coinman_23885

On top of that, I have been building a private collection of business strike "Proof Like" Silver Roosies for the past (3) decades and have put together a nice little group of them.

So that is where all the PL samples went.

There is still time to resubmit coin for downgrade. Problem is PCGS has too much to lose if they reconsider the grade honestly. Crack it out and send it raw. Maybe then it will grade real.

That would be a very poor decision and would be the numismatic equivalent of Russian roulette with only one empty chamber.

I have two suggestions:

 

1) One poster ought to change his or her name here to Mrlastword. I won't mention who it is because I sure don't want to get into a posting match with him or her.

 

2) Rather than calling this place "Sleepy Hollow" as it has been sometimes described ATS, perhaps "Nasty Hollow" would be more appropriate.

 

Mark

This is tame. You should see the Dan Carr threads.

Mark Feld also has a bias. I trust him to be honest - but everyone has a bias. There are things that, as an employee of Heritage, it would not be in his or his company's interest to say.

Even though I too would be interested in hearing Wondercoin's candid assessment of the coin and specifically the residue and marks, in his defense, I agree that Mark Feld would be 100% neutral and would be completely candid.

Mark Feld has always been candid with me and doesn't hold back. This is based on my interactions with him as a dealer and even after joining Heritage. If his position prevents him from revealing information or being neutral, I have no doubt he would tell you that he couldn't advise you because of a conflict of interest. He wouldn't sugar coat the coin or downplay its faults.

There seems to be a strong reality that many collectors will refuse to pay [strong] money from other collectors, but as soon as their favorite dealers post prices... money becomes no object.

I'm not sure I agree with you. My observations do not match. With a few exceptions, I have had success selling very high end (eye appeal wise) coins to collectors at prices comparable to what some of the large national dealers would ask. There have been a few hold outs. But is that a result of collectors not willing to pay up because most wouldn't consider me a dealer? I don't think so. There is a much smaller pool of potential buyers that are willing to play at that level.

"The situation that is being described is analogous to a Jenga tower; with changing market conditions and positions (blocks), it is setting the entire market up for long term systemic risk and possible collapse."

 

 

 

 

It is one specialty market among many such building blocks of the coin market. I do not know that the collapse of one block would cause it all to start tumbling down. Perhaps it would simply disintegrate, leaving an empty niche to be filled.

But grade inflation isn't just limited to toning, unfortunately. That I could live with given that it is but a small segment of the market. To me it is a larger issue: the inherent long term instability of market grading.

"....but based on the original coin, if it is a MS68 FB by PCGS color standards, then I see no reason the 1950 wouldn't be."

 

 

 

 

If this is true, color (eye appeal) plays a powerful role in the grading process – overriding even original condition. Pretty interesting, for something that is produced post mint.

 

Eye appeal is the most important factor in grading a coin, that's one of the first things you learn in the grading classes.

 

Also, I hate to be the guy who does this again in this thread, but the nose and chin on that 1950 dime do not have hits on them, not saying that they should or shouldn't affect grade, I'm just saying they were caused during the minting process... if that affected grade, then we would need to acknowledge any and all machine doubling and factor it into the overall grade of the coin. I'd rather not go there after this thread

The obvious scrape on the reverse (on the torch) was enough for me.

On another note, I have seen coins of equal technical merit (aside from the toning) in MS68FB NNC, NTC, and PCI holders, and sadly I am not joking.

Pricing is even more subjective than coin grading IMHO, and if the grading services are going to try to price a coin rather than describing its grade, then they should stop pretending like the label represents the coin's physical condition. Color bumping to that degree pretty much moots the grade as most collectors understand it. To complicate it for collectors, the published grading standards by each service even focus on technical aspects when clearly they no longer matter. Since the market is subject to huge fluctuations in tastes and pricing, there is no wonder that grade inflation is rampant. I would say that very few collectors are able to grade at that level, so many are effectively paying a premium on a premium not realizing that there is already a color premium built in as they chase fantasy grades on paper labels for registry slots.

