Here is an analysis of grade_it's twelve Roosevelt dimes, graded by PCGS

[James_OldeTowne]

First, let me ask up front that my esteemed board members refrain from "quoting" this entire OP. Otherwise, the thread will rapidly grow to unwieldy length.

 

The following is a relatively brief technical analysis of twelve Roosevelt dimes, all graded by PCGS. The purpose of this analysis is to provide information that may subsequently help to suggest whether the assigned grades are reasonable or not. The most obvious subjective aspect of this analysis is realization that grading is an art, not a science, and no two graders will or should grade alike. Only potential negative indications are noted. Positive attributes are assumed (mint-state surfaces, average or better production quality).

 

A few preliminary notes:

 

PERSONAL BIAS: Because grading relies so much on subjective matters, personal bias is a key concern for an analysis of this nature. I will try my best to leave out my personal biases, but the following must be noted:

 

1. Only twelve coins were examined, and this constitutes and extremely small sample size, compared to the total number of similar coins similarly graded at PCGS. Readers are advised not to project these results on a large population of similar coins.

2. I did not solicit compensation of any sort, nor was I offered any. Thus, I have no financial interest whatsoever in the results of this analysis.

3. Unfortunately, the submitter has penned his opinions directly on the slabs in ink. Therefore, I cannot claim to be completely free from bias, since the additional information automatically makes that impossible. In the future, it should be noted that coins submitted for a "second opinion" should be devoid of all such extraneous information.

4. The submitter is not personally known to me. Except for a conversation necessary to arrange delivery of the coins, I did not speak with the submitter regarding opinions on individual coins.

 

IMAGING: The purpose of these images is not to display the coins in an aesthetically pleasing manner (i.e. "marketing" images), but rather to provide technical details.

1. Source and position of the lighting was absolutely consistent from coin to coin.

2. Distance of the camera from the coin was absolutely consistent from coin to coin for the thumbnails, and for the close-up shots.

3. Coins were rotated as appropriate to ensure the correct lighting radial angle, but distances were absolutely consistent.

4. The slabs are scuffed here and there, and no effort was made to alleviate this.

5. Absolutely no adjustment was made to any image with regard to white-balance, contrast or brightness. These compressed (JPG) versions of the original "raw" images.

6. Images were cropped but not resized, in order to avoid introducing distortion due to resizing algorithms.

7. Images were cropped in "raw" format, but saved in JPG format at a reasonable quality threshold.

8. A single 20-watt incandescent bulb was used for photography.

 

EXAMINATION:

1. I used a 5x power loupe to examine each coin.

2. Click the slab image to view a cropped close-up of the coin, generally 1250 x 1250 pixels.

3. The large images provide the equivalent of approximately 15x magnification.

4. I did not confuse "hairlines" with "die polish". I am very well aware of the difference between the two, and am highly confident in my ability to tell them apart.

 

I will post more, after fellow board members have an opportunity to discuss. So, let's begin the coin-by-coin analysis summary.

 

1. 1947 dime, PCGS MS66

OBV: There is an area of significant friction sweeping upward and toward the right on Roosevelt's cheek. They are visible only at select viewing advantage, within a range of approximately 30 degrees. REV: Minor ticks typical of the grade.

PERSONAL OPINION: A case could be made that the coin is overgraded by up to two points, but it is not that uncommon to see coins at the 66 level with evidence of slide marks. The friction seen here is not much different from slide mark friction.

 

2. 1948-S dime, PCGS MS66

OBV: A singular reed mark beneath the ear. REV: Hairlines sweep across the body of the torch, inclined about 20 degrees above horizontal. They are visible only at select angles. Insignificant ticks on DIM.

PERSONAL OPINION: The hairlines are on the less-important side and may not preclude an MS-66 grade.

 

3. 1953-D dime, PCGS MS66 FB

OBV: No significant hairlines. There is some evidence of die polish in both obverse fields. REV: Minor ticks near the top of the torch.

PERSONAL OPINION: Very nice coin, and suitably graded.

 

4. 1953-S dime, PCGS MS67

OBV: A handful of virtually invisible hairlines are just visible within a very narrow range of viewing angles. REV: Surprising abrasion of the upper third of the center torch segment, plus rub on the left edge of the neighboring oak leaf.

