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

[grade it-migration]

Hi Fishyone (reply to two posts back)

 

Remember that test well and thanks for posting here..

 

I believe I asked you to pick a date from 1973 to 2008 of proof 69dcam Roosevelt dimes in clad or silver being 55 possible dates, types and metals..(silver or clad) representing 1100 coins to make a box of 20 of each....

 

You picked 1979 which has a type1 and type2 so I sent you 20 of each.

 

I still have the coins with the red green orange and yellow stickers on the reverse logo.

 

Your results where 13 to a 69 ..23 to a 68 and 3 to a 67 and 1 66....

 

I your grades where 77.5% over graded and 32.5% correctly grade. This seem quite consistent with James results.....

 

CAC stickers 40% to grade of those submitted...

[WoodenJefferson]

Hi B

 

Remember that test well and thanks for posting here..

 

I believe I asked you to pick a date from 1973 to 2008 of proof 69dcam Roosevelt dimes in clad or silver being 55 possible dates, types and metals..(silver or clad) representing 1100 coins to make a box of 20 of each....

 

You picked 1979 which has a type1 and type2 so I sent you 20 of each.

 

I still have the coins with the red green orange and yellow stickers on the reverse logo.

 

Your results where 13 to a 69 ..23 to a 68 and 3 to a 67 and 1 66....

 

I your grades where 77.5% over graded and 32.5% correctly grade. This seem quite consistent with James results.....

 

CAC stickers 40% to grade of those submitted...

 

Ahhhhh.....is this a PM or a reply in the wrong place?

[grade it-migration]

Sorry I thought from the post you would understand it was replying to Fishy Ones post.

 

Went back and edited the first line

 

Thanks for the heads up Woody

 

Here is the PCGS definition of a pr70 that I use

 

MS-70 - The perfect coin. Has very attractive sharp strike and original luster of the highest quality for the date and mint. No contact marks are visible under magnification. There are absolutely no hairlines, scuff marks or defects.

 

Magnification again .....

 

 

[MarkFeld]

Sorry I thought from the post you would understand it was replying to Fishy Ones post.

 

Went back and edited the first line

 

Thanks for the heads up Woody

 

Here is the PCGS definition of a pr70 that I use

 

MS-70 - The perfect coin. Has very attractive sharp strike and original luster of the highest quality for the date and mint. No contact marks are visible under magnification. There are absolutely no hairlines, scuff marks or defects.

 

Magnification again .....

 

Can you please provide a PCGS link for that definition of MS70? It is not the one I have seen previously. The one I am thinking of made reference to 5X magnification, not simply "under magnification".

[coinman_23885]

Can you please provide a PCGS link for that definition of MS70? It is not the one I have seen previously. The one I am thinking of made reference to 5X magnification, not simply "under magnification".

 

That's the exact one that I have seen. I'm quite confused as to why many posts allude to a lack of magnification in arriving at a coin's final grade and designation. The definitions on the PCGS website seem to contradict this. While not unique to the PF/MS 70 grade, here is PCGS's definition for MS 70:

 

http://www.pcgs.com/lingo.chtml?universeid=313&letter=M

 

 

MS-70

This is for "Mint State" (the grade) and "70" (the numerical designation of that grade). A perfect coin! Even with 5X magnification there are no marks, hairlines or luster breaks in evidence. The luster is vibrant, the strike is razor-sharp, and the eye appeal is the ultimate. Note: Minor die polish and light die breaks are not considered to be defects on circulation strike coins.

 

EDITED TO ADD: This is the closest definition to the originally posted definition:

 

MS-70 - The perfect coin. Has very attractive sharp strike and original luster of the highest quality for the date and mint. No contact marks are visible under magnification. There are absolutely no hairlines, scuff marks or defects. Attractive and outstanding eye appeal. Copper coins must be bright with full original color and luster.

 

http://www.pcgs.com/articles/article23.chtml

 

[Frank Provasek]

Can you please provide a PCGS link for that definition of MS70? It is not the one I have seen previously. The one I am thinking of made reference to 5X magnification, not simply "under magnification".

 

The official descriptions of the grades, unchanged from the 1997 and 2004 editions

of the PCGS Coin Grading and Counterfeit Detection Guide, are here

 

http://www.pcgs.com/grades.chtml

 

 

 

The "coin dealer lingo" guide on their website is NOT official.

[coinman_23885]

The "coin dealer lingo" guide on their website is NOT official.

 

Thanks for this information. I'm not sure why I couldn't find that page previously; it didn't show up in my Google search either.

[FishyOne]

Hi grade_it. I thought I'd let the cat out of the bag. Yes, those were my results and I agree they are close to what James saw on the proofs; but the 2 boxes I had were all 69DCAM.

 

I believe the 20X magnification is generating many of these issues. I normally use 5X and only go to 10X for fine details or varieties. Even on coins as small as Roosie Dimes, I'd stick with 5X tops. I noticed your lighting comments also, 75 watt incandescent is what I use.

