when an employee of a company blames others in that company, usually referring to them as "they." You are not a data entry clerk, you are one of the top graders, and you are a part of "they!" You don't get to draw a salary from a company that violates your own principles and then proclaim that you were only following directives. If you believe that AU coins are purposefully being graded MS and are deceiving uninformed collectors, then you are complicit in the practice. Honestly, it makes you look like a sell out!

    :arghh::arghh: I guess it was not simple enough to understand. Out of my respect for you, I'm going to try again. I GRADE SOME AU COINS MS ALL DAY LONG! SOME COINS THAT I GRADE AU ARE SENT OUT AS MS! THAT MAKES ME A SELL OUT to my personal standards. Do you have any more rocks in your bag to throw at this broken old man? :bigtears::dead:

    "The comment in the PCGS Grading Guide is hyperbolic, but in a general sense was backed up by SaintGuru on the CU Forum who is one of the top collectors in the PCGS Registry for Saints. Of course there are extant Saints that show no high point friction, but since the overwhelming majority of them do show stacking friction, my overall point is still valid."

    :hilarious::hilarious::hilarious::hilarious: Maybe in La-La land. Did you READ & COMPREHEND THIS:

    "The only Saint-Gaudens double eagles that do not have luster breaks on the breast and knee, usually caused by contact with other coins, are the proofs and counterfeits
    "

    BTW, a knowledgeable author :bookworm: does NOT use "hyperbole" in a serious, professional grading guide. Unfortunately, It appears you think misinformation is OK in some instances. :jawdrop::facepalm: That comes across as a sell out; sorta like when I grade a coin with some friction (AU) Mint State. They say it takes one to know one! :D:p
     
  19. eddiespin

    eddiespin Fast Eddie

    So it's a joke. Very funny, ha, ha, ha. But you cut through the BS, and I admire that.

    I'm going to talk for a minute about "back in the day." You obviously don't need this, as you know what I mean. Your experience shows it. Back when we used to collect coins instead of invest in commodities is, of course, what I'm referring to.

    In those days, let me just say this, we knew how to grade. We had to, or we were cheated. But most importantly, grading wasn't emotional, as it is, these days. It was tied to verifiable degrees of wear for circulated coins and contact marks and luster for uncirculated coins.

    So along come the TPGs. And they don't know anymore about grading than we did back when we were 14. Who the hell cares what grade they give a coin? We know what the grade is. Grading is what the hobby is about!

    Enter the ANA. Do you know all these verifiable criteria relative to the condition and state of preservation of the coin? Forget all that. We have these TPGs on the make, now, and they don't have anymore talent than any of you had when you were 14, but they're going to pick your pockets more than your dealers did, you watch and see. "Pretty" is the grading standard, now. Sound a little emotional? OK, "Eye-appealing." Not better, still emotional? Here's one, "Market-acceptable." The proper diction to describe that one is, "arbitrary." But call it what you will, so long as it's impossible to verify. It's "pretty." No it ain't. Yes it is. It's "market acceptable." No it ain't. Yes it is. Not like, the Buffalo has a 3/4 horn, or the Wheat lines are all present, or Lincoln's cheek and jaw are merged. Is it "eye-appealing?" There's the standard. And the point is, let's see you grade that...
     
  20. Insider

    Insider Talent on loan from...

    Lehigh96, posted: "That comment was really meant to include only PCGS and NGC, and until someone provides me with proof, then yes, I am sure.

    ICG Guarantee: The grading of coins is an exercise of professional judgment and opinion, which can be subjective and may change from time to time. As a result, ICG shall assume no liability of any kind whatsoever and makes no warranties or representations to Customer for any grade assigned by ICG to any coins.

    ICG Guarantee

    NGC Guarantee: In order to raise a claim under this Guarantee, the owner of any NGC-certified Coin believed to be not genuine or overgraded must submit it to NGC under its Appearance Review service. If NGC determines, in its sole reasonable opinion, that the Coin is not genuine or that the correct grade for the Coin is lower than the one originally assigned, NGC will provide one of the three remedies described below.

    NGC Guarantee

    Both PCGS and NGC guarantee not only the authenticity of the coin, but the assigned grade as well. ICG plainly states that they might change their standards. If either PCGS or NGC deliberately changed their standards by tightening them, they would be committing fraud."

    Who is going to prove it? :D:hilarious::hilarious::hilarious::hilarious::hilarious::hilarious::hilarious::hilarious::hilarious::hilarious::hilarious::hilarious: Wanna buy a bridge?
     
  21. Jaelus

    Jaelus The Hungarian Antiquarian Supporter

    They have an even better way out of honoring the guarantee on absolutely every coin. Look at this excerpt from NGC's guarantee under Clerical or Mechanical Errors:

    "Clerical or Mechanical Errors. A clerical or mechanical error occurs when a Coin is encapsulated with a label that bears a grade and/or description that clearly does not correspond with the Coin. It is the duty of the buyer and seller of a Coin to examine such Coin for a clerical or mechanical error to return such Coins for correction when warranted. The NGC Guarantee does not apply when NGC determines, in its sole reasonable discretion, that a clerical or mechanical error has resulted in the Coin having an incorrect grade or description. If requested, NGC will remedy any clerical or mechanical error free of charge by updating the encapsulation to show an appropriate label."

    Ok so you submit a coin for the guarantee because the grade doesn't look right. By definition, for you to have selected that coin to submit for the guarantee it is because you think the grade clearly does not correspond to the correct grade of the coin, right?

    Well in their language it states that if the grade clearly does not correspond with the coin it can at its sole discretion determine it to be a mechanical error and the guarantee is nullified.

    PCGS has almost this exact same language in their guarantee as well.
     
    TypeCoin971793 likes this.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page