WoW!!! Would you pay this much for a Memorial????

You did have a favorite series, until NBC cancelled "ALF" !
:mouth:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

looks liek you know all about ALF must have followed it a lot

 

Nope, I just seen what you've been buying on eBay.


On Topic !
Blast, that's a lot for such a cent !
:hail:

 

Jeez, $162 bucks, "It's a penny!!!" I've picked up some nice ones in parking lots and must be collecting the wrong series... Then again, "No, there's just no history attached and and no, I'd never pay to get a coin slabbed..."

Sorry

 

What I find interesting about this discussion is that many assume that the coin actually grades 67! History has shown in every single grading experiment that there is no concensus on even a single coin when using the 70 point grading scale. Numerous people have submitted the same coins multiple times, even to the same tpg, with results being all over the place. Even those PCGS grading competitions have results all over the spectrum both in the amature and professional ranks. All this talk about finding a raw 67 is a joke IMO because I doubt that most if not all on this board wouldn't recognize one if they saw one. As Q. David Bowers has pointed out on many occasions, even the alleged experts often can't agree, and more importantly, many lower grade coins are more attractive than their higher grade counterparts.

Add to that the changing standards and the outright manipulation of grading by the tpg's and there is no way to ascertain what that coin actually grades. One of the best examples is the Mickley 1804 Dollar. Graded THREE times by three different Numismatic professionals as "CIRCULATED" and it now sits in an NGC slab graded PR62!

What makes that coin so desirable is that the printing on the label is all that matters to the registry crowd. As the PCGS registry add so eloquently states in fewer words, one can aspire to greatness if they have enough money to buy their way to the top on the totem pole, along with the ignorance to buy into a cleverly designed marketing scheme.

 

Uh....no.

 

Modern coins are easier to grade than classics since surface conditions are rarely an issue. If a modern looks unc then it is unc and hasn't been played with.

Grading is subjective largely because there is no truly formal way to weight its various aspects. Strike and die condition are critical in the highest grades but how critical? Marks are important in all unc grades but how are different sized marks in different locations weighted? Many moderns have planchet scratches, are these factored in? How about PL? Is some marking to be given a pass because it wouldn't show up if the coin weren't PL?

If you take MS-67 and 66 moderns that are typical in every regard for their grade then anyone could learn to spot the difference in a few minutes.

Another thing is certain as well; the best quality is always the best no matter what grade you call it whether it's a 200 year old coin or a 30 year old coin.

 

Interesting, Cladking. In the latest edition of COIN WORLD, Bowers states that "As there is very little visual difference between MS65 and MS67,.........", which I happen to agree completely, I find it difficult to fathom how "anyone" could learn to differentiate the difference between an MS67 and an MS66 in a few minutes. If that were the case, there would be no need for "professional" grading of moderns since whoever came across those 67's could simply sell them raw at that grade because "anyone" could verify the grade in a few minutes.

 

That reminds me....I have a whole pocket full of MS 70 Lincolns if anyone's interested
Guy~

 

Did you quote directly from the SGS website?

Ribbit

 

I suspect Mr Bowers was referring to classics.

The problems with grading isn't seeing the difference, the problem is with the weighting of those differences. Not only do many MS-65's really fall in the MS-64 or MS-66 realm but more importantly most coins have attributes of several different grades. This is no simpler for moderns because you might have a perfectly struck coin but from highly eroded dies. Then it might be virtually mark-free. How is such a coin graded? One service might call it a 68 and another a 62. One collector will think it's beautiful and another disgusting.

But these aren't the differences which are easily learned. What's easily learned is seeing the range of marking and the range of strike and die quality. Dividing these into seven or ten levels is quite easy if the coins are equal in all parameters.

There tends to be a little correlation between being well struck and mark free (except in nickels). It's easy enough to look for exactly what one desires whether that's pristine surfaces or exceptional detail. One might eschew this altogether and seek circulated coinage or one might insist on coins that are close to perfection. Really with some of my collections I'm just not really concerned about grade at all. With something like a good-for token it just seems more interesting if it has a lot of wear. Imagine all the free cigars or whatever that were the result of the wear!

