Insider

I'll guarantee you that there are folks I shall not need to name that could tell you the grade of your Saint with their naked eyes the second you handed it to them and they looked at it. So, I'm being serious. What most "chat room" nerds (I'm one) or "advanced" collectors fail to understand is that on a scale of 1-10 we would possibly be ranked from 1-6. Those dealers/professional numismatists I did not name are ranked either 9 or 10. Furthermore all TPG's are human and grading is subjective. Therefore, ANYONE (even a chat room nerd) will be able to find a slabbed coin that is completely "off." Stuff happens. "Liners" and market fluctuations may contribute to disagreements with the TPGS grade. I'm not a commercial grader so IMHO modern professional grading mostly sucks. That's because they are attempting to put a commercial value on a coin rather than concentrating on the coin's actual condition. Nevertheless, in the large picture, everything works. CAC is a business. They have the easiest job in the world. They look at previously graded coins and choose those they like. I don't have any idea what you are writing about that you think went on 15 to 30 years ago at the TPGS..

This: "I am unaware of a time in the history of the press, free or otherwise, when all that was reported was facts untainted by opinion." From its beginning, the press in this country has mostly been a group of cut-throat liars, especially when political battles were going on. The main difference between then and now is they did not claim to be unbiased. Back then, you knew exactly what side they were on by what they reported, what they hid, and who/what they attacked. Hummm, I guess it is exactly the same as today EXCEPT today the Press in this country does not miss anything and is totally unbiased. . PS Someone can write anything about anything or ignore it. As for Pickett, there is ONLY ONE TRUE STORY. As for my missing laptop computer, there is only one true story.

No!!!! If you hand a raw Saint to one of the "White Sharks" of numismatics , they know the grade the second they see it.

IMO, the ANA should have NEVER moved their authentication service which later started grading coins from DC. The politicians wanted to get a firm control of the only profitable part of the organization. If they had not moved and not sold it, the deal with moving the museum would have been perfect. As far as being located in a "cow town," IMO, the Springs is perfect. I believe the ANA got a good lease on the land too. Having a collage next door is another plus. Additionally, the library gets more use than the coin collection (except for seminars). BTW, the Philatelic Organization is located in a place you've never heard of. They bought a match factory.

I think 8 -10 sec. is a good relaxed average for the complete process for one easy type coin such as a Morgan dollar. All the attribution is done but the grader needs to remove it from the box and flip, then grade it, put the results in the computer, and put it back into the box.

They should have allowed a few write in picks.

I think everyone listed has left a mark. There are tons of folks not on the list so it appears you must be living. IMO, collectors w/deep wallets are very influential however I won't vote for them because they are not in the same category as a Bass who left a legacy of research. Same goes for most of the influential dealers except in cases like Hall, JA, JD, etc. Much of this will come down to a popularity contest. For me, just being on the list was a surprise as I was purposely left out of the ANA's Centennial Edition. BTW, I included myself with all my other picks.

Looks altered outside the mint. The reeding is very irregular.

I recommend every new collector buy a CC dollar in a GSA holder (graded or not) in order to see what the surface luster of a totally original dollar should look like. Sure they have a specific luster all their own but you will usually have a coin with a 62-63 obverse and a 66-67 reverse to keep as a grading reference. They also tend to hold a price range and I believe they will always be in demand. This weekend I paid $200 to get a raw 84-CC "gem" with sandblasted cheek and hair to fool my grading students.

Again, I offered a suggestion FOR EVERYONE into the "circle thing" you two are having. Apparently, you didn't have Goodman's book either or you would know that tilting coins is recommended in certain situations. I forgot his recommendations for proofs.

How true. There is a best selling book : Unfreedom of the Press. It traces the history of the American Press. I'll bet that only one or two on this forum has read it. Me and one (?) more.

Imaging Proofs are in Goodman's book. My copy is at home just now.

Informed by a FREE & UNBIASED NATIONAL PRESS reporting BOTH SIDES of a subject. By pavement-pounding research, the free press would make sure that what they reported was strictly TRUE and confirmed FACTS and not opinion.