 

Best of luck.

[grade it-migration]

Off course there is nothing more defining of grading standards than a PCGS head grader at a PUBLIC forum on coin grading and PCGS submissions

 

A public forum with 14 to 18 local collectors present, in October 2010...

 

I asked the question at this public forum "what is the grading standards for a ms or proof 70 coin?

 

His answer was "A perfect coin. No defects, a nick of 5 hundredths of an inch, spots or other discoloration, scratches 5 hundreds of an inch long would not qualify as a 70 and extremely rare"

 

"Flaxen hair is the finest, from 1/1500 to 1/500 of an inch in diameter … and black hair is the coarsest, from 1/450 to 1/140 of an inch." no other comment on what type of hair

I agree with previous posts that hairnets should be used after dipping coins in all rooms.

Perhaps a new Post ( your best thread in a holder)

 

 

Asked then the same PCGS head grader what a pr69 standards where his answer "one or two defects less than 5 hundredths of an inch, no discoloration an almost perfect coin" ..

 

This is my grading standards I will use when grading and regrading coins until I read officially it is not. At which point all coins will be graded or regraded to what ever standard is official, .. http://www.pcgs.com/articles/article23.chtml

 

If PCGS started in 1986 with one standard which I believe to be the true standard even today. PCGS published an abbreviated grading standard in 1997 which I believe to just a shortened version of the official grading standards for a quick reference.

The longer more detailed version today is on the official web site complete with PCGS header and advertisements and has no statement, the grading standards here are null and void.

 

If Franks statement is true (when I read officially they are) does that not make grading standards a moving target? How much confidence should we have in investing in rare coins if the grade standards move at the whim of a corporation?

I believe PCGS has not changed there grading standards, I believe they make mistakes on grading, but would never compromise their integrity from the original accepted grading standards they started with. That change would devastate many collections in value and undermine credibility of there product, these standards being lower or higher.

 

I believe the Grading standards in 1986, then published on the web in 1995 ( internet was in is infancy in 1995) are still in in effect. Perhaps if Franks post is true then he should have PCGS do a press release and inform everyone as to there new grading standards and the cancellation of the still down loadable one, with the PCGS header complete with links?

 

Of course that would mean if the standards now where lower or higher then previous graded standards, coins pre1997, would be graded lower or higher today.

 

Should upgrades that would keep up with today's new standards be free of charge if the change was a relaxing of standards?

I am sure many would not have coins downgraded for free if today's grading was tighter. Which causes a whole other can of worms..

Then how do you know when your coin was graded pre 1997 or after1997??

 

Frank the ramifications of this grading change are endless. Please say it ain't so

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[MarkFeld]

Off course there is nothing more defining of grading standards than a PCGS head grader at a PUBLIC forum on coin grading and PCGS submissions

 

A public forum with 14 to 18 local collectors present, in October 2010...

 

I asked the question at this public forum "what is the grading standards for a ms or proof 70 coin?

 

His answer was "A perfect coin. No defects, a nick of 5 hundredths of an inch, spots or other discoloration, scratches 5 hundreds of an inch long would not qualify as a 70 and extremely rare"

 

"Flaxen hair is the finest, from 1/1500 to 1/500 of an inch in diameter … and black hair is the coarsest, from 1/450 to 1/140 of an inch." no other comment on what type of hair

I agree with previous posts that hairnets should be used after dipping coins in all rooms.

Perhaps a new Post ( your best thread in a holder)

 

 

Asked then the same PCGS head grader what a pr69 standards where his answer "one or two defects less than 5 hundredths of an inch, no discoloration an almost perfect coin" ..

 

This is my grading standards I will use when grading and regrading coins until I read officially it is not. At which point all coins will be graded or regraded to what ever standard is official, .. http://www.pcgs.com/articles/article23.chtm

 

If PCGS started in 1986 with one standard which I believe to be the true standard even today. PCGS published an abbreviated grading standard in 1997 which I believe to just a shortened version of the official grading standards for a quick reference.

The longer more detailed version today is on the official web site complete with PCGS header and advertisements and has no statement, the grading standards here are null and void.

 

If Franks statement is true (when I read officially they are) does that not make grading standards a moving target? How much confidence should we have in investing in rare coins if the grade standards move at the whim of a corporation?

I believe PCGS has not changed there grading standards, I believe they make mistakes on grading, but would never compromise their integrity from the original accepted grading standards they started with. That change would devastate many collections in value and undermine credibility of there product, these standards being lower or higher.

 

I believe the Grading standards in 1986, then published on the web in 1995 ( internet was in is infancy in 1995) are still in in effect. Perhaps if Franks post is true then he should have PCGS do a press release and inform everyone as to there new grading standards and the cancellation of the still down loadable one, with the PCGS header complete with links?

