Submission Rant Part One, Documentation and Lotsa big pics

[MBA101]

OK. I sent 4 Busties into NGC, and got hosed on three of them. I will start with the one that really has me stumped. This would not be that big of a deal, but for the fact that I spent money on a service and know that when the time comes to sell, the service will be required again, because this coin is WAY WAY undergraded.

 

Firstly, unless you are a Bust lover and collector, I do not expect you to understand or even reply, just because of the nature of grading busties. So let this be a learning exercise or something like that.

 

The first coin in question, is an 1813 O-106A. Suposedly an R2 coin, but for whatever reason, this die pairing seems to be rare when it comes to making appearances. The coin has over 50% of its luster remaining. On the obverse, the fields to the left and right of Ms Liberty, even have some faded luster present where the luster usually disappears first, in the center of those fields. Ms Liberty has traces of luster present and only has a touch of wear where you see discoloration on the high points. The bust itself has no detail, which is how this die pairing was struck, and is illustrated in the Overton. On the reverse, only an area above the eagle and below the scroll has missing luster, and there is only a touch of wear on the eagle's brow and left wing. As you can see, the strike is rather mushy. The raised rim, which is lacking its dentils, hardly has any wear on it.

Heritage Pics:

 

Now for the comparison portion of my rant. This below coin is currently for sale at the JJ Teparty web site. It is in an NGC holder graded AU-53, and appears to have a much better strike.

 

 

Also, as a comparison, here is my O-108A AU-53 (NGC). The reason I am posting this is that this coin has more apparent wear, and slightly less luster:

 

 

Now I will add that the coin that is in question here was in an ANACS holder graded XF 45, which IMHO was undergraded after I took the time to examine it extensively, and to take such factors as strike, wear, and luster into account.

 

 

I shall reveal what NGC said in a bit.

 

 

Thank you for reading!

 

 

 

 

[okbustchaser]

If they called it 40 to 45 then IMO they finally got one right. (Of course, I don't think from the pics that your 108A is an AU either.) As for the one from Teaparty, it looks from the pic like it might be an AU, but it still appears to have wear in the fields--ie, the low point of the coin rather than only on the high points--therefore an XF, also.

[okbustchaser]

This brings up a point that I have argued before. Just because you get a grade on a coin which is lower than on a coin with more apparent wear does not mean that you got hosed on the new grade. It is just as possible (and IMO more likely) that your comparison coin was overgraded as it is that your current coin is undergraded.

[MikeInFL]

MBA,

 

I'm sorry to hear your submission didn't go as well as you had hoped.

 

One question: Are you factoring eye appeal into your grading, or are you focused on the technical (wear/luster) grade?

 

As an aside, I don't believe you have to be a bustie collector to "understand" these coins. Virtually all coins of this time period from the half cent to gold have the very same grading challenges.

 

Respectfully submitted...Mike

[Tradedollarnut]

My guess was VF35.

[gmarguli]

Well, I'm not a Bust lover and collector, but based on the pictures, I'd call the first coin a VF30, the middle coin AU55, and the last AU50.

 

The first coin appears to have very little luster and appears to have a significant amount of wear. If there is a lot of luster under the toning, then I suggest you lighten the toning up and allow the luster to come out if you want a better grade.

 

IMHO, the first coin does not compare well with the last two.

[EZ_E]

I understand your POV. However, as you infered, one must be a bust specialist to realize that this variety was lightly struck to begin with. Sure, technically it may be an AU58 but to the average collector, the grade appears to be much lower because of the weak strike. Personally, as a type collector, I would prefer a type with great details and a higher grade but we are each unique and I can see how this rare variety can appeal to die specialists.

[BankNote1]

The top coin looks VF to me. The Teaparty coin does look to be AU. Your bottom coin is at best XF45 or so. IMO...

[James_OldeTowne]

Going strictly by images, I would grade the three coins EF-45, AU-50 and EF-45 respectively.

[MikeKing]

For as much as I collect these interesting coins (and I would think that the major reason for their being interesting is the very fact that they were minted both without a collar + the dies, by their very nature of being made and kept, lead to such extraordinary results in minting), I am far far from an expert. In fact, I keep tripping over my own feet when it comes to these coins, but I will have to say, that they are so specialized in their own right, that the grading of them and even the judgement of eye appeal in such a coin, puts them OUT OF THE SCOPE OF THE TPGS.

 

In other words, the TPGS don't know how to grade them. Plain and simple. And, honestly, unarguable in my book (unless you want to argue whether or not the sun is the center of the solar system). I know I'm coming off a bit strong this morning, but I woke up on the wrong side of the bed today.