PERSONAL OPINION: The shiny spots on the torch wouldn't be bothersome on either side at MS-66. At MS-67, they are likely acceptable if on the reverse only.

 

5. 1961-D dime, PCGS MS66FB

OBV: A single significant hairlines sweeps down across the forward-center area of the hair. A couple of additional trivial hairlines run parallel. A couple of minor ticks are noted on the chin. REV: Minor frictional ticks are seen near the bottom of the torch. Substantial die polish must not be confused with hairlines. It is the result of repolishing of the die after it clashed.

PERSONAL OPINION: Seems to be a very nice coin. Indeed, before looking at the grade, I thought this was a candidate for MS-67, which it would be without one single tick on the chin.

 

6. 1962-D dime, PCGS MS-66

OBV: Several intermittent hairlines are evident in the hair, generally toward the left side of the portrait. The back of the jaw exhibits short, parallel hairlines elevated only a few degrees above the horizontal. The forward cheek area displays quite a number of short, horizontal hairlines, similar to slide marks. REV: A red thread is trapped by the coin at 12:00. Evidence of dip residue.

PERSONAL OPINION: At the very best, low-end for 66. There are simply too many of the slide marks on the cheek (only some are evident in the image).

 

7. 2000-S silver dime, PCGS PR70DCAM

OBV: A thread is trapped by the coin at 4:00. At least three hairlines elevate left of vertical from the bridge of the nose. REV: No noticeable defects.

PERSONAL OPINION: Clearly not a 70.

 

8. 1996-S silver dime, PCGS PR70DCAM

OBV: Significant spotting of the surfaces, with corrosive properties noted. The most obvious spots are in the lower loop of "B", below "L", below "JS", and centered in the obverse right field. REV: Substantial tobacco colored spot near the top of the torch.

PERSONAL OPINION: Terrible for 70. This is really a damaged coin, considering it is a 1996-S that shouldn't exhibit so many problems.

 

9. 1996-S silver dime, PCGS PR70DCAM

OBV: There is a spotted patch of metal nearly at 12:00 below the rim. REV: A tiny spot is between the top berry of the laurel sprig, and a smaller one is just off right of the truncation of the same sprig.

PERSONAL OPINION: Still not a perfect coin, but close.

 

10: 2008-S silver dime, PCGS PR70DCAM

OBV: A misshapen area of tobacco tone is creeping downward from the rim at 2:00. REV: No significant defects noted.

PERSONAL OPINION: The toning spot(s) are disconcerting, and clearly make this an imperfect coin.

 

11: 2008-S silver dime, PCGS PR70DCAM

OBV: Substantial hairlining of the left field from upper left downward toward front of portrait (not seen in image). A hazy patch is progressing downward from the rim at 2:00. A similar spot rests against the far right rim. REV: A brown spot on the flame shows evidence of progressing outward, and is likely corrosive in nature.

PERSONAL OPINION: This coin is appalling for the grade, easily the worst of all the coins examined here. Should have been deemed "ungradeable" due to cleaning.

 

12: 2008-S silver dime, PCGS PR70DCAM

OBV: (examination declined due to obstructing ink) REV: Faint areas of haze can be seen, including beneath the feet of "RI".

PERSONAL OPINION: Clearly not a perfect coin, with growing spots and annoying haze.

[James_OldeTowne]

My experience in life, as well as coins, has often been that when two parties take an opposite, polarizing point of view on a subject, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

 

By no means do I believe PCGS is infallible. Believe it or not, there are some who do believe this, or something very close to it. I also don't believe that PCGS is rife with incompetence and shrouded in conspiracy.

 

I do believe they can and do make a lot of mistakes, considering that they have certified millions upon millions of coins. And like any other company, I do believe there can be "bad days".

 

Edited to add: I intentionally did not comment on the source of the hairlines, because I have no evidence to lead me to conjecture where they came from. We have grade_it's assertion that they were imparted during PCGS' possession, but I cannot comment on that either way.