To be clear, I am not suggesting that the 1950 you posted is not worthy of a strong premium above its technical grade - it absolutely is. I am not anti-toning (indeed I have sold common date toned coins in mid to lower MS grade for MS68 money), but at least I thought the grades were close. The situation that is being described is analogous to a Jenga tower; with changing market conditions and positions (blocks), it is setting the entire market up for long term

systemic risk and possible collapse. The grading services brought money and investors into the coin market, and it looks to me like they are going to cause the certified coin market to collapse when money fleas due to market confusion.

Will the grading services be able to honor their guarantees when the market changes and the coins that were MS68 FBs by today's standards are really MS67 FBs by tomorrow's standards? It would seem that a change in market standards could set up the services for huge unfunded liabilities. I cannot envision this being sustainable, and I can now see why there is so much instability in the rare coin market.

talking about hits, gashes and marks, post or pre, Look at the tip of the chin and tip of the nose

I didn't mean to suggest that I would agree with the grade, but based on the original coin, if it is a MS68 FB by PCGS color standards, then I see no reason the 1950 wouldn't be.

Did that one (the 1950) upgrade to MS68 FB or MS68+ FB at PCGS?

Hi everyone. A few minutes ago, my good friend, Nick Cascio sent me an email informing me there was a thread involving me and a dime I am selling for JHF that already has 130 replies (and I need to check it out)!

Thanks for stopping in. Since you have actually seen the coin in hand, I look forward to you joining the discussion.

"Second, while the presence of mint-made flaws might not affect the technical grade in many cases, it typically does affect the value.

 

As an analogy, take the ancient coin market. If you have two slabbed anchient coins of the same type and in the same grade, but one is off-center and one is not, the coin that is off-center will sell for much less than that which is properly centered."

 

 

 

I agree.

 

This is why I believe eye appeal should play no part in the grading process. It just adds another layer of subjectivity to the process that is not needed. The buyers will preform that service for themselves, just as they do in the analogy presented above.

If those were mint made flaws and we were placing coins in TPG slabs based on technical grading, I might be inclined to agree; however, the TPGs market grade. Regardless of the cause, does anyone think this coin is worth 68FB money with the gashes, tumbling marks, voids, or whatever other term we want to use? If not, then the coin shouldn't be in a 68 FB holder. Individual coins shouldn't have special rules - we either market grade everything or we technically grade everything and should not force buyers to make guesses as to which technique/standard the TPG is using. A distraction is a distraction, no?

Be that as it may, tumbling, bumbling, mumbling marks or whatever. Thems serious gouges on a common coin with 10s of millions extant. Why would anyone pay $10K for it beyond me. If graders have the capability to know how each mark on a coin is made, and then grade high if tumbled marks, low if post made marks, well then, they must be psychic.........

 

Best, HT

 

You don't' think graders (or for that matters, non-graders familiar with such coins) can tell the difference between mint-made marks and post-mint flaws? I think in most cases they can. That said, while I might be in the minority, I don't think either type of flaws should get free passes with respect to grading.

So do you think the marks on the dime in the OP are mint-made marks or post-mint flaws? Do you agree with myself and others that think the green residue is PVC? I understand fully if you choose not to answer.

Likely have never seen high end coins if you live in the auction world. My point is that finest known 64-D Roosevelt that started this thread would never be in a dealer possession because they could not sell it in good faith. For sure there is problem free mark free dimes better than that in some ones collection. Don't assume that because PCGS hasn't graded one in 68FT that they aren't available. I know people who have pristine unc. rolls of this stuff. If this coin actually fetches 10k then the next few to surface will pull that price down so fast you will go what the........

 

I'm not certain that I understand your above post, but there are certainly plenty of high ends coins in the auction world. In fact, many of the best coins that end up in the finest collections are obtained through auctions.

 

And contrary to what you said, the 1964-D dime that started this thread apparently IS in a dealer's possession. I have participated in and/or heard about numerous transactions with that dealer, and have always known him to act honorably. Just because a few (or even many) observers believe a coin is over-graded, doesn't mean that it can't be sold in good faith.