 

TPGS are well over-estimated in terms of their expertise, fairness and accuracy in grading coin. Not that there isn't a tremendous amount of stuff one can learn from them and their experts, and not that they aren't an asset to coin collecting, it's just that these positive traits go hand in hand with the fact that they may be considered to be/have been, a detriment to the hobby as well.

 

Your coin grades an AU50, in my book, considering the luster that you describe.

 

I also think that this is a coin with consdierable eye appeal.

 

The die states of these coins cause considerable distress (no pun intended) when we have unreasonable expectations of the TPGs, and from what I said above, while it would give a lot of collectors a sense of solace in being able to trust them with the awe they don't deserve (most pointedly accross the street), I'm sorry to say that they don't represent any "gold standard" when it comes to grading coins. End of story.

 

Coin Lieutenant, I believe (and if he's around, seeing this, maybe he can comment) had an 1813 in an NGC 58 holder (I could be wrong), that crossed to PCGS at 55, and I believe this is the coin (again, I could be wrong):

 

http://www.mkjassociates.com/cgi-bin/ilgvulot.pl?site=1&sale=41&lot=1137

 

which never achieved the commercial grade it deserved, because of the die wear.

 

Of course, the TPGs are under fire lately, more so than other times, so I imagine that they are going to be even harsher, during the quick time in which they examine these coins, with a bent toward under-grading, for fear that they will be criticise for over-grading. But what do I know about anything.

 

[MBA101]

Firstly, as I tried to explain, the top coin has between 50% and 75% of its luster, probably closer to 75%. There is hardly any wear, as it is a late die state, and the details are weak. There are no details missing due to wear. So from what you guys are saying, if this coin had full luster an no wear, then it would grade AU 50-55? That does not make sense. I have multiple busties with the same amount of luster and wear in '55 holders, so does that make all of them overgraded? I always thought that a weak strike should not lower the grade. It doesn't lower the grade on 07 and 08 busties.

 

This coin was graded XF40 by NGC. If this is XF 40, then the bottom coin, with 50% of its luster, would grade VF, as would a whole slew of XF coins and even a few AU coins that I own. As far as eye appeal goes, this coin has a deep platinum tone to it, and if platinum toning and weak strike are unappealing to a bustie specialist collector, then yes, it is an unattractive coin.

 

It appears that you guys seem to think that TPG's have been overgrading EVERYTHING, which doesn't make sense. This is only the first part of a series. There are 2 more that I need to put together in due time.

[MikeKing]

Dave, I think strike does play a role in assigning a grade, but with the kinds of coins we're dealing with, as you know, sometimes its difficult to discern striking weakness from die wear, and I don't know how astute the tpg graders are at doing this. As evidence would show, not too good. Even if the tpg grader who does busties was astute enough to grade appropriately, I would suspect that they are under the thumb of whatever person or committee determines how they should ultimately perform...in other words...they are not working for themselves, they're working for someone else.

[MorganMan]

Let me make a point here. I am NOT (yet) a bust collector, however I have collected coins for some 40 years.

 

Now, because I have read posts about the weak strikes and different dies that were used with these coins, I understand that coin could look like it does, and yet still be high AU or even technically MS.

 

BUT, if I had not known about the die issues with this series, I looking at that coin a in say a AU58 holder, would have said "Boy, that TPG really overgraded that one"

 

So, not only do they have to spend precious little time with the coin, they also have to appear to grade properly.

 

The only way I see for them to get it right on coins like these, is to charge a higher grading fee, so an expert on that series can spend more time with the details such as die states and such to get an accurate grade.

 

But then, the TPG's would get flak for overcharging, so they can't win.....

 

I am not against you, just making a point.

 

MM (thumbs u

 

 

[MikeInFL]

MBA101, Even more to the point, I think you may be confusing technical grading and market grading. I also think your definition of eye appeal is quite different from PCGS or NGC. While you may believe this is because of the "ignorance" of the TPGs, I would suggest that your grading standards are simply different...Mike

[MikeKing]

I see what you're saying Mike, but PCGS's (not NGC's) sense of eye appeal with Bust Halves and how they are rewarded as such, is in great contrast to what hard core Bust Half collectors (at least the ones that I know) find appealing. PCGS consistently grades dipped, very thinly toned bust halves significantly higher than the more organic types. I don't know if this is 'market grading' or grading that is creating a market.

[MBA101]

I see all of your points, but it seems to me that there is a plain old inconsistent grading trend here that is the root of the problem, or maybe they are changing standards on the fly. I am trying to grade these coins by the book, and with experience from what the coins that I own have been graded. By the ANA standards, the coin in question is an AU 53 (having more than half the luster but less than three quarters, and only traces of wear on the high points). So I am not even sure where XF 40 comes in out of all this, other than they want me to submit it again to get more money. I am trying to figure all this out, and until I do, there will be no more submissions. Perhaps once I get through all my posts you will see what I mean. Right now I have places to go, so it will have to wait.