 

I will say that it is highly possible for an UNC coin to pulled from circulation in 1948, already with hairlines from handling, and put in an album where it develops patina which hides the hairlines. Subsequent dipping could remove that patina and restore visibility of the hairlines. It's just one possible scenario of many.

[grade it-migration]

James could you use a 10x scope or loupe on these ms coins I think 5x is not enough to see them as stated below. With bright light...Thanks Steve

 

let me know how this works as this is what we are taught at the ANA summer seminar.

 

Definition: Hairlines are thin, incuse (sunken in), tiny little scratches on the surface or devices of a coin, usually caused by slider marks or cleaning. They are readily visible under 10x magnification and good light, and detract from the value of high-grade coins.

[x2rider]

Thanks for analysis James

Clearly there are some problems with their grading when it came to proof coins that day .

 

I am looking at some proof jeffs at the moment for submitting and I might send them to PCGS instead for a 70

 

Is the spotting due to dip residue on something else . ?

 

Cheers Martin

[Razor2k]

Well, Maybe someone is owed an apology?!?

[ldhair]

The proofs look to have all been graded at different times and the ones with hairlines should never have made it to a 70 holder. The proofs with spots must have changed in the holders after grading. I'll add my opinion on the MS coins at some point.

[MarkFeld]

Well, Maybe someone is owed an apology?!?

Because James disagreed with some of the assigned grades, or for some other reason?

[WoodenJefferson]

Much to ingest...excellent analysis and presentation. GB is beating ATL...be back later.

[bsshog40]

Hey James, aren't a lot of coins well-known for getting haze and spotting after the slab? I have a Comm that was very nice when I got it from the Mint but after a period of time it began to develop a lot of haze. I just used that as an example cause I have it.

[Razor2k]

Maybe this falls under the category of "some other reason"

 

Just about everyone attacked grade_it, and practically called him a "liar"

 

Now James confirms that which was alleged (For the most part)

 

So I say an apology might be warranted in this case

 

Just my unbiased opinion!

[grade it-migration]

Thanks James

[ldhair]

Maybe this falls under the category of "some other reason"

 

Just about everyone attacked grade_it, and practically called him a "liar"

 

Now James confirms that which was alleged (For the most part)

 

So I say an apology might be warranted in this case

 

Just my unbiased opinion!

 

Grade it alleged several things in his post but never a word about the proofs till he sent them to James. It sounds like James is OK with the grades on most of the MS coins. I see no reason for an apology from anyone. Grade it claims that PCGS hairlined his coins. I don't see anyway to know that was the case.

[FishyOne]

Thanks for the analysis. Very well done.

 

The MS66 and 67 coins offer few surprises to me. The proofs are another matter. Are these "the worst of the worst"? Was the spotting there in the grading room? We don't know. Clearly PR70DCAM should be better than what we're seeing. 99.9% of time they are. I believe, these 0.1% should be in the grading guarantee but that's another thread. JMHO.

 

Once again - thanks for the time and effort expended putting this together.

[grade it-migration]

I think when James gets another look at the ms coin at 10x and under brighter light the description might change.

 

10 x makes a big difference.

 

Thanks James in advance..

 

These are photos of the same coin with die polish marks. I spent a lot of time trying to photo massive hairlines in holdered coins with no success.. this is as close to hairlines as can be photoed for me. If hairlines could be photoed I would have hundreds to post.

 

 

[physics-fan3.14]

I think when James gets another look at the ms coin at 10x and under brighter light the description might change.

 

10 x makes a big difference.

 

 

I have every confidence that James spent the required time and put the required effort into these coins to properly grade them. I have full confidence in James' grading ability. No grader at a TPG is going to use a 10x loupe - very few are going to use magnification of any power. If it requires magnification to see, its probably not going to be noticed or included in the grade.

 

James, do any of these hairlines or slide marks show up in your pictures? If possible, I would like to see closeups to get a better idea of what you are talking about.

[grade it-migration]

James go ahead and keep the ms coins for your time and trouble, just send me back the 70 junk...

[ldhair]

I'm up late so it seems like a great time to post my opinion.

 

At the Fun show, Mike handed me 8 or 10 of the Roosevelts to look at. All MS-66. He had about 20 or so slabs on the table at the time.

