To star or not to star - official game thread

That's generic brown toning, with a couple of highlights on the reverse. No chance of a star. Don't want to sound mean, just truthful.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

None of those. I would just say an inconsistency or lack of standards in the grading room. There really should be more training where all the graders are closer to each other (and have a set of coins to study what kinds should star and what should not).

 

That is a nice Kennedy to put in an album. However, I would not consider it star worthy or grade worthy (at least based on the pictures).

 

Summary:
Rd. 1: 1955-S MS 64 1c (NO Star) --> Should it star? -->Yes: 2 vs No: 11

Rd. 2: 1885-O MS 65 $1 (NO Star) —>Should it star? —> Yes: 4 vs No: 3

Rd. 3: 1813 50c (NO Star) —>Should it star? —> Yes: 2 vs No: 9

Rd. 4: 1835 50c (Star) —>Should it star? —> Yes: 1 vs No: 4

Rd. 5: 1821 50c (Star) —>Should it star? —> Yes: 2 vs No: 4

Rd. 6: 1947-D 5c (NO Star) —>Should it star? —> Yes: 6 vs No: 2

Rd. 7: 1882-S $1 MS 63 (Star) —>Should it star? —> Yes: 0 vs No: 8

Rd. 8: 1882-S $1 MS 67 (NO Star) —>Should it star? —> Yes: 2 vs No: 8

Rd. 9: Darth Morgan (NO Star) —>Should it star? —> Yes: 1 vs No: 5

Rd. 10: 1820 Cent (NO Star) —>Should it star? —> Yes: 2 vs No: 5

Rd. 11: Swiss Silver (NO Star) —>Should it star? —> Yes: 1 vs No: 4

Rd. 12: 1940 50c (Star) —>Should it star? —> Yes: 4 vs No: 3

Rd. 13: Israel Lira (NO Star*^) —>Should it star? —> Yes: 4 vs No: 0

Rd. 14: 1937-D 5c (Star) —>Should it star? —> Yes:2 vs No: 0

Rd. 15: 1885 Morgan (No Star) —>Should it star? —> Yes:0 vs No: 12

Rd. 16: 1958-D Franklin (Star) —>Should it star? —> Yes:0 vs No: 7

Rd. 17: 1958-D Franklin #2 (No Star) —>Should it star? —> Yes:1 vs No: 6

Rd. 18: 1958-D Franklin #3 (Star) —>Should it star? —> Yes:5 vs No: 2

Rd. 19: 1881-S Morgan (No Star) —>Should it star? —> Yes:4 vs No: 3

Rd. 20: 1884-O Morgan (Star) —>Should it star? —> Yes:5 vs No: 2

Rd. 21: 1874 PF Trade Dollar (No Star) —>Should it star? —> Yes:1 vs No: 6

Rd. 22: 1964 Kennedy (Star) —>Should it star? —> Yes:1 vs No: 7

Rd. 23: 1958-D Franklin (No Star) —>Should it star? —> Yes:6 vs No: 3

Rd. 24: San Diego Commem (Star) —>Should it star? —> Yes:1 vs No: 5

Rd. 25: 1886 $1 (Star) —> Should it star? —> Yes: 7 vs No: 0

Rd. 26: 1887 $1 (No Star) —> Should it star? —> Yes: 0 vs No: 7

Rd. 27: 1880-S $1 (Star) —> Should it star? —> Yes: 4 vs No: 3

Rd. 28: 1963 PF 5c (No Star) —> Should it star? —> Yes: 5 vs No: 0

Rd. 29: 1968 PF 50c (No Star) —> Should it star? —> Yes: 1 vs No: 5

Rd. 30: 1880-S $1 (Star) —> Should it star? —> Yes: 0 vs No: 6

Rd. 31: 1880-S $1 (Star) —> Should it star? —> Yes: 2 vs No: 3

Rd. 32: 1886 $1 (No Star) —> Should it star? —> Yes: 2 vs No: 5

Rd. 33: 1882-S $1 (Star)—> Should it star? —> Yes: 4 vs No: 6

Rd. 34: 1887 $1 (Star) —> Should it star? —> Yes: 1 vs No: 6

Rd. 35: 1900 India Rupee (No Star) —> Should it star? —> Yes: 5 vs No: 3

Rd. 36: 1880-S $1 (Star)—> Should it star? —> Yes: 8 vs No: 0

Rd. 37: 1918 Lincoln 50c (Star)—> Should it star? —> Yes: 1 vs No: 8

Rd. 38: 1886 Morgan MS 65 (No Star)—> Should it star? —> Yes: 2 vs No: 7

Rd. 39: 1884-O Morgan MS 65 (Star)—> Should it star? —> Yes: 1 vs No: 8

Rd. 40: Ireland 1/2D PR 63 (PCGS coin)—> Should it star? —> Yes: 2 vs No: 5