Sorry you feel that way but I'm suffering also from all the dodges. I'm just seeking for you to agree with Mr. Goodman. Basically, it is OK to tip a coin when photographing it. Let me refresh the problem I've been having for over a week... Posted October 15 Your response: "I would strongly disagree. If you’re just looking at a coin, tilting into a light source is a good idea. True. If you’re trying to take in focus photos you should absolutely not tilt the coin. Macro photography functions with very shallow depth of field. Tilting a coin causes the surface of the coin to only be in focus for part of the coin, not the full coin." My simple question - AGAIN, and AGAIN from a member interested in learning to take better images after reading the OP is this. Who should I believe? Mr. Goodman from one of my books I consulted upon your recommendation. You and others here: "If you’re trying to take in focus photos you should absolutely not tilt the coin." Simple request: Now do you agree that my suggestion to try tipping a coin may work in some cases and still keep the coin in focus? If you ask me to prove it for you, I spent about 14 minutes taking images to be sure that I was not blowing smoke in your discussion.

No! I believe Accugrade was the first. I believe Robert Paul also had a slab that he franchised out. In the early 80's, when INS was approached to slab our product I was one against it. "Collectors want to hold their coins!" Big mistake on my part. The Director also did not like the idea of the grade combined with the coin in the holder for all time.. I'm still back on page #4.

There were several TPGS by 1986 when PCGS started. ANA, INS, and NCI were the major's probably in that order of volume. ANA and INS were in little "Ivory Towers." The graders were not dealers and both services were very strict. I like to think of us as the sheep dogs that kept the "wolves" away from the "sheep." Well, there was a lot of money being made authenticating and grading coins so it didn't take long for the "wolves" to join in. At the time, the ANA had a great group of authenticators and graders. Possibly the best ever assembled. PCGS hired away Rick Montgomery and they were off to the races. Immediately, they had the largest group of dealer customers who received kick-backs. The dealers loved the "Market Grading" being done by former and active dealers working there. It was less strict then but nothing like the way it has evolved into. PCGS sucked a majority of the business up in the market. Their slab was the "nail in the coffin."

Just to correct the record and I don't blame anyone for believing the "fabricated myth" perpetrated chiefly by certain parties in the ANA administration over the years. You see, if you tell a lie long enough everyone will believe it. Tom and I have had this talk before so this is probably an old article. The ANA's Certification Service was the FIRST authentication service. I worked there shortly after it started. The ANA's Certification Service was the SECOND third-party grading service. I worked at the FIRST TPGS at the INS Authentication Bureau in DC. We graded customers coins for free! The grade was sent out on a buff card separate from the authentication certificate because Charles Hoskins (former Director at the ANA's service) believed that GRADING WAS A KNOWLEDGEABLE OPINION subject to a different opinion. When the INSAB went out of business due to losing market share after PCGS and NGC came along, the ANA's Certification Service became and is now the OLDEST TPGS. Therefore, Tom was incorrect when he wrote this but he knows better now: "But third-party grading didn’t always exist. I started it on behalf of the non-profit American Numismatic Association on March 1, 1979." Tom helped to start the SECOND TPGS months after our service - the first - had been up and running for several months! The boys at the ANA also claimed to use "Technical Grading" but they had no clue what it actually was or how to apply it because none of them were around at the time it was first used! BTW Hoskins welcomed the ANA's "new" service because he though everyone should be able to get a second opinion from a credible organization. We also welcomed the additional revenue as now we started to charge customers if they wanted our, formerly free, grading opinion. I'll probably need to add more corrections later as I read through this thread.

Sorry, I don't have time right now. Basically, when you are taking a measurement of something you cannot combine two different things w/o confusing the measurement. Is a sight unseen AU-58 a coin with a trace of wear and many marks (ANA AU-Typical) or a coin with a trace of wear and no marks (ANA AU-Choice). Commercial Coin Grading combines many factors. The old, obsolete, "true" Technical System used only one measurement for circulated coins. There were ONLY two (70 was not used) MS grades - Unc and Choice Unc. It was easy back then.