 

At 6X I could see nothing that would keep the coins out of 66 holders but there were a few hairlines on some of them. I went to 9X and had a second look. I could see a few more hairlines but still nothing to keep them from being graded MS-66.

 

I ask Mike to pick out one that was really bad and he did. It had more than just hairlines. It had several of what I would call scratches, going from rim to rim, on the reverse, but in a 66 holder. PCGS missed this one. It had a bit of toning running along with the damage making me think it had not been dipped in some time.

 

I would guess that James received the worst of the several hundred MS coins that were sent in and the ones I looked at were part of the worst as well. I have no way to know if PCGS dipped the ones we looked at or added any hairlines.

 

 

 

 

[cpm9ball]

Well, Maybe someone is owed an apology?!?

Because James disagreed with some of the assigned grades, or for some other reason?

 

I don't see where an apology is necessary for things that were said in his other thread, but I'm not going to go into it here and derail this thread.

 

Chris

[James_OldeTowne]

James, do any of these hairlines or slide marks show up in your pictures? If possible, I would like to see closeups to get a better idea of what you are talking about.

Click the images of the slabs, and very large images will come up, showing the hairlines.

[MarkFeld]

Maybe this falls under the category of "some other reason"

 

Just about everyone attacked grade_it, and practically called him a "liar"

 

Now James confirms that which was alleged (For the most part)

 

So I say an apology might be warranted in this case

 

Just my unbiased opinion!

 

Grade it alleged several things in his post but never a word about the proofs till he sent them to James. It sounds like James is OK with the grades on most of the MS coins. I see no reason for an apology from anyone. Grade it claims that PCGS hairlined his coins. I don't see anyway to know that was the case.

Thank you Larry. Not surprisingly, it sounds to me as if most of the claims/accusations were badly exaggerated.

[JStull]

Grade_It:

 

I don't grade coins for other people. I am not in the business of assessing grades and giving my opinions.

 

This is a hobby to me and nothing more.

 

 

[RWB]

Interesting work....

[grade it-migration]

The results as I see them..

 

First I would like to thank James for a professional report.

 

I would like to thank all who read and are reading this informative post and those who posted being pro or con...Near 2000 official reads and countless others in both posts James started..and close to 200 posts.

 

I realize that James downgrades of 75% of the coins evaluated does not prove anything to a very few. If it where 100% I would maintain the same.........

 

I maintain that the ms coins where sent to PCGS not dipped with no hairlines present.

(A few being the operative word here)

 

The coins returned from PCGS had hairlines (A few being the operative word here) and where holdered to a ms66 and higher graded by these guide lines below..

 

MS-66 - Must have above average quality of strike and full original mint luster, with no more than two or three minor but noticeable contact marks. A few very light hairlines may show under magnification, or there may be one or two light scuff marks showing on frosted surfaces or in the field.

 

From previous posts here and personal knowledge of the bulk submission program. Magnification lacks in their grading procedure.

 

I maintain that by the grading standards posted by PCGS magnification is required.

A few very light hairlines may show under magnification,.

 

Whats in your holder?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[JStull]

The results as I see them..

 

First I would like to thank James for a professional report.

 

I would like to thank all who read and are reading this informative post and those who posted being pro or con...Near 2000 official reads and countless others in both posts James started..and close to 200 posts.

 

I realize that James downgrades of 75% of the coins evaluated does not prove anything to a very few. If it where 100% I would maintain the same.........

 

I maintain that the ms coins where sent to PCGS not dipped with no hairlines present.

(A few being the operative word here)

 

The coins returned from PCGS had hairlines (A few being the operative word here) and where holdered to a ms66 and higher graded by these guide lines below..

 

MS-66 - Must have above average quality of strike and full original mint luster, with no more than two or three minor but noticeable contact marks. A few very light hairlines may show under magnification, or there may be one or two light scuff marks showing on frosted surfaces or in the field.

 

From previous posts here and personal knowledge of the bulk submission program. Magnification lacks in their grading procedure.

 

I maintain that by the grading standards posted by PCGS magnification is required.

A few very light hairlines may show under magnification,.

 

Whats in your holder?

 

The results as I see them.

 

I see nothing in James' report that he knows who put the hairlines on the coins.