Absolutely, and I hope that my comments were not construed to suggest otherwise. My problem/dislike is with the coin and not Mitch (a/k/a wondercoin). Mitch has described a certified coin and included images that plainly show the issues that I dislike so it is all out there for the buyer to see and make his or her own determination. It is up to a potential buyer to decide what the coin is worth to him or her.

AHFreak - No one here thinks or has suggested that you are an insufficiently_thoughtful_person. We disagree and are trying to have an intellectual discussion (or at least I was despite some of the distractions that dilute the discussion). I do not claim to know everything, so I always ask detailed questions before making up my mind even if I think I am correct and the issue straightforward. My initial post was interrogatory in nature for a reason.

My point is that whatever we want to call the marks, I do not believe the coin falls within the grading criteria or eye appeal standards that the services have announced for the grade of MS68 FB. If there is a change in standards, then it is a topic worthwhile of discussion and one that I would think modern coin collectors would want to participate in. If I collected condition rarity modern coins, coins like this would terrify me.

Imagine that you have a coin with a population of 3 or 4, and it is tied numerically for finest known. Imagine that two have imperfections and appear at auction, and then a third example appears without the distractions. Given that the other examples that have sold at auction had defects and provide the only pricing records, do you not think that the defective coins would artificially lower the price expectation of the good coin(s)? Most collectors look at auction records superficially without looking at the substance of the coin that sold. To be sure this is not unique to modern coins, but the effects seem much more pronounced IMHO. The coin may have a price guide value of $10k in the plastic, but outside of the plastic, based on the images, I struggle to see someone paying more than a few bucks given what I perceive to be defects. If I had a PQ, pristine condition rarity, I would worry that the increasing populations (caused in part by grade inflation) would destroy my investment.

Edited to add: Of course I am basing my comments on the photo, which is all we have to go on, but I find it hard to believe that an expert would leave a photo like that up to sell a $10k if the coin looked substantially better in hand. I respect Mitch very much, and do think he is observant enough that he would not overlook how the coin would be perceived to the public and would acknowledge this in the description (e.g. "Coin looks better in hand; what appear to be hits are really XYZ phenomenon... etc.").

These "nicks and dings" are more common on PROOF Franklins than b.s. how do you suppose those nicks and dings got on these proofs? Keep in mind we are talking 1950 and 1951 proofs, handled one at a time, by hand, never coming into contact with anything other than human hands and cellophone before being tucked into a proof set box?

Coins can acquire hits through cellophane. Browse eBay and you will see no shortage of early proof sets with the cello folded over and stapled together, allowing ample opportunity for the coins to clang together.

Nevertheless, your entire argument is predicated upon a striking anomaly. How is it that the metal never completely filled the die and yet (1) it was not the lowest point in the die and (2) we have a very strong strike (on the dime)?

Robec mentions a strike through, but there are even breaks in what I have labeled as a hit in the bottom. It would seem very unlikely to have that many strike throughs on one coin. More importantly, how could one make a principled distinction that could be consistently applied in grading these (i.e. strike throughs that look like this v. hit)?

Edited to add: I find it interesting that you chose the Franklin Half Dollar as one of the representative series to make your point - the series is notorious for grade inflation.

The following are the minimum standards for eye appeal on high grades: MS/PR68 – Must have positive eye appeal MS/PR67 – Must have above average eye appeal MS/PR66 – Cannot have below average eye appeal MS/PR65 – Cannot have negative eye appeal. AMS/PR65 coin can have below average luster or color (toning) if it is outstanding in every other way.

The hits, gouges, "voids," or {insert preferred term here} seem to detract from the eye appeal; at least the PVC colored stuff accents the brown toning reasonably well.

I find it interesting that PCGS has a code for putting coins with mint made planchet flaws in genuine holders. Those coins are as struck. Why should putative striking abnormalities be treated differently? It would seem that in market grading (which PCGS does), everything matters.

