PO'ed and scratching my head. NGC Star designation review results.

[MarkFeld]

One of the reasons NGC uses the star designation is specifically because the coin is not 'balanced' in appearance. For example, a mint state Morgan dollar that is a strong PL on the obverse but not so on the reverse may well earn a star and a proof Lincoln with an obverse Cameo but either a weak or no cam on the reverse may garner the star.

 

Generally one side being much stronger than the other in a positive characteristic will earn a star vs the coin that doesn't share that 'one sided' quality.

Pat, I agree. But, does or should the same go for uneven or one sided toning, as opposed to attributes like PL, cameo, etc.?

[BankNote1]

I think I would be PO'ed as well!

The '57-D* Quarter, NGC got that one right. That is a star coin.

I think the '58-D dime "might" of stared as well.

That 1954-D half is a star NGC was a sleep at the wheel on that one.

The '49-D half- is a super star. How much do you want for it. My wife was born in 1949. I shouldn't have told that!

 

The '58-D half has finger mark toning as well as mint set toning. I don't like that FM color toning, so no star from me. That is just me, though.

The '57-D blue dime I have seen a million blue dimes. Does nothing for me so no star.

 

[coinman1794]

The star designation was set up with very specific parameters that the 1949-D does not appear to meet, despite it being a phenominal coin. Please see my previous posts.

 

[coinman1794]

The 1939-D Nickel appears to be Star-able. The first coin is drab and the thrid has reverse prints and darker streaks.

[coinman1794]

One of the reasons NGC uses the star designation is specifically because the coin is not 'balanced' in appearance. For example, a mint state Morgan dollar that is a strong PL on the obverse but not so on the reverse may well earn a star and a proof Lincoln with an obverse Cameo but either a weak or no cam on the reverse may garner the star.

 

Generally one side being much stronger than the other in a positive characteristic will earn a star vs the coin that doesn't share that 'one sided' quality.

Pat, I agree. But, does or should the same go for uneven or one sided toning, as opposed to attributes like PL, cameo, etc.?

 

Mark, I would say the answer is: no, the comparison is not the same. If a Morgan dollar has a PL obverse, it doesnt automatically mean the reverse is not very nice (it's just not PL), whereas a one-sided toner tends to be pretty dull on its lesser side.

[Revenant]

Pat, I agree. But, does or should the same go for uneven or one sided toning, as opposed to attributes like PL, cameo, etc.?

 

I would tend to think no. I might be alone here but I'm not much of a fan of "wild/crazy" toning, especially when it's one sided. It just makes the coin look wierd to have 2 sides that seem so radically different. On the other had something like the coin pictured below....

 

The obverse has strong proof-like appearance (there was even a "P.L.?" sticker on it) but the reverse really doesn't (at least not to the same degree, not really enough to make this a MS 67 RD PL). This is the only STAR graded 1989 cent that NGC has graded and it is no toner.

 

The pictures don't do the coin much justice here so forgive me.

[michael]

this is what is confusing for the star

 

on a coin that has a ultrs cameo obverse and a cameo reverse it only gets a star cameo due to the obverse dbeing ultra cameo nothing to do with eyre appeal

 

same with a pl obverse and non pl reverse it gets a star and the grade as the obverse is pl not the reverse also if the coin was pl both obverse and reverse then it would just get the pl designation which many do but no star if a pl gets a star it is due to exceptional eye appeal as per ngc graders

 

now if a coin has a ultra cameo reverse and only cameo obverse then it gets cameo and no star unless it is really eye appealling

 

many many ngc coins are white but have no star yet most all ultra cameo obverse and cameo reverse white coins have the cameo designation and star and so on

 

cameo obverse and non cameo reverse it just gets the star and the grade but still blast white

 

this is the most confusing part about ngc

 

also mark the washington quarter MAYBE STAR QUALITY ON ONE SIDE BUT FOR toning but just good on the other side so no star

 

of course there are monster toned morgans obverse and yet totally white reverse that get a STAR but this is the exception as there are many like this on the market and there is a known market for them and it is generally accepted like this and collected as such for morgan dollars for many decades even before ngc started the star

 

but again this is extremely subjective

 

but the fact remains that all 3 ngc graders along with the finalizer must independently agree for the star for the coin to get it if only one out of the 4 disagrees then it does not get the star

 

and because the coin is greatly toned on one side and for me liner below average on the other this greatly precludes the star

[braddick]

One of the reasons NGC uses the star designation is specifically because the coin is not 'balanced' in appearance. For example, a mint state Morgan dollar that is a strong PL on the obverse but not so on the reverse may well earn a star and a proof Lincoln with an obverse Cameo but either a weak or no cam on the reverse may garner the star.