Roger, It appears that you also are mistaken about my suggestion and my posts As for your comments above: 1. "With Insider having withdrawn from the thread, I hope members will ask brg5658 relevant questions for improving their coin photos. Also, there seem to be some areas where his approach is clearer than Mark Goodman's. Not so, waiting to see if anyone is interested in seeing what our camera did. So far, one NO vote. 2. "Unfortunately, so far nothing in Insider's posts or photos demonstrates the in-depth knowledge and comprehension to qualify as an "expert." Absolutely true! Read the thread again. I confessed ignorance about digital imaging several times already and then accepted a challenge from THE "EX-PERT" I was referring to in my post. I was asked to remove myself from the "ex-pert's" discussion! I'm not an "expert" in anything except perhaps self-gratification. 3. "I hope members will ask brg5658 relevant questions for improving their coin photos. Also, there seem to be some areas where his approach is clearer than Mark Goodman's." Perhaps everyone should get a copy of Mr. Goodman's book - "Numismatic Photography." After all, the OP recommended it too! Perhaps the OP didn't read his copy or didn't comprehend what he read because...wait for it...wait for it.... In Chapter 13 , page 102-106 (Advanced) Mr. Goodman discusses TILTING COINS when making an image. Well, what did I know? Who knew that his book published in 2008 mentioned something I was doing after trial & error thirty-five years before BECAUSE I discovered that some coins looked better in a photograph when they were tilted! BTW I still claim to be totally ignorant regarding coin photography. I leave things like photography to the to the real experts such as Mr. Mark Goodman. PS If anyone wishes to see my quiz posted, please ask. Otherwise, I'll respect the OP's wishes and be done with him. I'm really glad he reposted his old post.

I changed my mind. Rather than start a new discussion that no one will have any idea what it relates to, I'm going to let the other posters in this thread decide if I should post my experiments and quiz in this discussion to honor a "challenge" from the OP that I post an image I took of a full coin. So far, in the interest of education, the OP cast the first vote: NO! "Now, thank you kindly for keeping your nonsense out of this thread. Goodbye." What do others want from me? Continue in the discussion and post my images or stop posting?

Nothing? = TRY TIPING YOU COIN for a great image. Sorry everyone, this photography "expert" does not wish for me to play anymore.

OMG! Do you wish to improve your photos? Try tipping the coin. In the meantime, I'll look forward to discussing the images OUR CAMERA EQUIPMENT made with the coins both flat and tipped. Lets see which RAW and unimproved images folks like as a start before digitally changing them. I hope you and the photography experts take the quiz. IT IS NOT a "gotcha" but my guess is that three of the posters in this thread will not contribute.

Don't try to blow smoke/weasel out with this: “Gosh, I can take a picture of a Morgan dollar tilted an inch and fully in focus if I’m 15 feet away.” INITALLY, you re-posted a helpful description of how to photo a coin. In your method, the coin was to be kept flat. I'm totally IGNORANT of digital Photography. I read your post and SUGGESTED in a very nice way that you might wish to try tipping the coin to take an image. Apparently, you felt your method challenged (??) in some way and THIS NONSENSE began. You asked me to provide an image of a full coin. While doing this I decide to PROVE that good images can be made when a coin is either flat or tipped (MY SIMPLE, HELPFUL SUGGESTION). I'm going to post images so members can judge the results of MY INITIAL SUGGESTION to you - the photography "Ex-Pert." Unfortunately, all the "fluff & smoke" you posted has proved to me AGAIN, and AGAIN that your comprehension of simple English is lacking. I'll explain what I did AGAIN (I cannot make it simpler) because EVERYTHING you have posted above IS OF ABSOLUTLY NO USE to me BECAUSE I'm no longer interested in photography. Perhaps that's why I don't understand ANYTHING you wrote but it probably entertained all the Photography experts on the forum. YOU posted a challenge for me. You also posted that you would not test what I SUGGESTED you try because it might mess up the settings of your equipment. Here is all I did: I put the coin in the light box, centered it with the mouse, and punched a few keys. Then I tipped the coin, centered it with the mouse. and punched a few keys. As I already posted, I changed NOTHING - no settings, camera adjustments, or the CAMERA'S image after THE CAMERA made it. The camera did EVERYTHING and they came out beautifully - child's play!

Roger, I was told by a self-proclaimed "expert" that coins were only to be photographed FLAT! I was referred to published sources to prove it. His photos looked great - something about digital cameras and a lack of depth of field was mentioned. This sounded NUTS but what do I know? I was asked to image a coin. I imaged five coins both flat and tipped. The images came out great and in sharp focus. That proved to me that our Cannon digital camera + lens has plenty of depth of field. It is mounted in an Ortery light box and all I can see is the ET73 lens hood. I hope you and others either take my quiz or just admit that coins can be imaged beautifully - even when tipped by a digitally ignorant old fart after a ten minute lesson. The camera does everything.

I'll bet when you wake up and flunk my quiz MISERABLY you don't have the "class" to admit that ANYONE with the "right" setup can tip a coin under a digital camera (at least 1/2 inch where I stopped) and keep the entire coin in focus! You see, I don't believe anything completely (you photography "Ex-Perts" started to convince me) until I find out for myself by experiment or researching the subject.