Maybe what you are missing is that those "hits/scrapes" you are talking about most definately are not hits or scrapes on the torch. Most coins that I've looked at from the same period have them. They are voids from where the metal didn't fill in the die completely when coin was minted. Had you been looking at the coin in hand, under light, you probably wouldn't have noticed them, but even if u did you would have known right away that they weren't "hits/scrapes".

When you begin talking about metal not filling the die completely, that sounds a lot like a striking anomaly from insufficient striking pressure. And if this is the case, wouldn't the coin have a weak strike at least in the immediate vicinity of the afflicted areas? The coin looks very well struck to me even in areas surrounding what you are labeling as voids. The marks also appear to be on top of the devices as if made after striking. What are the guidelines used by PCGS to distinguish a void versus hit?

On another note, with regards to grading, isn't eye appeal a component of grading? To have large marks in prime focal areas seems to lower the eye appeal to me. I am very interested in this topic because it appears that the modern coins often have issues - like bubbling in zinc lincolns, planchet roughness on Jefferson nickels, etc.

"Hey look at this" he pulls his neighbor grader over to see..."this is the greatest 1964 dime I have ever seen". A crowd begins to gather with curious excitement. |A manager plows his way through the crowd eating his bag of Cheetos and demands a look. HAIL ALAS he bellows...THE FIRST MS68 DIME IN HISTORY.

 

A slabber quickly wisks the coin away and it is mailed back to the submitter.

 

Youre going to tell me all 15 gaders, 2 supervisors and manager missed those hits at the bottom of the torch and the verdigris all over the reverse? I'll give the slabber a pass on this one.

You have a wild imagination. I imagine that many graders are probably like me and couldn't care less if it was a true MS68 FB.

I simply stated that when a coin like that, ends up in a holder like that, something nefarious is at play. My commentary had everything to do with the grader side, and nothing to do with the submitter side as far as implying any negativity.

I don't think it is fair to automatically conclude that there is something nefarious at play here. Graders are human. For all we know, it could have been a typographical error or mechanical error. If submitted under the guarantee, I wouldn't be surprised if PCGS attempted to claim that it was a mechanical error. If I am not mistaken, HRH mentioned that anything over 2 points would be presumed to be a mechanical error, but someone please correct me if I am wrong on that point.

Other factors could be at play too. Allergies and dry eye (think about viewing hundreds of blast white common date Morgan Dollars or silver eagles) can cause eye strain and visual distortion. For all we know, it could have been graded around a holiday and the grader could have had too much egg nog.

This is a blatant example of a little color massively inflating the grade of an otherwise truly pedestrian coin.

I am not sure about this. Usually with a color bump, the toning must be extremely attractive. I find this toning to be neutral at best, and certainly not worth a bump in my humble opinion. I am wondering if this isn't just a case of plain vanilla overgrading/grade inflation as opposed to bump for color. While I disagree with the latter, I at least understand the theory. With this particular coin, I am lost.

Now, I am convinced that I am missing something. What am I missing? Am I really this oblivious to the series? The hits on the reverse would preclude anything above a 65 for me.

Offered here is THE nicest 1964-D Roosevelt Dime ever graded at PCGS in their near 30 year existence as the TOP grading service!! A pop 1/0 coin...!

 

The state of preservation of this dime (especially the obverse) is utterly amazing. Bear in mind, this coin was graded PCGS-MS68FB a long time ago and any suggestion of "recent gradeflation" simply does not apply to this coin that has been in this holder for a long, long time!! ...

 

I am on PCGS' prestigious "Board of Experts" having been hand picked as PCGS' top (outside) modern coin expert at the time.

How does a Roosevelt Dime with two huge hits/scrapes across the torch on the reverse grade MS68 FB? Is that active PVC on the reverse towards the top of the torch?

...And to think people complain about the way I price my toners...

(just kidding about the last part).

New BQ, just arrived.

 

Best, HT

Beautiful coin! Now the question is, what am I missing? That looks better than VF35 to my eyes.

Gorgeous Morgans Joe! When did you start collecting toned Morgan Dollars?

 

jom

Very pretty; this is my favorite among the coins you have shown me (at least recently).