 

Even tho I have 3 books with chapters on grading mint state copper, the most I have learned in my life was in less than an hour.

I sat with David Lange and Rick Snow at the last big coin show, and let me say this, it was very humbling........

 

no wonder i am not making a profit from BENT you are not paying a dime for all the coins you get slabbed through them er i mean us

 

what a coincidence i was sitting with David Lange myself for about half hour yesterday now

 

Really, cool. I did this at the ANA show for about 20 min and found his knowledge incredible. It is amazing what you think you know untill you talk to somebody who actually does know, lol

 

actually we had a lot of fun. there were coins i showed him that he was clueless about and he was honest enough to say he was cluless about them. you know you ar eon the right track when the big shots are caught in 2 minds with rare coins and call other experts in hopefully i will see him again tomorrow

 

If you are referring to me, GDJMSP, let me set the record straight. The reason I KNOW that "grading is so inconsistent" is because the results of every single grading experiment without exception proves just that, not to mention my own personal experiences. The people who graded the subject coin are supposed to be the kind of professionals you suggest as being capable of decerning the differences in the 11 ms grades are also the same people who issue different grades for the exact same coin on resubmission. Perhaps you could explain that phenomenon.

Opinions are often times interesting, but there is no denying the facts. I dare you to buy a 1999 Silver Proof Quarter in an NGC 70 slab, crack it out and try to get a PCGS 70. After all, both NGC and PCGS have those professional graders with all that experience and ability. Just think about it. With the prices the PCGS coins are getting, you could make a small fortune cracking out those 500 or so NGC 70's and get them all into the more expensive PCGS 70 slabs.

Again, I refer to the Mickley 1804 Dollar. Did the professionals at NGC get it right as a PR62, or was Q. David Bowers 12 points off when he graded it PR50????? And since when does a cleaned coin (harshly cleaned according to Walter Breen) warrent a 62 grade. Kindly enlighten me as to which of the above are not so "professional"?

 

Vavet;

There's no question that market grading is inconsistent. This is the nature of the beast. The market is composed of people and not only does this mix of people change but each individual changes over time. Since market grading is an attempt to guess what these people will pay for a coin then it's going to vary. Not only does it vary a lot as markets change but it even varies for many coins from day to day.

We're talking apples and oranges here. If a coin is all over the map in quality with say extensive marking but great surfaces and strike a grader is going to have to guess what the market value is. His estimation might be different from day to day and other graders might be more consistent individually but not collectively.

I've always been a big fan of actually grading the coins rather than pricing them but only a small handfull of people are in agreement. Unless this happens collectors just have to realize that a lot of coins aren't a mere toss up between a couple of grades but maybe three or four grades and even more from one service to another.

Look for the qualities you like and buy those when you need them for your collection and the price is right. But no matter how you cut it there is plenty of difference from one grade to another to see even though one 1979 cent may be an apple and another may be an orange.

 

Cladking,

I understand the concept of market grading as it forms a significant part of my distain for the alleged professional grading services. Clearly, market grading is designed to increase profit by grade inflation which flies in the face of having so called standards period! There are no standards when a coins grade changes as a result of the collecting/investing publics willingness to accept what is presented to them.

Such manipulation of so called standards begs the question; is the cent in question graded based on it's own merits of quality or was it graded based on what the registry part of the "market" will accept. Not having seen the coin, I am only posing the question along with some facts to suggest that that particular question should be asked.

Prior to slabbing, coins that were market graded during a hot market would be downgradd once things cooled off. With slabs, those inflated grades are on the slab to stay, and with the collecting mentality of today, alot of collectors are going to get stiffed in the future if they don't get a handle on what is at play here.

Perhaps it might help to know that I am a firm believer of having one set of rules and having them apply to everyone.