lehigh96

When you have a coin professionally graded, is there a correct grade or does the coin have a correct "grade range?"  And if a coin has a correct grade range, then it is entirely possible to submit the same coin more than once, have the coin receive different grades, and both grades be correct.  What I am talking about is the inherent subjectivity in grading colliding with incremental grading.  We have all done it.  You look at a coin and you simply can't decide if the coin is gem grade (MS65) or just miss gem (MS64+), and your might change your mind depending upon how you view the coin, lighting, magnification.  In this example, the incremental grade range might be MS64.7 to MS65.2.  Depending upon who the graders are at the time of grading, the coin can grade either MS64+ or MS65, and both grades are correct.

1 minute ago, physics-fan3.14 said:

I usually associate counting machine marks with circular patterns, but your theory does make sense.

Yeah, no way it could be a modern counting machine, I'm thinking something from the late 1800's or early 1900's that required manual manipulation rather than electricity.

The marks on the chin (blue circle by Jason) look to be indentations that appear to be evenly spaced in a pattern with a flat top edge and a rounded at the bottom of each mark.  I don't know what caused it, but it seems to be either the coin was stamped with something or grabbed and moved by something that had protruding bumps like on a conveyer belt.  Perhaps some sort of old time coin counting machine used in banks or casinos for slot machines.

The marks in the field below the chin (green circle by Jason) are much finer and not in any pattern and don't look like bag marks.  Looks like someone shot it with a really tiny shotgun.  I have no idea what caused these marks.

1 hour ago, Ali E. said:

Hello, lehigh96.

Our apologies for any confusion. For further information about major awards, please click here: https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/awards/. Sets with a high percentage of PCGS coins are considered for best in category for all US sets. For major awards, which include monetary awards, we do want to recognize those collectors who reflect their commitment to NGC. Thank you.

Ali, I know what the website says, which is why I asked the question.  And since you brought it up, I am a two time winner of the "Best Presented Set" Award, where is my money?  I didn't get a monetary award either time I won that award, so either the Best Presented Set doesn't include a monetary award, or you guys just don't like me.  At this point I would like to change my question, here it goes.

Since the Best Presented Set award doesn't include a monetary award, why is there a 75% requirement that coins be in NGC plastic?

4 hours ago, Ali E. said:

Hello and thanks for the interest. Sets with PCGS coins are considered for major awards, yes.

I don't think my initial question was clear enough.  NGC requires that in order for a set to qualify for a major award category, the set needs to be comprised of at least 75% NGC graded coins.  My question is related specifically to the Best Presented Set category.  Since the Best Presented Set is based upon the photos and descriptions provided by the registry participant, why should it matter if the coins are in NGC or PCGS plastic?

FYI, I took the following quote from the NGC Registry Award page:  "At least 75% of the coins registered to a set must be NGC-certified for the set to be eligible for the Major Awards listed above."

5 hours ago, Fenntucky Mike said:

Was "restoration" refused or did they not give you the option?

I have to say that I made a submission to both PCGS and NGC in the last month.  In both cases, there were coins that the TPGs thought were in need of restoration.  The two NGC coins were rainbow toned proof Jefferson Nickels plucked from cello proof set packaging.  Don't ask me why NGC wanted me to remove the toning as both coins were beautiful, but they sent me an e-mail giving me 24 hours to respond if I wanted to complete the restoration process through NCS at a price of $25 per coin.  PCGS on the other hand, bodybagged my coin and sent it back to me with a sticker on the back recommending that I use their restoration service.

Obviously I am in favor of the way that NGC handles the situation.

39 minutes ago, Insider said:

Here's the deal.  A TPGS can do whatever they want.    

I agree with you, and if they wanted to bodybag/reject coins for intentional damage, they could easily do so.  You were the one who said they didn't have that option.  Perhaps as a grader working for the TPG, you don't currently have that option, but that doesn't mean the TPG couldn't revise their policy anytime they want.  

Can sets comprised mostly of PCGS graded coins compete for the Best Presented Set Category?

1 hour ago, Insider said:

 

None of the services slab coins with PVC residue!  It is a judgement call because coins with PVC are in every TPGS holder.  There is a difference between a coin that is cleaned, scratched, etc and one with obvious PVC haze or spots.