[MikeInFL]

I see what you're saying Mike, but PCGS's (not NGC's) sense of eye appeal with Bust Halves and how they are rewarded as such, is in great contrast to what hard core Bust Half collectors (at least the ones that I know) find appealing. PCGS consistently grades dipped, very thinly toned bust halves significantly higher than the more organic types. I don't know if this is 'market grading' or grading that is creating a market.

 

Mike,

 

You have hit on precisely the point I was trying to make -- and I couldn't agree with you more.

 

To address your question (" I don't know if this is 'market grading' or grading that is creating a market.") -- I suspect it started as the former, but now is the latter.

 

The reality of TPG grading is that they use market grading -- based on their own interpretation of the market. As was (is) the case with the above coins, this subjective grade often diverges from the more advanced collector's tastes.

 

The unfortunate side effect of this (i.e. TPGs like "bright" coins) is that an increasing number of otherwise very natural coins are being dipped in order to maximize TPG grade (and sale value). Rightfully so many collectors, particularly those who value toned original-looking coins, look on in dismay as these coins are destroyed chasing a grade bump only to get hammered when they send a nice original-looking coin to be graded.

 

On the bright side, the advanced collector can use this to their own advantage, looking for toned coins in (apparently) undergraded holders. But until and unless the TPGs stop rewarding bright coins, the dip and strips will continue. Don't hold your breath...

 

All IMHO, and respectfully submitted...Mike

 

[MikeInFL]

I see all of your points, but it seems to me that there is a plain old inconsistent grading trend here that is the root of the problem, or maybe they are changing standards on the fly. I am trying to grade these coins by the book, and with experience from what the coins that I own have been graded. By the ANA standards, the coin in question is an AU 53 (having more than half the luster but less than three quarters, and only traces of wear on the high points). So I am not even sure where XF 40 comes in out of all this, other than they want me to submit it again to get more money. I am trying to figure all this out, and until I do, there will be no more submissions. Perhaps once I get through all my posts you will see what I mean. Right now I have places to go, so it will have to wait.

 

With all due respect, I believe the mistake you are making is that PCGS/NGC do not grade to the ANA standards. ANA grading is a "tougher" standard more in-line with technical grading. PCGS/NGC is a "looser" market-based standard that factors eye appeal into the equation.

 

While I won't disagree with you that TPGs are inconsistent, I would suggest they are not as inconsistent as you believe -- they are just grading to a different standard than you or the ANA.

 

Thank you for sharing your collection as well as your trials and tribulations. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss them with you, and look forward to more examples. Have a nice day...Mike

 

[James_OldeTowne]

Firstly, as I tried to explain, the top coin has between 50% and 75% of its luster, probably closer to 75%.

In that case, I would grade the coin at least AU-53.

 

I would love to see it in hand.

[123cents]

From what you have said and from what I can see I would think your coin would grade AU-50 Dave.

[Tradedollarnut]

Firstly, as I tried to explain, the top coin has between 50% and 75% of its luster, probably closer to 75%.

In that case, I would grade the coin at least AU-53.

 

I would love to see it in hand.

 

With all due respect, most UNCIRCULATED bust halves only have 75% of their luster remaining.

[James_OldeTowne]

Firstly, as I tried to explain, the top coin has between 50% and 75% of its luster, probably closer to 75%.

In that case, I would grade the coin at least AU-53.

 

I would love to see it in hand.

 

With all due respect, most UNCIRCULATED bust halves only have 75% of their luster remaining.

 

Yeah, I guess that's what TPGs would have us believe....

[chinook]

I grade the top coin no better than 45 and that is hoping the eye appeal is better in hand than pictured.

[MarkFeld]

Based upon the images and verbal description, and with no due or undue respect to anyone , I grade the coin AU 53.

[MBA101]

For the guys that are concerned about eye appeal, this coin has a HORRID strike. But that is the nature of the die pairing to begin with, and this is a terrible strike for this pairing, making this a bad type coin example. That said, it is one of the coolest coins to view in hand, with the missing scroll, the thick toning, and the fat, smooth bowl-like rims.

[jackson64]

I understand your frustration with the grade. I have come to realize over time that even though strike is not listed as one of the 4 main grading criteria in the ANA grading Standards Guide...it is a huge sub-category in eye-appeal. As a Walker collector, I never expect higher than a 64 on a Walker no matter how pristine and lustrous, if the skirt lines and thumb are incomplete or missing. There are several Buffalo Nickel dates that have none graded higher than 65 because of weakly struck years. I intend no offense, they should have scrapped those dies--to have a Bust Half with the Bust completely obliterated is silly. If I had submitted that coin and gotten a VF35 I would have been pleased..it's just not that appealing..