 

Generally one side being much stronger than the other in a positive characteristic will earn a star vs the coin that doesn't share that 'one sided' quality.

Pat, I agree. But, does or should the same go for uneven or one sided toning, as opposed to attributes like PL, cameo, etc.?

 

I think the term 'uneven' to describe the toning is unfair. It sounds like it is a lesser coin because of it.

I'd tell you if I saw a coin with equal sides of the same toning I'd lean toward AT as it generally just doesn't happen naturally (generally). Usually one side is much stronger than the other.

 

IMHO if a coin has eye catching, neon'ish toning one one side (such as the OP's quarter) it is worthy of the STAR unless, of course, the reverse is so horrific, and that is not the case here.

[SkyMan]

Regarding Paul's coins I'm going to guess that since the obvious choice for attractive toning would be the 1946 that that is not a starred coin. So, as to the other 2, and given the hit on TJ's bust on the '41, I'll say that the 1939 is starred.

 

 

 

As to my coins, it is interesting all the responses so far. Here are my thoughts.

 

Stars for white coins, be it proofs with different levels of cameo contrast or Morgans with PL and DPL characteristics is not something I'm planning to touch here. I'm talking about toners.

 

Before we go any further I'd like to quote NGC's website description of the star:

 

"The NGC Star Designation identifies coins with exceptional eye appeal or characteristics that distinguish them from other coins of the same technical grade... One important thing to remember is that NGC defines its star designated coins as those that have exceptional eye appeal. The coins themselves could fall anywhere within the grades to which they are assigned... It is also of note that Star Designations are applied only with the unanimous consent of NGC's graders. If there is a single objection to a particular coin receiving a Star Designation upon quality control inspection, it loses the star... Making the determination on a toned coin is bit more complex. Because Star Designations require unanimous consent, in order for a toned coin to receive a Star Designation it must first be considered attractively toned by all graders who inspect it. As with untoned coins, it must have full luster that is unimpeded by the toning. It must also be free of any obvious planchet irregularities and any distracting spots or blemishes. The toning color can be of a single color or multicolored but cannot have any areas that are dark brown approaching black...".

 

 

 

OK, now on to my coins in regard to the above. With all due respect to those who think I shouldn't have gotten Jack in the submittal, here is how I thought the coins should have graded for a star.

 

Washington, a lock.

 

'57 Roosie, a coin flip, I've seen quite a few with that sort of color have the star, so at $10 a throw a what the heck inclusion.

 

'58-D Roosie, better than 50/50 chance, but a bit darker than the image indicates, so still a coin flip.

 

As to the Franklins, of the 250 starred Franklins, as of 6/15/08, I currently own 6 of them (making two of those six), so I think I have a pretty good idea of what makes a superior Frankie.

 

IMO the 1954-D was a lock FOR THE DATE/MM. An attractive, clean coin with color on both sides that is way beyond the norm for the date/mm. The 1958-D is a very attractive coin, but 1958-D has plenty of coins with nice toning, so a crapshoot. The 1949-D, as regards toning, is great FOR THE DATE/MM. However, it is a dark coin and that could be the issue. Still, compare it to other '49-D's and you tell me. Also, WTF is the deal about FBL?

 

 

...all the coins i got a star on both sides were monster not just one side hence a balanced coin...

 

Not in the least. I've got multiple starred coins where the toning is one sided. As a matter of fact, one of the star Frankies I made, a Mint Set obverse toner 1958-D MS66*, was submitted with it's matching reverse to be placed in a dual holder. It starred and the reverse toner didn't, even though the toning was pretty much identical. Also, as to monster toning for starred coins, I just turned down a 1958-P Roosie in MS67* because IMO it was at best a mediocre coin.

 

Finally one thing I'd like to point out, this was done mainly with an eye to the Registry point game. These coins are no less desirable to me now than they were before, and when I eventually sell them my bottom line won't have changed (I've had several offers on various of these items before, and after posting this thread here and ATS I was amused to get various pm's from potential new buyers that have offered to buy specific items from the above coins).

 

The coin is the coin and I don't need NGC to tell me what is "Superior".