Irrelevant!  If they can bag a coin for PVC residue, they can bag a coin for other reasons, including excessive/deliberate damage.

4 minutes ago, VKurtB said:

They don’t? News to me. I included a coin for a buddy on my most recent “world” order to NGC and it came back in a body bag/flip with a sticker. 

I got a Jefferson Nickel back from PCGS last month in a body bag/flip with a sticker for PVC Residue.

16 minutes ago, Just Bob said:

Without knowing the grade that it was given, it is impossible to say whether or not it deserves a plus. But, the toning is pretty enough that I believe it did receive a star.

Good point, it is an MS67

17 minutes ago, brg5658 said:

I miss @gmarguli on CoinTalk. 

NGC boards are a ghost town - sad really.  

+1

Coincidentally, I just found a coin that this topic applies to.

Does this Jefferson Nickel deserve a +, *, +*, or nothing at all?

I think due to my dogmatic nature, I am usually the guy that gets added to those lists rather than the guy doing the adding.

On 9/7/2020 at 6:41 PM, erwindoc said:

Been thinking about this question for some time and I will start by saying that I have been a fan of the NGC star designation for years(check my sets if you don't believe me!).  Unfortunately, I think that the plus grading system has hurt the value of the star.  Points are the same in the registry for a star coin, which is designated for exceptional eye appeal.  The plus is upper ends of the respective grade.  What are your thoughts???  Which would you rather have a "+" or a "*"?  Riding the fence with this dime that has both the plus and star designation...

 

I'm not sure that it was the plus designation that hurt the star designation, but like you, I have been a fan of the star designation since its inception in the early 2000s, but as of late, it seems rather impossible to get a star out of NGC.  I sent a submission last year where I was expecting anywhere from 5-10 stars.  I got ZERO!!!!  Then they took away the Designation Review service this year so if I wanted to send them back for reconsideration, I would have to submit the coin under the regrade service, pay full price, and get a new serial number.

As for your original question, I typically would choose the star because that relates to eye appeal, but your Barber Dime seems the best way to go, get both the star and the + on the same coin.  Currently, I only have one of those.

10 hours ago, VKurtB said:

That's unfair, but like most snark (and I know snark), it has at least a nugget of truth in it. @Insider is coming off a little angry lately, and that confuses me. He's actually a sweetheart. At some point in all our lives, when we devote our lives to a particular profession and/or activity, and it starts to obviously value change over continuity, that can ruffle feathers. Now I don't want to go all psychotherapist (or Psycho the Rapist) here, but I am starting to read a lot of angry stuff from a lot of people in numismatics, and while I do "feel their pain" (while simultaneously biting my lower lip), I'm inclined to offer the advice that Leonard Hofstadter' mother Beverly offered to Leonard: "Buck up, sissy pants". Yeah, it stinks. But it happens.

Oh yes, you certainly know snark, and we miss it over on CT.  I think I might spend a little more time over here just to get some snark with Big Bang Theory references mixed in.

In the past I was able to send NGC graded coins in for "Designation Review" at a price of $12 per coin.  I just checked to see if the prices have changed and I can't find the option for "Designation Review" anywhere on NGC's website.  Additionally, the option no longer exists on the NGC submission forms either.  Has "Designation Review" been eliminated?  If so, how to I submit Jefferson Nickels that have 5 Full Steps but were graded prior to the inception of the 5FS designation in 2003?  Also, how to I submit a coin that I feel deserves a star designation but was not given one at the time of grading?

Thank you in advance,

Paul

"If Heritage acknowledges their existence, would you concede that their description is unbiased?"

 

Of course, I would "concede" that their description was unbiased with just about whatever they write.

 

Look... "reasonable men may differ". I may agree with PCGS that the coin is an MS68FB. Someone else might believe the coin is only MS67+FB quality (many of the MS68 slabbed quarters I routinely see I believe are only MS67+ quality). I have no problem with that. What I can say is that in my opinion those are likely the only two grade options an experienced grader looking at the coin would come up with. Any talk that the coin is an MS66 or even a low end MS67 (without bands) is "hogwash" I believe.

