• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

FlyingAl

Member
  • Posts

    333
  • Joined

Posts posted by FlyingAl

  1. On 10/15/2022 at 7:25 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

    @FlyingAl:

    As it would be poor form to delve into financial considerations, allow me to congratulate you on your fine acquisitions. While I have only a general knowledge of the series, recent prices realized at auctions seem to suggest you, or yours, will get a handsome return on your investments.  Thank you for sharing these fine examples with the membership!

    I own neither of these coins, rather they were the fruits of a quick google search to answer your question. 

  2. On 10/9/2022 at 7:41 PM, VKurtB said:

    In a past ANA spring show, the one in Orlando when FUN had opted for Tampa that January, I decided to go early and take the ANA’s formal course on grading, given by Brian Silliman. He dutifully led us through a PowerPoint on “technical grading”, which is VERY close to what Roger is proposing here. The entire course ran 16 hours, 2 days of 8 hours each. Technical grading was finished after 90 minutes. Done. Never mentioned again. The remaining time, 14 hours plus, was on market grading, or “what is really happening out there”. The first words out of Brian Silliman’s mouth were, and I quote, “in market grading, we are not so much assigning a grade as we are assigning a value to the coin.”

    Lament that all you like, but that’s the real world, not just for me, but for Roger and Larry and Bob and Al too. I like my baseball without Designated Hitters and creepy runners starting the 10th inning on second base, too. But the game has moved on  

    And in market grading of MS coins, the degree or lack of preservation is only ONE OF FOUR factors to be included. 

    Thank you Kurt. I was trying to communicate this the best way I could. This is exactly what I was saying - like it or not its here to stay.

  3. On 10/9/2022 at 10:16 PM, Taylor7 said:

    does anyone know of at least a youtube video of someone handling a graded example? Much easier to see the difference in texture that way. I say graded because like with lots of other rare coins there are plenty of delusional, mistaken, or outright scammers on youtube claiming to have a proof peace dollar or aluminum cent and handling it raw with no gloves, lol. 

    You can probably look up "1937 proof nickel pcgs" and a certified example in a video will pop up. I know there's a video from a well respected video of a CAM example on Youtube. 

  4. On 10/9/2022 at 7:19 PM, VKurtB said:

    Roger’s book is the most thorough way to search this, but spend some time carefully Googling in the meantime. I know this answer is unsatisfying, but at least on the proofs, once you’ve seen one, you’ll know. The ‘27 is a more difficult subject. 

    On the contrary, I'd say that answer is pretty satisfying. It pretty much sums up what I was thinking, with the possible exception fo the '36 Satin Buff.

  5. On 10/9/2022 at 10:28 AM, RWB said:

    RE: "First, grading comes down to valuing a coin. It is valuation in the simplest sense."

    This is a totally false viewpoint, and I've very disappointed to see it embraced by someone with so much potential.

    The only valuation determination of a coin is between buyer and seller, and that is widely variable. This is easily confirmed by looking at coins of identical "grade" in auction results.

    Second, the moment someone adds subjective criteria to the "grade" of a coin, the grade begins to float and is no longer a reliable indicator of the state of preservation of a coin.

    TPG and other "grading" schemes are unreliable if opinion and potentially objective measurements are mixed.

    Third, the entire base of TPG authentication and grading is independence from the money-forces of numismatics. If a TPG ever becomes a "valuator" of coins rather then an objective "evaluator," the whole pile of assumptions and grades falls apart. Coin collecting becomes just a self-serving pile of needy, greedy people conniving to rip the entrails from collector's wallets.

    Roger, you are correct that the true value of a coin must be decided by buyer and seller. However, you cannot deny that the grade assigned by a TPG sets the baseline for what the coin will sell for. Look at all of the examples of the exact same coin in a different TPG grade that sell for wildly different prices - and all that changed was the number on the label. The value changed based on the grade assigned, did it not?