[ldhair]

One other thing to keep in mind. It's possible the dip brought out the hairlines that were already there, but hidden. Same thing can happen with an acetone bath. When the tiny edges of hairlines or marks get cleaned the light has a better chance of catching them. One of the reasons AU coins often look worse when messed with.

[WoodenJefferson]

1. 1947 dime, PCGS MS66

an area of significant friction sweeping upward and toward the right on Roosevelt's cheek

> I am in total agreement with the OP and James on this one, no way should this grade out as MS-66

 

 

2. 1948-S dime, PCGS MS66

>minute slide marks on torch handle, acceptable on MS-65 possibly not seen by grader hence 66.

 

3. 1953-D dime, PCGS MS66 FB

>correctly graded

 

4. 1953-S dime, PCGS MS67

>minute rub on torch handle, strictly opinion as to 66 vs. 67, I would have gave it a 66.

 

5. 1961-D dime, PCGS MS66FB

>correctly graded

 

6. 1962-D dime, PCGS MS-66

> Roosevelt cheek, I would like to know if this is nothing more than the remnants if a un-struck planchet?

 

 

7. 2000-S silver dime, PCGS PR70DCAM

>I do not like modern 70’s period! Lot’s of trash entombed, the sonic welder must have run out of dry air.

 

8. 1996-S silver dime, PCGS PR70DCAM

> no way to tell if it turned in the holder, looks like sneeze spots. Unknown, but could be sent in under grade guarantee.

 

9. 1996-S silver dime, PCGS PR70DCAM

> once again, no way to determine when this coin spotted. Unknown, but could be sent in under grade guarantee.

 

10. 2008-S silver dime, PCGS PR70DCAM

>again, no way to determine when this coin spotted. Unknown, but could be sent in under grade guarantee.

 

11. 2008-S silver dime, PCGS PR70DCAM James’s comment: This coin is appalling for the grade, easily the worst of all the coins examined here. Should have been deemed "ungradeable" due to cleaning.

 

From the images alone, I cannot tell if this dime has been cleaned, I will take James word for it, but I only see spots, no reputed hairlines.

 

 

12. 2008-S silver dime, PCGS PR70DCAM

>>again, no way to determine when this coin spotted. Unknown, but could be sent in under grade guarantee.

 

 

 

Synopsys: Of the 12 coins presented, only 2 were obvious rejects to the assigned grades, 5 were changes of the coins surfaces, 2 correctly graded, 1 unknown, 1 with trash, and 1 only those viewing the actual coin could tell (cleaned)

 

Two, possibly 3 have slide marks clearly visible….those need to be questioned but I do not detect a pattern of hairlines due to dipping or mishandling, as grade-it has claimed.

 

Note: If I were to purchase coin #1 as MS-66, I would be very upset with the grade. Any of the proof coins in PR-70 is a shoot.

[James_OldeTowne]

One other thing to keep in mind. It's possible the dip brought out the hairlines that were already there, but hidden. Same thing can happen with an acetone bath.

I agree. Please see the second post, page 1.

[Oldtrader3]

Here is something to consider about this entire topic of having humans grade coin:

 

One of the things that has always bothered me about having humans, with no hair covers, beard covers and/or shed free smocks, grading coins is that they eat over them, sneeze on them, breath tobacco stained air on them and everything else that humans do with their shedding, sweating, sneezing, breathing, spitting particle face orifices which are covered with hair. Humans stain coins because there is nothing to prevent them for staining them with their sputum, skin particles, hair, sweat, you name it but you get the picture.

 

The grading company's charge dealers and to a greater expense collectors, for a grading opinion which often means that the coin comes back more contaminated then it went. This is because during the course of grading and encapsulating a coin it is in the breath and particulate stream of a number of humans. Plus how many here have coins that come back and turn in the holder where fingerprints have been embedded in the surface of the coin by careless handling somewhere along the line.

 

Has it ever occurred to the grading companies that maybe they need to run a filtered clean room of about Class 200,000 or better? This means using an enclosed epoxy painted non-shed tile floor with some modicum of air filtration. Along with implementing filtration at a less than Class 200,000, "Clean Room", they should require graders and anyone else who works near coins to either use a hooded work area or wear nylon jackets, hair covers and beardcovers which cover their mouths and noses, as well as hair.

