To star or not to star - official game thread

Considering that there are many graders at NGC, it can't be completely what Mark Salzberg likes, right? Or do his likes translate to every grader? Or does he finalize all stars?

If it was what he likes-which you mentioned in another thread as being obverse toned coins that grab one's attention-then we would have a lot fewer stars (and quite likely fewer arguments about coins that did receive a star but didn't deserve it).

I see way too many of these and it leads me to think that each grader (or at least each finalizer) has an input and some of them don't share the same viewpoint as Salzberg:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Even if there was no toning I think it deserves the Star.

 

The 1896 from my post above?
If so, any reason why? It looks to be a generic looking coin for the date.

 

IMO it's a nice clean coin. A 65 grade wouldn't surprise me. The marks on the obverse are not that distracting. I've seen more than a few MS 65 (PCGS & NGC) that don't look as good as the 1896 you posted. Plus, I like a coin with just a touch of toning.

 

I see where you are coming from. Based on what you are saying, I’d think a plus or a higher grade on the holder would be more appropriate as a star isn’t used to signify a coin that is nice for the grade (or undergraded).

In my opinion the 64 grade is accurate as the cheek has too much chatter to get a gem grade. The fields are clean though.

 

Agree with this completely, and don't think this one merits a star at all. Graders must've been feeling warm and fuzzy that morning

 

I am guessing that in hand this coin has some amazing luster, too bad for all the contact. I am still on the fence of star/no star.

 

I am surprised the 1896 got a star. IMO opinion I do not think it deserves it.

 

To me the 1896 is a no brainer no star. That is why I used it as an example of what I think can go wrong with assigning stars.

I find it interesting (and quite odd) to see how the previous Morgan (obverse Green toned) didn’t get a star while the 1896 (reverse slight toning) did. I also find it curious to see some agreeing with the status quo on both of those.

 

I forgot to chime in on the 1881 S with the green obverse. I did not find that coin appealing. Watching the video did little to change my mind. I would not have given that coin a star.

 

Exactly it is a perfectly acceptable coin for the grade. Not a star though.

 

If it was PL on one side (or semi-pl on both sides), then that is one of the more objective uses for the star and would be correct.

These are the three basic categories for a star per NGC:

1. Toning (vibrant, colorful, etc)...can be very subjective
2. Intense luster or Proof-like qualities for business strikes (this includes coins that are proof-like on only one side or a coin already graded PL that is DMPL on the other side)
3. Cameo contrast for proof coins (this will usually mean coins that are cameo on only one side or a coin already designated as CAM that is DCAM on the other side)

 

Oooooooh man. This is where we're going to disagree on the stars.

On your coin, the obverse looks to meet the PL requirements. The reverse doesn't.

This is a classic Star appearance, and those pictures fully indicate the coin earns a Star but not a PL!

 

With those surfaces I would say star any day of the week.
Flashy!

 

Anyone have a new example to post?

 

Anyone?

 

Can I take a turn? This is in an old fatty MS63 holder, so no star possible on it.

 

no star