Rd. 41: 1949 Swiss Medal MS 65 (No Star)—> Should it star? —> Yes: 5 vs No: 3

Rd. 42: 1830 AU 50 50c (PCGS coin)—> Should it star? —> Yes: 3 vs No: 2

Rd. 43: 1881-S Morgan (No star)—> Should it star? —> Yes: 5 vs No: 4

Rd. 44: 1904-O Morgan (No star*^)—> Should it star? —> Yes: 0 vs No: 6

Rd. 45: 1964 PF Kennedy (Star)—> Should it star? —> Yes: 0 vs No: 9

Totals:
No Star currently on holder, but deserves it: 9
No Star currently on holder and doesn't deserve it: 14
Star currently on holder and deserves it: 7
Star currently on holder, but doesn't deserve it: 13
PCGS holder, but deserves it upon crossover: 1
PCGS holder and doesn't deserve it upon crossover: 1

------
Non-toned/PL category:
~ 1871 5c (Star) —>Should it star? —> Yes: 5 vs No: 1
------
*^ = signifies a coin that was most likely graded before the star designation was used for its respective series

 

No Star on the 64 Proof Kennedy Half. No Star on the 65.

 

Once a coin has a straight grade, too many people look past the issues. The PLUS with STAR combo is especially a combo that draws a premium.

 

Anyone think it (The 64 Proof) would cross over if it was sent to PCGS? Just curious.

 

I've seen worse get straight graded at PCGS (and NGC). If someone sent it for a crossover, I could see it not crossing (but it would be hard to determine if that is based on the coin or a bias of it being in an NGC holder). I've also read some people say that PCGS has become more conservative with these toners lately, so that could mean this type of coin would not pass currently.

Here was a thread we had where we posted some straight graded coins that were questionable:
https://www.cointalk.com/threads/th...artificial-questionable-toning-thread.326881/

 

Is it just me or in general do the NGC cameo's look more cameo than the PCGS ones. I've been into proof Lincoln cent cameos (pre 1965) and I just don't get why some of the PCGS coins got cameo designation. In general, the devices of the NGC coins look frostier.

 

Some items, like FBL Franklins, NGC is definitely stricter. However, with Cameo Proofs coins, I don't really see one being clearly stricter than the other.

I wonder if part of it is the physical holder? Does the cameo stand out more against the white or black NGC background compared to the clear PCGS background?

Also, it might depend on the series. When I collected Proof Franklins, I saw a fair share of weak cameos in both holders (as well as nice examples in both). I recall that people were also split on which company was stricter on cameo Franklins when I asked back then.

 

@Pickin and Grinin what did you think about your Kennedy (star worthy)?
If anyone else wants to comment on it, please find the picture on page 30 of this thread.

 

Other than the interesting toning, I find too many nicks in the obverse devices and fields to even consider a star.

 

Next up:

 

No star, too many breaks and too close to terminal on obverse periphery.

 

No Star. Agree with @Lehigh96 about the obverse toning.

 

If the reverse toning was the same on the obverse, easy star.

However, the obverse here is too dark. No star.

 

I am going to go with no star because of the near-terminal toning on the outer edges of the obverse.

 

No Texaco star for me either. I'm a loner, not a toner.

 

Let's extend this one too...

 

No star for me.