 

Starting tomorrow, I will be out of the country for the next several weeks so it may be more difficult for me to revisit this thread. But, when I can, I will.

 

As always, just my two cents.

 

Wondercoin

For the record, that question was posed to Mumu, not you Wondercoin. As far as the grade of the coin goes, I will trust that both the opinion of the PCGS graders and an extremely knowledgeable Roosevelt collector, and conclude that the assigned grade is deserved.

As the consignor (on behalf of the owner), I would like to see Heritage describe the coin as they would any other coin in the ordinary course of their business. No better, no worse. I personally hope Mark does not say anything to the person assigned to the task of describing the coin for the catalog. This way, we can all get an unbiased, impartial and typical auction description of the coin in line with every other description of every other coin in the sale.

.

 

 

I value your expert opinion of the coin and if had to bet that the truth was closer to yours than mine, well I am no dummie and would not even think twice. However to call the auction houses's write up unbiased is absurd. Has there every been any coin an auction house has in any way disagreed with any TPG slab, let alone a top pop? If there has been I would be surprised. Explicity speaking, there is no way they would call this coin over graded, or missing the splits.

I have seen coins like this one described by Heritage (et al) in the following way, "minor marks on the reverse bands are noted for accuracy." By all accounts, the only REAL problem that anyone has had in this entire thread are those marks. If Heritage acknowledges their existence, would you concede that their description is unbiased?

The coin is now off ebay and will be in the hands of Mark the next time he sits at his desk in Dallas.

 

One thing I wanted to mention .... many here repeatedly commented about whether the dime was worth $10,000 or was graded properly for a $10,000 coin, etc. The number "$10,000" continued to come up. But, keep in mind, I had a "best offer" on the coin on ebay. So, obviously, I was prepared to accept less for the coin (and on top of that pay ebay and paypal fees).

 

Indeed, I received a serious offer tonight for the coin from a very astute Roosie buyer - a private (off-ebay) offer that I would have likely countered, but would have hoped to reach a mutual agreement on following further negotiations. Instead, I told the interested party that the dime had already been shipped to Mark for auction and I welcomed his bid for the dime at the auction.

 

I did want to make this point, because if and when the coin sells for less than $10,000 at auction, I can already see and hear the posts in my mind that may be written that say essentially "I told you the coin was not worth "$10,000". Again, my ebay ad listed an asking price of $9,995 with the request for interested parties to make me a counter-offer (i.e. best offer). I will truly let you know if I was pleased or not with the auction result when it is completed.

 

Wondercoin

After the way you have been treated in this thread, I can't believe you are giving a free lesson on how to sell coins.

A proof 68 Rosie should have full clean smoking hot torch and maybe deep mirror surfaces. So the discussion should involve clean surfaces and heavy cameo contrast to quality for real eye appeal right ? Why spend 10 k for a highly contested unc grade when '64 Proof 69 Ultra Cameo coins are available for a couple hundred bucks.

 

Apples to oranges. And grades for proof coins - low value, as well as high value ones - can be just as easily and "highly contested".

 

I think he presenting an "eye appeal" suggestion for the average collector, in that a proof 69 (and obviously he means a non-contested proof 69 UC) would have a a presentation of all the details of the design as intended in a non-questionable manner, vs.a highly contested...excepting a few specialists or dedicated registry participants....unc. coin that has marks that are not, as he suggests, exactly expected on what would be a "clean" surface. It is his way of stating "$10,000 for what? I am just a collector that wants to enjoy the coin, not have bragging rights or registry points or investment gains or losses."

 

I tend to agree, in general. If I was spending the 10K, I would not find the marks persuasive to me as a collector as an example of a clean surface, regardless of background stories or rarities or colors, or registry, etc., or what a specialist or expert presents.

 

He probably is. However, that point could also apply to many Proof coins, where a one point grade difference can result in a price difference of thousands of dollars and for which the grade can also be hotly debated.

 

Additionally, I said "apples to oranges" because many collectors prefer to pursue extremely well preserved business strikes, which, as opposed to Proofs, were not intended to be saved and can present a much greater challenge.

