What skills/tools does a TPG grader use to grade coins like this?

I have to agree. I could live with the number since I don't really want to argue that from a picture, but to call it a Cam......

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

FWIW, I don't like the number or the CAMEO!

 

I don't think I would either, but I also don't like final judgements from a picture. That said if that picture is accurate, there is no way I would agree that is a several thousand dollar coin.

Full disclosure of my biases I do believe NGC is has been to lose at the upper ends of grades.

 

Thank goodness, I thought it was just me that felt that way.

 

Once someone has decided it's a number, I'm actually okay with the CAMEO designation. The contrast is not hidden.

 

Lehigh96, posted: "One could make the case that the terminal toning on this coin is already damage, and that the coin should not grade due to environmental damage."

AFAIK, the TPGS do not consider very dark toning to be damage. The intense purple and blues are very desirable. Even coins with terminal black corrosion that has destroyed the rims is considered beautiful if at one end of the "rainbow."

Lehigh96 also said: "I won't defend this coin." Me either! That puppy is over graded. There are continuous hairlines easily visible on both sides of the coin. I vote IMPAIRED PR-62 or 63 for the color bump graders.

"And if you were to say that the coin is a problem coin, I would agree with you. That said, I don't feel comfortable grading a proof 3CS from a photograph. But for the life of me, I can't imagine how toning that deep would not affect the reflectivity of the fields and am stunned at the assigned grade."

Actually toning such as this can enhance the reflectivity of a surface. In fact, many MS coins can have mirror-like surfaces where the deep color is. In the past, technical graders called this "apparent Proof-like surface."

 

Ignoring some terminal state toning at the rim of a rainbow toned coin is one thing, this coin is blanketed in black toning.

In my experience, toning on proof coins detrimentally affects the mirrors of the fields. I would be interested in seeing some examples of what you are talking about, though I imagine it would be tough to convey in a photograph.

 

Not black. Dark Purple

 

I don't see how you could possibly make any judgments about either from those pictures!

 

If you say so, it's your coin.

 

Jason, I already made that qualifier in one of my earlier posts. Who knows, maybe the coin looks great in hand.

 

That, to me, in addition to being a tautology, is one of my key Internet numismatics gripes generally. I spent over 30 years in the photography business, and I am painfully aware of the shortcomings of any 2-dimensional medium to adequately, much less neutrally, display what is still a 3-dimesional object. (Of course, some more than others.) Every decision - lighting angles, exposure, surrounding reflectivity, EVERYTHING, makes a serious material difference in how a coin photograph looks. It seems to me to be a "hard ceiling" limitation on Internet numismatics.

 

That's not true, I admitted in the other thread that my standards are more conservative than NGCs. And in this thread I'm giving my personal opinion about terminal state toning which more closely resembles your standards than NGC's.

However, I have also admitted that I'm grading from a rather poor photograph and that what I'm calling black toning has been called deep purple by the owner of the coin. In other words, I must begrudgingly accept the NGC grade since I haven't seen the coin in hand. My take on this coin is based on assumptions from a photograph, something you usually condemn.

 

Hmm, at the end of your response to Lehigh, you ask a very interesting, nope, downright fascinating, question. I believe, based on a lot of reading of contemporary material without longing for an earlier time, that all NGC is even trying to do is state how they believe the market will receive that coin. I'm pretty sure that "accurate", per se, isn't even in the thought process.

 

What does accurate even mean? As we all know, grading standards have "changed" over the years... So what does that mean now? An old MS63 might now be an MS65 -- are either of those grades inherently "wrong" or "inaccurate"?

 

When did I ever say that? I have always contended that you should look for opportunities to buy where the assigned grade overlaps with your own grading standards. The only time that becomes problematic is when one's grading standards (eg your standards) are so punitive that overlap never exists. I have told you for years that even if you wanted to collect, you couldn't, because 99.9% of all TPG graded coins are overgraded in your eyes and nobody is going to sell you the coins at the price of the grade (or two, or three) below the assigned grade.

Wow, that is rich. One of my chief complaints in that thread was that we didn't see the coin in hand and were grading it based off oversized photos that magnified what are very minor hits and that both NGC and CAC had seen the coin in hand and agreed that the coin was an MS67. You were the one who abandoned your own philosophy of not grading from photos by pointing out that you can see the hits so they are not in dispute.

I am simply admitting that it is almost impossible to grade a proof coin from a photograph and that without seeing the coin in hand, the grade could be accurate. That does not mean I agree with the grade. I am still highly skeptical that all of the toning is deep purple as opposed to terminal, that the mirrors are 67 quality, and that the CAMEO effect is fully evident.

 

BINGO! Even the ANA Official Guide (7th edition) says that they also reserve the right to change their standards, because they don't dictate to the market what grade things are; they merely "report" it.