Is it true? TPG's are tougher on small coins?

[RI AL]

Good morning, all.

 

Somewhere I learned that the grading services are "tougher on small coins". Is there any truth to this? I am attaching photos of my type 3 gold dollar graded MS 61. Well, it's no gem to be sure, but I don't quite understand why it didn't make at least 62. What do you all think, if I may impose on your knowledge and experience.

 

My grades are in for my 5 submissions of foreign coins that I sent to NGC and I am quite pleased. I will post pictures as soon as they arrive back here in RI.

 

Have a good weekend! RI AL

 

 

 

 

[RGT]

I collect mostly small coins (trimes and half dimes) and I have felt that the grading standards are tougher for small coins for a while. But small coins don't usually get beat up as badly as larger coins. A typical bag mark on a Morgan dollar would look huge on a three cent silver and may even cause it to BB.

 

I don't know much about gold but your dolar is in an old green holder and may be an upgrade candidate. So maybe it really is that MS62 or better that you think it should be.

[MarkFeld]

First, I can't tell if that Gold Dollar is an AU or an MS63 from the images. That's not a good example or a good way to try to make a point or learn about grading of small coins.

 

Second, there is only way in which I think it might fairly be said that grading services are "tougher" on small coins.... A flaw of a given size is noticeably more prominent on a small coin than on a large coin, in that it covers a greater portion of the coin's surface. So, for example, a 1/2 inch hairline scratch on a $20 gold piece is not nearly as big of a deal as a 1/2 inch hairline scratch on a gold dollar. Thus, the grade deduction for that flaw will be greater on the smaller coin. I don't know if that qualifies for "tougher" or not, but either way, that's how it should be.

[thebeav]

I've submitted quite a few California fractional golds (coins don't get much smaller) in the past and I thought the grading was generally consistant and fair.

 

Paul

[Arizonadesertrat]

I don't think that Mark Feld's answer qualifies as 'tougher,' but his point about size/severity of marks being assessed in relation to coin size is spot on.

 

'Tougher' grading, to me, is something that I expect for coins that look MS64-65, but for which the MS65 value is much greater than the MS64 value. Ditto for other borderline cases.

 

Somewhat 'easier' grading should be expected for gold coins (because they are soft, and more contact marks are therefore allowed for a given MS grade) and just about any 18th-century coin.

 

'Market grading' is a different story altogether.

[coinman1794]

I dont think the graders are tougher on smaller coins; as others have said, the acceptable marks for a given grade are proportionately smaller the smaller coins get. And, I think it can be hard, at times, for the average person to get the grade right because it can be hard to maintain the right perspective and evaluate the affect a particular size mark has on a small coin as opposed on a large one. Consequently, one might tend to overgrade smaller coins because they didn't dock the coin enough for a few small, and maybe hidden, marks they thought were trivial, not seeing the bigger impact those marks had on the small coins overall appearance.

[Oldtrader3]

I think that Mark has a valid point regarding relative size of marks on small coins causing greater grade loses for any marks. I have noticed with gold dollars especially Type I dollars, that it is hard to find specimens that will grade above MS62. IMHO, the small coin surface of fields between the lettering or stars and devices does not leave much room to display any luster and it is the rare gold dollar, particularly of Type I dollars, which displays enough luster or is free of significant marks in the small field area, be graded gem. Type II or III coins may be more often graded differently because of the greater field areas to display luster and surface marks.

[physics-fan3.14]

Al, Mark is spot on, as everyone else has said. Come to think of it, I don't even know why I'm posting here.

 

 

 

 

 

Nice dollar by the way.

[RI AL]

'Morning, guys.

 

Thanks for the input to my question as to whether small coins are graded harder than larger pieces. Though there is a difference of opinion, which is super, I now have an understanding of why I was told the "small coins" statement in the first place.

 

MARK_FELD...you are absolutely right about the image quality of my $1 piece being less than stellar. Unfortunately, all I have that I can work with is my scanner and let's face it, the results are not always up to standard. I've tried my digital camera and have gotten worse results. I just don't have all the good photography equipment that many of you do.

 

As always, your input is really appreciated, everyone.

 

RI AL

[MarkFeld]

'Morning, guys.

 

Thanks for the input to my question as to whether small coins are graded harder than larger pieces. Though there is a difference of opinion, which is super, I now have an understanding of why I was told the "small coins" statement in the first place.

 

MARK_FELD...you are absolutely right about the image quality of my $1 piece being less than stellar. Unfortunately, all I have that I can work with is my scanner and let's face it, the results are not always up to standard. I've tried my digital camera and have gotten worse results. I just don't have all the good photography equipment that many of you do.

 

As always, your input is really appreciated, everyone.

 

RI AL

I wasn't really picking on your images in particular, as many images of such a coin wouldn't allow us to know if the coin was a high grade AU or a low grade unc. That aside, though, trying to distinguish a 62 from a 61 based on even an excellent image (or, for that matter, in person) is usually a very difficult task.