Afterword

"Would of thought grading standards applied across the board with all Roosevelt's."

Perhaps they do, and you are missing a part, or parts, of the grading equation that do not show in the images. In the case of the OP's dime, for example, if eye appeal influences the grade significantly, as some suspect (including myself), and given the fact that eye appeal is highly subjective, the grader's concept of what constitutes eye appeal would trump yours, and perhaps trump some flaws in the coin as well. You would not see why the flaws do not affect the grade the way you think they should, and you may not see what makes the coin so attractive to the grader.

Even the best images do not tell the whole story of a coin's assigned grade.

The assumption to be answered correctly would first have to eliminate the possibility that it did not occur after encapsulation.

Yes, the presence of something to examine would be necessary to make any meaningful determination.

I am assuming it would be preferable to determine whether a coin was or was not PVC contaminated before it was encapsulated. Could PVC be positively identified with a coin in hand and in a holder?

 

I would submit the coin to PCGS under the guarantee for the residue. PCGS would most likely bathe it in acetone and reholder it.

So you are positive the coin has PVC contamination from the image provided by the OP?

Could PVC be positively identified with a coin in hand and in a holder?

I am assuming it would be preferable to determine whether a coin was or was not PVC contaminated before it was encapsulated. Could PVC be positively identified with a coin in hand and in a holder?

The only description of the coin's appearance that I would want, would be something that the image did not show or did not show adequately. I would not expect the marks to be mentioned at all, as long as they are clearly visible in the image provided and not anything other than ordinary post mint marks.

In the case of the dime in the OP, if the marks on the reverse were mint made, which cannot be determined from the image, I would expect this to be mentioned in the description.

The differences between the image of the 1957 D presented at Heritage and the image presented on Ebay are striking.

When some people smell blood, they go for the jugular. Especially when accompanied by perceived weakness in their prey.

Works well in the animal kingdom.

The dust has settled - but now it is mutating into a living dead thread! How do you kill a living dead thread that has no head?

The dust is starting to settle, again.

There are a lot of replies for this kind of thread.

Looks like the dust is starting to settle.

My only interest in Wondercoin's comments was the fact that he did not directly answer Physics-fan question. He either knew the answer or he did not. He declined to say either way.

While fairly early on he stated that he had viewed the coin only once or twice for a couple seconds each time, this still did not answer the question or tell us whether or not he knew the answer. I found this curious.

As for the dime in the OP, I have no problem with the assigned grade. Graders obviously have a lot of leeway when determining a grade. They can use eye appeal to override marks if they so desire.

Eye appeal is an unusual and relatively flexible grading mechanism, unlike marks, wear, and damage and the like, it is completely undefined. You only know it when you see it and someone else may not see it at all, as they would with the other grading mechanisms I mentioned.

While more than one grader is involved in the grading process, I wonder how likely it would be, if the eye appeal for a coin were reasonably present, for it to become a subject of dispute among the graders, considering its highly subjective nature?

It took considerable time before he admitted his ignorance in this matter. Even then it was only implied.

I have to wonder why he did not simply state that he did not know the answer to Physics-fan's question.

"Which brings up a number of related questions if one was to personally determine how they might grade out the 1964-D dime in question:

1. What weight do you place on the obverse of the coin vs. the reverse with respect to the grade you intend to assign to the coin? This is obviously a critical question if it is common in the industry (is it?) to give the obverse of a coin a bit more weight than the reverse of the coin.

2. Do you (or do you not) give the coin a "bump up" at all due to its nice toning, especially for the date?

Summary: At a time when the services were grading far fewer MS68FB / MS68FT coins than we are seeing getting graded today, PCGS assigned a grade of MS68FB to the 64-D dime. Do we know what weight (e.g. 50%, 2/3, 3/4, 80%) they assigned to the very lovely obverse of this coin - No. Do we know what "bump", if any, they awarded the coin for its lovely color for the date in question - No.

Can one "tear apart" an MS68 graded coin by focusing on just one side of the coin, especially the reverse side? Of course. Look no further than the 1964-D (same date) Kennedy Half Dollar in PCGS-MS68 that just sold for around $25,000 at public auction (thank you AHfreak for corrrecting my $22,000 previous statement) and set the world record for a business strike Kennedy Half Dollar. Can anyone post pics of the obverse and reverse of that Kennedy here? We can ask the very same questions I just did about the dime of the same date.... namely, how much weight to the obverse and whether a "bump" is warranted for the color."

You make a good case for how the dime in question might warrant an MS-68 grade despite the two marks on the torch. However, you could have made an even more compelling case for your client if you had revealed the fact that the marks on the torch were mint made, and I see no reason why you would not do so - unless they are indeed post mint marks.

Unless, of course, you have never looked at the marks closely enough to make this determination. However, this seems unlikely given your stated experience with such coins.

"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 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.

"A distraction is a distraction, no?"

What is and is not a distraction is subjective. Make the determination for yourself. The grade on a slab is nothing more than a from of price guide. If you treat it as such, as a guide and not the gospel, you buy the coins you like for the prices you are willing to pay.

The grade on a slab will never be anything more than a form of price guide. You cannot improve upon subjectivity.

"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.

The TPGs could put MINT ERROR FREE on the labels of perfect coins (I wonder how many would qualify?) and QUESTIONABLE TONING on the labels of any coin with toning and EYE APPEAL - JUDGE FOR YOURSELF on every label.

Thanks, 1794.

"I am surprised at how divided the opinions are on what the marks actually are and how they should be factored into the grading process, mainly because almost every single coin I look at/buy/sale/submit for grading/etc have those marks to some degree from copper cents to dollars and everything in between."

I have such coins, as well. If I am not mistaken, this subject has come up before on this message board.

"If the luster is unbroken, as you have said, they are definitely mint made, and should not affect the grade."

 

 

 

 

 

So, when considering eye appeal, the graders ignore these tumbling marks?

 

Since eye appeal is an opinion and everyone has a different opinion and different eye strength and depth perception and color acumen and sharpness, it is best described as "I know it if I see it, even if the other guy doesn't", so the question is best asked of the Grader(s). Experience and knowledge of what a condition is with coin in hand is of course of immense value in determining an eye appeal opinion. In the end, it is all it is. An opinion.

 

 

 

 

Thanks for addressing my question, Mr. Feld.

 

Additionally, I have seen enough coins graded 67 and higher, which bore mint-made flaws/distractions, such that I believe graders usually (at least largely) ignore such marks.

"If the luster is unbroken, as you have said, they are definitely mint made, and should not affect the grade."

So, when considering eye appeal, the graders ignore these tumbling marks?

I had no idea. That is an interesting, and appropriate, coincidence.

Rod Serling just appeared in my office and is now beginning his prologue for this week's episode of The Twilight Zone. Everything is in black and white - my entire office and the world outside of my office window.

The smoke from his cigarette hangs thick in the air, twisting around him like a ghostly serpent and, as the room begins to spin around me, I hear him say something about a message board and what he describes as "....a most unusual poster...." and I begin to