 

Maybe is a few of these simple fixes were implemented, many coins could be spared being spotted and permanently damaged by human effluents that are discharged when humans examine something close to their faces. The electronic, food-drug and Medical Device companies found these things out with the implementation of GMP (Good Manufacturing Practices) many years ago.

 

Common sense in doing this should prevail and the things that are most important are to flow clean, deionised air over the coins in work stations and have the room where coins are exposed laying in trays, be under some postive air pressure from the rest of the building to keep particulate from flowing into the room every time someone opens the door. This is not rocket science and practically speaking does not have to be expensive.

 

I am not saying anything about going to full medical GMP, just better practices at a lesser level to keep the garbage off of coin surfaces. Maybe it is time for some practices to assure better quality and less contamination by humans in the TPG industry. Just a thought and it does not require heroic efforts, just some common sense to get rid of the spew of fluids and particulate that humans shed all day, every day. Something to think about.

[FishyOne]

I'm up late so it seems like a great time to post my opinion.

 

At the Fun show, Mike handed me 8 or 10 of the Roosevelts to look at. All MS-66. He had about 20 or so slabs on the table at the time.

 

At 6X I could see nothing that would keep the coins out of 66 holders but there were a few hairlines on some of them. I went to 9X and had a second look. I could see a few more hairlines but still nothing to keep them from being graded MS-66.

 

I ask Mike to pick out one that was really bad and he did. It had more than just hairlines. It had several of what I would call scratches, going from rim to rim, on the reverse, but in a 66 holder. PCGS missed this one. It had a bit of toning running along with the damage making me think it had not been dipped in some time.

 

I would guess that James received the worst of the several hundred MS coins that were sent in and the ones I looked at were part of the worst as well. I have no way to know if PCGS dipped the ones we looked at or added any hairlines.

 

 

 

 

First, this post echos my thoughts and I looked at 2 boxes of grade_it's coins as well. I saw several pieces that were "slightly" over-graded and a couple that were "misses" by 2 points.

 

Second, grade_it was very personable in all correspondence but I had to completely back out of this situation. I don't want to get mixed up in it and I'm sure you understand.

 

Lastly, a big issue here is microscopic grading at 20X or more. Graded "normally", 99% of the issues go away.

[Frank Provasek]

The Mint State 66 coins look fine.

 

 

 

PCGS defines MS/PR 70 as

 

As struck, with full strike

 

Nothing about "perfect" yet many expect that.

 

I don't like the Proof 70s shown, but I don't think any post 1968 proofs need

slabbing. One day these will be more prized in their original holders than in

some long-gone TPGs "slab."

 

Reading through all the ramblings posts of "Grade-it" I saw nowhere WHAT KIND

OF COIN he was talking about. Even after being asked directly..what are these, Silver Eagles, Franklins, or what? -- no response.

 

Then all the conflicting statements - PCGS hairlined them by dipping them, then

they dipped them to try etch off exisiting hairlines, they dipped them without permission, they dipped them after checking a box on the submission form (which

does not exist), we are going to FUN and show these around to shame PCGS,

we didn't show them around because that's not why we went to FUN.

 

The grading services normally do not use magnification except to

check for possible alterations. The grade is based mostly on

how the coin "presents itself" when viewed naked eye by an experienced

collector.

 

PCGS and NGC have often told people who "counted marks" that those people "don't get what modern grading is about." Both use their own

proprietary grading standards, and guarantee only that coins are graded

according to their own standards. Authorized members of their trading networks agree to accept the grades assigned when buying and selling, and not

"disparage" the companies or a particular coin.

 

Here is how PCGS justifies "mint state" coins with "rub" or "friction" (from the PCGS grading guide)

 

 

 

 

 

As an engineer, this used to bother me greatly. A sample either meets or does

not meet a given fixed standard. But as long as collectors are willing to accept the

grades assigned by NGC and PCGS, you either participate in that market or not, as your choice.

 

To be constantly badmouthing the grading services will quickly get you blackballed, banned, sued, and generally avoided in the trade.