 

Of course. I did mention "uncontested" proof 69 UC, with the understanding that even such an contested designation would still be contested, because it always would and will be,, and is contested when there is a significant price spread. It is human nature. I think the present coin is an example of this, especially when there are unexplained marks, with not the slightest effort to acknowledge the marks. It is my opinion there should still be straightforward and direct acknowledgement of obvious questionable surface marks, when collectors have a question about same, and not avoidance by the person(s) offering the coin. The marks are there. Say so. It is not the end of the world to admit there are marks, instead of opining in a manner that suggests it does not matter.

 

As another example, we both have had a mutual interesting occurrence, in fact two occurrences, of even very knowledgeable professional graders and a somewhat able collector being left scratching their heads about value of a coin without marks and with superior surfaces and details, and a somewhat rare coin. But, there was not misdirection or avoidance involved.

For someone who has refused to answer my repeated questions about your experience and knowledge regarding registry quality coins, your accusations of misdirection and avoidance are incredibly hypocritical.

Since you have no problem in offering unending criticism of Wondercoin, including questioning his integrity as a businessperson, I think that your knowledge (or lack thereof) becomes very relevant to the entire conversation. Along those lines, I would like you to answer a few questions for me. Do you collect coins? If so, what do you collect? Can you prove that you collect coins by telling us about your last purchase (photos preferred)? Assuming you can prove that you are an actual coin collector and not just a professional forum troll, do you have any experience collecting registry quality coins? Have you ever sold coins over the internet? If so, when describing coins, do you ensure that you always point out the most negative aspect of each coin?

You have harassed Wondercoin basically from his very first post in this thread and then you accuse him of obfuscation because he won't answer your crazy question about "bands are fine." I guess you didn't notice that not one other person in this thread joined you in your "bands are fine" crusade. There is a reason for that. Everyone else participating in this thread is an experienced numismatist, not a forum troll. They knew that your question was insane and also knew that the explanation that I offered was something that a cub scout working on his coin collecting merit badge could have figured out. Perhaps Wondercoin doesn't view you as MrMcKnowitall. Perhaps he thinks that you are MrMcBatcrazy or MrMcDouchebag and was simply hoping that if he didn't fully engage your lunacy that you would simply go away.

Knowing more about internet trolls than Wondercoin, I enter the conversation a second time to give you the OBVIOUS answer, Wondercoin confirms his intentions and provides further clarity within his post, but instead of accepting the answer, you attack him again on the basis that he was simply using my explanation as an out and that his clarification was simply more misdirection. You have no idea how foolish you sound. The other members of this forum, being generally nice people, don't have the energy to tell you what a fool you are because they don't want your particular brand of lunacy pointed at them. Well guess what dude? I don't give a ! Bring it! I have dealt with trolls like RMA who make you look like a rank amateur.

Thank you Coinman!

 

If you thought the story about Roosies was interesting ... you should only learn the story behind Jefferson Nickel registry set collecting

 

Wondercoin

As the owner of the 5th ranked Jefferson Nickel set in the NGC Registry, I would very much like to hear that story, but perhaps if you are willing, you could create a new thread to tell the story so that it does not get lost in the Purgatory that is this thread.

 

I still only want to know why the listing description of the coin includes "the "bands" are fine".

 

The coin is labeled FB. Is this not enough for the Registry?

 

Mr. Wondercoin is consistent in avoiding a simple explanation for what "the "bands" are fine" means. It is not a slip of using a different word. The listing has "bands" in quotation marks.

 

I am sure he has reasons. It is not about the grade to me. I don't care. It is the marks. I also don't care what caused the marks. I just want to know what the interpretation of "the "bands" are fine means.

 

In my first post, I asked you if you have any experience with registry quality coins, but you did not answer me. The reason I asked is related to the answer to your question about what "bands are fine" means.

Coins with strike designations will often drive significant premiums over those without strike designations. This is true for SLQs, Franklin Halves, Jefferson Nickels, Mercury Dimes, and Roosevelt Dimes. At the registry quality grades, this price premium usually reaches its highest level and presents the greatest amount of risk for the collector.

