MarkFeld

I was speaking of knowledgeable collectors and dealers. And so there’s no confusion, I do distinguish them from dumpster divers.😉

Do you read replies? I already stated “It is a fact that no documentation has been found. The distinctive appearance of thecoins, themselves, serves as good evidence, however. The same goes for some early (pre 1858) Proof coins, for which there is no official documentation. Sometimes, the coins speak for themselves.”

You don’t seem able or willing to distinguish many of your opinions from facts. It is a fact that no documentation has been found. The distinctive appearance of the coins, themselves, serves as good evidence, however. The same goes for some early (pre 1858) Proof coins, for which there is no official documentation. Sometimes, the coins speak for themselves. In the event that you’d like to stop hearing back from me and some others, all you need to do is express your opinions as opinions and not facts, which you often mix in with unfair unfounded and unfair accusations.

Sorry about that. I figured you were aware - it was meant for others who weren’t or who were denying it.😉

Whatever the current extent of a consensus, I don’t see it changing much in either direction.

What you’ve read above is an opinion and numerous people disagree.

No, they don’t resemble SMS examples in any way.

I’d state is as something along the lines of: Some coins which have seen very brief circulation don’t display any wear. As a result, while they’re technically circulated, they can still be graded mint state/uncirculated on the grading scale.

See 2b from Merriam-Webster below. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pedigree

Got it, thanks.

Not necessarily. I’ve seen many mint state and proof coins graded higher than the one in this thread, with prints. So I guess you wouldn’t trust PCGS or NGC.

Just because others disagree with you - in this case, with your close-minded conclusion based upon images - doesn’t mean they’re dishonest and motivated by money. You keep throwing that out there, perhaps because you don’t have a solid basis for your declarations. I’m open to the possibility that the coin should have been graded lower. But I haven’t seen it in hand and neither have you. Even if we had, however, our opinions would be opinions, not facts.

Greg, do you have the provenance removed just for coins you’re keeping for your collection or for the ones you’re reselling too? I can understand you not liking them, but paying to have them removed sounds a bit extreme. Do they really bother you that much?

I strongly encourage honesty and accuracy and often speak out against over-grading and inconsistency in grading. Many collectors and dealers who know me are well aware of that fact. At the same time, I’ve seen countless coins that looked considerably different - many of them, shockingly so - and/or better or worse in hand, than in their images. If you, yourself, haven’t experienced the same on thousands of occasions and aren’t already aware of such disparities, you should look at a lot more coins. You’ve unfairly intimidated, if not accused me of bias, on more than one occasion. If you want to see true bias, just look in the mirror.

You’re making conclusions and stating opinions as facts, based on on-line images. You should know enough to realize that doing so can be irresponsible. And that’s so matter how certain you are.

Then you have capabilities that mere mortals don’t.

Someone did comment about the print. However, whether you agree or not, mint state and Proof coins aren’t downgraded to AU due to prints. And most classic Proof coins exhibit some degree of hairlines. In fact, in a great many cases, the extent of hairlines largely determines the grade.

Talk about "false" - the poster did not claim that the coin (which is in a PR63 holder) was a 64. His thread title is: "Inexperienced at grading, what prevented this seated half from pr64?" And his opening post reads: "I'm not experienced at all with coin grading but id like to learn more. I understand the basic principles but the tough part for me is understanding how grading differs from series to series. I picked up this proof seated half recently and it looks to be pretty lustrous for 160 year old silver, perhaps it was even dipped at one time? The strike looks decent and the fields are clean, with extra lighting there's like one little scratch to the right of her knee. It looks as good if not better than some ms64 coins I have but i don't have a lot of proof coins. any insight or knowledge is much appreciated." Link to thread: https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1063514/inexperienced-at-grading-what-prevented-this-seated-half-from-pr64#latest In addition to the above, it's all but impossible to assess most Proof coins accurately, based upon images.

Most GSA's wouldn't bring enough extra in a different holder to cover grading and shipping costs. But, while you've indicated that this is an unusual case, you don't want to provide specifics. So I don't see how anyone could give you meaningful advice. And it sounds like you've made up your mind, anyway. Additionally, while you feel that there's additional upside, due to a potential upgrade, who's to say it wouldn't upgrade at PCGS?

In that condition, I'd call it a bullion coin, worth about $1850 wholesale.

The commission rate matters, but only to a degree. The most important consideration, by far, is the net amount (based upon the selling price, less commission) that the consignor actually receives. Do your research and then do the math.

If you were to assign numerical grades that didn't take strike, luster and eye-appeal into consideration, in the case of uncirculated coins, in particular, those grades would be largely meaningless. For example, a coin with few marks, but dull luster, a poor strike and negative eye-appeal would receive a high grade. What good would that do?

While you feel that way, most buyers and sellers - both collectors and dealers - obviously want more “valuing” from TPG’s than you do. And even your preferred grading system would still value coins to some extent (since, for example, an AU coin would tend to be valued more highly than a VF). So why not do away with grading, altogether?

So in your grading universe, (even leaving eye-appeal aside) strike and luster considerations aren’t necessary for a “Grade”?

AU58+ is already used, but if you want to add AU59, go for it. And while you’re at it, how about AU51, 52, 54, 56 and 57?