[James_OldeTowne]

I think the term 'uneven' to describe the toning is unfair. It sounds like it is a lesser coin because of it.

I'd tell you if I saw a coin with equal sides of the same toning I'd lean toward AT as it generally just doesn't happen naturally (generally). Usually one side is much stronger than the other.

Braddick, I agree with you on this. I also agree that the star is indeed often used for a coin where one side is something special, and the other is simply mundane for the grade. The classic example is a coin with one side PL or DMPL, and the other just normal, or often the special side is cameo (for a proof).

[PCcoins]

I believe the star designation is inconsistent, as we have seen with Sy's recent submission. Here's a toned washington star on ebay:

 

NGC Star

 

Just my opinion, but to me this coin doesn't look to have exceptional eye appeal, maybe it looks better in hand? and it's toned a darker color. Plus the coin's quality is low end for the grade. So NGC's definition of the star is very scattered.

[jackson64]

that 1954-D Franklin is a star in my eyes...

[MAULEMALL]

I believe the star designation is inconsistent, as we have seen with Sy's recent submission. Here's a toned washington star on ebay:

 

NGC Star

 

Just my opinion, but to me this coin doesn't look to have exceptional eye appeal, maybe it looks better in hand? and it's toned a darker color. Plus the coin's quality is low end for the grade. So NGC's definition of the star is very scattered.

Are you kidding me?? You don't like the colors on this coin?? It's not my coin nor do I have anything to do with it or the auction but to dog this coin is really irresponsible.

My personal opinion is NGC got that star right.

[TomB]

I believe the star designation is inconsistent, as we have seen with Sy's recent submission. Here's a toned washington star on ebay:

 

NGC Star

 

Just my opinion, but to me this coin doesn't look to have exceptional eye appeal, maybe it looks better in hand? and it's toned a darker color. Plus the coin's quality is low end for the grade. So NGC's definition of the star is very scattered.

Are you kidding me?? You don't like the colors on this coin?? It's not my coin nor do I have anything to do with it or the auction but to dog this coin is really irresponsible.

My personal opinion is NGC got that star right.

I have to agree with PCcoins in that I don't like the NGC-graded 1964-D WQ, either. I think the image is a bit saturated and the coin likely has far less luster and a more subdued appearance than I would require for a piece in my collection. It definitely has color, but it may very well not be all that pretty in-hand.

[MAULEMALL]

Well ,,,, This has to be the first time Tom and I have disagreed..

 

 

If only I had the same record with my personal life,,

 

[PCcoins]

I'm not dogging this coin by any means. My point was I think the toning is ok, but just doesn't do it for me. Which was the topic at hand, that NGC is inconsistent with there Star designation. Personally I wouldn't pay a high premium for the "STAR" on this slab. And just because I don't think it should have received a star doesn't mean that you don't think it should have received a star. Besides that, I know the images are a little juiced and the obverse is full of contact marks for the designated grade. But I know, for the date/mm the toning is better than average and the coin could look better in hand. Again just my opinion

[MAULEMALL]

I'm not dogging this coin by any means. My point was I think the toning is ok, but just doesn't do it for me. Which was the topic at hand, that NGC is inconsistent with there Star designation. Personally I wouldn't pay a high premium for the "STAR" on this slab. And just because I don't think it should have received a star doesn't mean that you don't think it should have received a star. Besides that, I know the images are a little juiced and the obverse is full of contact marks for the designated grade. But I know, for the date/mm the toning is better than average and the coin could look better in hand. Again just my opinion

 

I believe the star designation is inconsistent, as we have seen with Sy's recent submission. Here's a toned washington star on ebay:

 

NGC Star

 

Just my opinion, but to me this coin doesn't look to have exceptional eye appeal, maybe it looks better in hand? and it's toned a darker color. Plus the coin's quality is low end for the grade. So NGC's definition of the star is very scattered.

 

 

I don't really see any consistancy in these 2 posts.

And unless you are the one who took the pics I don't see how you know the pics are juiced.

 

The whole star concept is based solely on the opinion of the grader that sees the coin In hand and to be honest I would have to go with his/thier opinion till I have it in mine..

 

 

[PCcoins]

(thumbs u

[lehigh96]

Sy,

 

Although you are not getting much sympathy or agreement from most of the other board members regarding your post, I feel your pain. I have posted on more that one occasion that the star designation is all over the map. Sometimes, I think they decide by flipping a coin it is so inconsistent.