You correctly point out that a coin with FB/FT designation will qualify for registry points and ranking but it ignores the other aspect which is price. Collectors are very hesitant about plunking down $10K on what is otherwise a very cheap coin unless they can be assured that the assigned grade, including the strike designation are warranted. Furthermore, any experienced collector of series with strike designations knows how often coins obtain these strike designations but do not warrant the designation in the eyes of most of the collecting community, especially by PCGS. Since the strike designation makes up so much of the price of the coin, the validity of designation becomes paramount at resale. As an example, look at this 1948 Jefferson Nickel NGC MS66 5FS with an current population of 25/1.

Directly under the 1st pillar there is a mark that traverses all of the steps and should preclude the FS designation, but NGC missed it. Without Full Steps, this is a $100 coin, with Full Steps Numismedia Wholesale is listed at $1,325. If I were to offer this coin for sale, I could not in good conscience make the claim in the description that the "steps are fine."

Any astute collector will certainly inquire about the dealer's opinion of the strike designation before spending $10K on a coin that without the strike designation would be worth a fraction of that price. So when Wondercoin says the "bands are fine," he is offering his opinion of the validity of strike designation, in much the same way that he comments about his opinion of the numerical grade earlier in his description.

As a buyer/seller of registry quality Jefferson Nickels, I can tell you that this practice is extremely common and I comment about the strike designation almost always when selling high grade full step Jefferson Nickels. Of course, I can't state for a fact that this was Wondercoin's intention or meaning, but as a player in the registry coin market, that was my assumption.

While I understand the sentiment of some that the coin is overgraded because of the minor marks on the torch, I think that Wondercoin is basically in a no win situation. As you can see from his post count, he is not a regular poster on this forum, therefore nobody here can expect to know anything about his integrity as a grader or person unless they know him from some other venue. Given the fact that he has an obvious self declared bias, he has no expectation that we will believe that his efforts to defend the grade of the coin are anything more than an attempt to represent the interests of the owner of the coin.

That said, it was obvious from his first handful of posts in this thread that he has more knowledge of Roosevelt Dimes than just about anyone in the world. So he devised a solution to remedy the problem which was to have a professional grader and long time forum member with an impeccable reputation (Mark Feld) examine the coin and provide a less biased (understand that Mark now works for the auction house selling the coin) opinion of the grade of the coin.

He has provided a very good explanation as to why he thinks the grade of the coin is correct. It is apparent that many people in this thread view marks such as these as grade limiters that should automatically preclude the top pop grade of MS68. And while you are entitled to that opinion, that is not the standard which Wondercoin used to assign the MS68 grade and it is not the standard that PCGS used to grade the coin either. At the top pop ranges of coins, even Roosevelt Dimes, the TPGs will rank coins rather than grade them. So when Wondercoin says that this is the single highest quality 1964-D Roosevelt Dime that he has ever seen, that is his reason to justify the MS68 grade, despite the marks.

@MrMcknowitall, you continue to harp on a single line that Wondercoin used to describe the bands in his description of the coin on E-Bay. What in the hell does that have to do with the actual grade of the coin? You incessantly use the words misdirect & obfuscate to describe his posts. Don't those words have the same meaning? Are you using them in combination for emphasis? IMO, Wondercoin has been forthcoming and presented detailed background information about his experience and expertise as it relates registry quality coins, specifically Roosevelt Dimes. He has provided us with a logical reason for the MS68 grade of this coin, as well as a way to overcome his apparent bias and unknown reputation. I really have no idea what more you expect him to do. If you disagree with the grade of the coin, then make your case for why it should not grade MS68 instead of simply nitpicking Wondercoin's E-Bay description. Before you make your case though, it would be nice to know your experience with both registry quality coins and Roosevelt Dimes.

Personally, I'm not a big fan of top pop coins that have such obvious distractions. I once owned a 1944-P Jefferson Nickel PCGS MS67+ FS. It was a gorgeous coin with blazing luster and outstanding rainbow toning, but it had a very faint mark that traversed the steps. In my mind, it called the FS designation into question and just left a bad taste in my mouth. I had another registry collector after me to sell it and when he finally made an offer to replace my coin with the Compradore 1944-P PCGS MS67FS and extra cash, I jumped at the opportunity. But that is the great thing about this hobby, the only standards that really matter are your own.

Paul