    Several TPG graders have openly admitted that the grading services grade based upon the market valuation of a coin in certain instances. For example, a coin that would grade 65 today was previously graded 64 a decade ago because the market value of a 64 then is what the market value of a 65 is today. Like it or not, that's how it goes. 

    Inherently, using your system will end up valuing a coin as well. No matter what, a collector will always pay more for a MS65 example over a VG10. By stating the surface preservation as a number, you've just placed the coin into a price category where a collector will likely buy it for. Is that category fixed? No. But does that price range exist? Absolutely. The grade sets the baseline. 

    Why do I embrace this view? It's how I survive in the hobby. There's no way I could have any collection anywhere near what I have today if there wasn't this value change based on a TPG grade. It's why crackouts work. It's why cherrypicking works. It's how I finance my collection, because the system favors those who have the knowledge and experience to play the game. 

    Do I collect this way - absolutely not! I almost never take grade into consideration when buying a coin for my 1936-42 proofs collection. Grade is the last element on my list of attributes I want in a coin. I do this because I know how the system works. I make the system work for me, not against me.

  6. On 10/8/2022 at 5:23 PM, VKurtB said:

    Are you BEGINNING, at least, to see my issues with Roger here, Al? This is vintage Roger. 100% (bizarre) opinion with no connection to reality. Why would I buy books written by a guy like this? For that matter, why would anybody?

    I can understand why you have your differences with Roger (whether or not I agree with those reasons). I, for one, don't have any issue with the majority of his opinions. This is one difference. Roger's grading in general is decades behind where the market is, so his opinions on grading will also be decades behind. I won't buy a book Roger writes on grading, but you sure can bet I'll buy a book of his on mint history. 

    I am sure that eventually, we will all disagree on something. After all, if you are holding for everyone to think positively of you, you'll be waiting for a very long time indeed. 

  7. On 10/8/2022 at 3:45 PM, RWB said:

    Nope.

    1) A "star" "asterisk" "flumbot" or other character is not a grade --- just a decoration. 2) "Frost" "fog" "snow" "ice" are not part of a grade - they express nothing about the state of preservation of a coin or medal.

    A meaningful grade is a written and numerical description of the deterioration of a coin or medal from the moment it leaves the dies to the present time; nothing else. Other factors of collector interest are all subjective and thus infinitely variable among individuals. "Grade" must be stable over time, while other factors may go in and out of favor with collectors and thus modify the fair market value.

    As much as I generally agree with you Roger, I cannot disagree more with this statement. 

    First, grading comes down to valuing a coin. It is valuation in the simplest sense. Since stars increase the value someone would pay for a coin, it most certainly is part of a grade as much at CAM, DCAM, PL, DPL and others are. 

    We all know grades fluctuate and they always will. 

  8. Update - the coin was cracked out and sent to NGC. When viewed outside of plastic, my determination fo a star grade was confirmed, and the reverse frost popped a bit more. I remember thinking that it had an outside shot at CAM (though I doubt it would ever go CAM). I graded it 67*, with a point bump for the frost. 

    The submission was marked as delivered by the USPS on Thursday, but the package hasn't yet shown up in the find package feature or submission tracking. I figure this is due to the hurricane delays and wish the best for all at NGC who have been affected. 

  9. On 9/29/2022 at 4:58 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

    @FlyingAl:

    This coin appears to be everything you say it is, and more.  [I had to resist the impulse to count its steps.]  One thing that has always puzzled me is why the number 8 in the date appears so scrawny. Would you know or happened to have thought about it if you don't?

    Quintus, quite the opposite in fact. I really like the date styling on the 1938 coins and the 8 seems to be exactly the right size to me. This could just be me though. :)

    However, the date style shifts slightly over the years and I like it less and less the more it changes. My 1942 Jefferson has quite the difference when compared to the 1938. I can only assume that over the years the hubs had to be altered slightly or some other occurrence.