 

However, I agree with most of the other members that neither Roosevelt Dime or the 54 Franklin deserve a star. The 1958-D Franklin is a tweener IMO and the 1949-D is a definite star coin IMO. I think that NGC is very tight with certain series of coins when issuing the star designation. Franklin Halfs and SLQ's come to mind. I rarely see these coins with the star designation.

 

To illustrate my point about NGC's inconsistency I will post three Jefferson Nickels below. Who can tell me the star status of each coin?

 

 

OK, here we go with the results:

 

 

I understand that the 1941 was graded during a time that the star designation was still new and that the standards must have been a little looser at the time, but there needs to be some measure of consistency. Both the 1939-D and 1946 nickels are far more attractive and deserving of a star designation than the 1941 IMO.

 

I like the star designation and understand that NGC would rather preclude some star coins in order to ensure that the undeserving don't get starred, but I really think they need to examine the consistency of the star designation and consider implementing new policies to improve the consistency.

[SkyMan]

Huh! So, Paul, it's even worse than I thought with the '41 instead of the '39-D getting the star.

[coinman1794]

Yes, it looks like one of those early STAR coins that leaves one scartching his head. As for the other two, the 46 is very pretty but cannot get a STAR because of the fingerprints and streaks on the reverse. The 39-D seems pretty nice but I can't tell just how above average the rim color really is (though it was my original guess for the designation).

[SkyMan]

Yes, it looks like one of those early STAR coins that leaves one scartching his head. As for the other two, the 46 is very pretty but cannot get a STAR because of the fingerprints and streaks on the reverse. The 39-D seems pretty nice but I can't tell just how above average the rim color really is (though it was my original guess for the designation).

 

I have seen quite a few starred coins with fingerprints and a certain amount with streaks.

[coinman1794]

Such coins should not have gotten the star, though. I send such coins back for appearance review.

[SkyMan]

Such coins should not have gotten the star, though. I send such coins back for appearance review.

 

Well, I think we can all agree that there are plenty of coins that should not have the star that do have it, and plenty that don't have it that should... COUGH, COUGH.

[WoodenJefferson]

Yes, it looks like one of those early STAR coins that leaves one scartching his head. As for the other two, the 46 is very pretty but cannot get a STAR because of the fingerprints and streaks on the reverse. The 39-D seems pretty nice but I can't tell just how above average the rim color really is (though it was my original guess for the designation).

 

I have seen quite a few starred coins with fingerprints and a certain amount with streaks.

 

Do you think it might be possible for a finger print (especially a graders/packers) streaks or other anomalies to show up on a coin AFTER being holdered?

[SkyMan]

Do you thik it might be possible for a finger print (especially a graders/packers) streaks or other anomalies to show up on a coin AFTER being holdered?

 

Is it possible? Sure it's possible. Is it likely?... as the IBM ad used to say, "You make the call"!

 

I know WAY too many fingerprinted coins for it to be anything other than NGC policy... and personally I don't have any problem with that. IMO SOME fingerprints are perfectly acceptable aesthetically. As to streaking, I haven't seen as many starred, but there are enough for it to be NGC policy IMO.

[jackson64]

I'm not sure that any of the 3 nickels deserve a star for exceptional eye appeal...a little color does not make up for "acne" on Jefferson's forhead, fingerprints, and very softly struck reverses on the verge of being mushy...this just my opinion, maybe these are very high quality for Jefferson's --I'm not very familiar with the series---but these would be considered very flatly lustered for a silver coin series

[lehigh96]

IMO, the only Jefferson deserving of a star is the 1939-D. The 1941 is generic looking for an MS67 and the 1946-D has beautiful color on the obverse but the reverse is poorly struck and fingerprinted. However, the 1939-D is a lock star designation. The color and luster are both superb and are undeniably attractive. The acne on the forehead is not really noticeable in hand and the oversize photos are accentuating that particular flaw. When choosing the three examples, I stayed away from the silver war nickels on purpose.

 

Below is a photo of a silver war nickel that I simply can't believe does not have a star. The surfaces are outstanding, the luster is incredible, and the color and overall eye appeal is off the charts.

 

 

One of the graders at NGC looked at this coin and decided that it was not star worthy, just mind boggling. However, if 4 people respond to this post and only 3 of the 4 think it should star, it will explain NGC's decision.

[coinman1794]

The dark streaks on the right obverse present a bit of a STAR problem for me. Could that even be a print?

[SkyMan]

That's a very attractive coin.