 

Of course that would mean if the standards now where lower or higher then previous graded standards, coins pre1997, would be graded lower or higher today.

 

Should upgrades that would keep up with today's new standards be free of charge if the change was a relaxing of standards?

I am sure many would not have coins downgraded for free if today's grading was tighter. Which causes a whole other can of worms..

Then how do you know when your coin was graded pre 1997 or after1997??

 

Frank the ramifications of this grading change are endless. Please say it ain't so

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry, but I think that's bologna. Of course it isn't a given that nothing is more defining of grading standards than what you claim one grader said. Among them could be published standards and/or whatever standards are actually applied in the grading room.

 

And who is the "PCGS head grader" you speak of?

 

You speak as if grading standards are or should be so black and white/objective that they can be adhered to time and time again, and that if they are not, the assigned grade is a mistake. That is unrealistic, to say the least.

[James_OldeTowne]

You speak as if grading standards are or should be so black and white/objective that they can be adhered to time and time again, and that if they are not, the assigned grade is a mistake. That is unrealistic, to say the least.

With but a single exception, I agree with this statement, and have made similar statements many times myself. However, the one exception, in my opinion as a collector, is at the "70" level. What constitutes technical "perfection" should not change over time. A coin is either "perfect" or it isn't. Unless the perfect coin itself changes, it's grade shouldn't.

 

What can change is the methodology used to evaluate perfection. In other words, it could be that the best technology had to offer in 1987 was 5x magnfication, with which certain coins do look perfect. If technology advances years later to create 15x magnification, then we might discover imperfections in coins previously believed to be perfect. But none of this is the case. We use the same quality loupes today as we did in 1987, so the same methodology used to evaluate perfection should yield the same results.

 

Of course, "sniffers" and "ray guns" might be deemed the new technology that changes what is deemed as "perfect".

 

At any rate, the coins in this analysis that were deemed "perfect" by virtue of the 70 grade vary considerably in quality from coin to coin, and that is perhaps most disturbing of all, given such a small sampling.

[MarkFeld]

You speak as if grading standards are or should be so black and white/objective that they can be adhered to time and time again, and that if they are not, the assigned grade is a mistake. That is unrealistic, to say the least.

With but a single exception, I agree with this statement, and have made similar statements many times myself. However, the one exception, in my opinion as a collector, is at the "70" level. What constitutes technical "perfection" should not change over time. A coin is either "perfect" or it isn't. Unless the perfect coin itself changes, it's grade shouldn't.

 

What can change is the methodology used to evaluate perfection. In other words, it could be that the best technology had to offer in 1987 was 5x magnfication, with which certain coins do look perfect. If technology advances years later to create 15x magnification, then we might discover imperfections in coins previously believed to be perfect. But none of this is the case. We use the same quality loupes today as we did in 1987, so the same methodology used to evaluate perfection should yield the same results.

 

Of course, "sniffers" and "ray guns" might be deemed the new technology that changes what is deemed as "perfect".

 

At any rate, the coins in this analysis that were deemed "perfect" by virtue of the 70 grade vary considerably in quality from coin to coin, and that is perhaps most disturbing of all, given such a small sampling.

It is my understanding, that whether we agree with it or not, the major grading companies do not require that a coin be perfect in order to grade it 70.

 

Based on various posts I have seen, there is confusion regarding what the PCGS standard is, so I wont list it. But here is the NGC standard, from their website:

 

"NGC defines a Mint State or Proof 70 coin as having no post-production imperfections at 5x magnification.":

 

Clearly, such a coin need not be, nor even approach, perfection.

[cpm9ball]

At any rate, the coins in this analysis that were deemed "perfect" by virtue of the 70 grade vary considerably in quality from coin to coin, and that is perhaps most disturbing of all, given such a small sampling.

 

This is where I have to take issue with this sampling. If the statistical population was 1K, 5K or 10K randomly selected coins to be examined, then the results might be totally different. Since these were pre-selected coins in such a small population, the results of the sampling should be deemed insufficient to make a determination.

 

Chris

[James_OldeTowne]

Chris, you are right, and I will edit the OP to reflect that.

[Oldtrader3]

You speak as if grading standards are or should be so black and white/objective that they can be adhered to time and time again, and that if they are not, the assigned grade is a mistake. That is unrealistic, to say the least.

 

Actually, they could be much better than they are now if some simple procedures were followed to not contaminate coins with bio-detrius and maybe with some training standards for graders that would help put them all on the same page in terms of how they grade and what they grade. It is not unrealistic, it is ignorance and lack of production discipline in the grading industry. Graders should not be treated like artists, they should have standards and training to make them more consistant and better graders.

[grade it-migration]

At any rate, the coins in this analysis that were deemed "perfect" by virtue of the 70 grade vary considerably in quality from coin to coin, and that is perhaps most disturbing of all, given such a small sampling.

 

This is where I have to take issue with this sampling. If the statistical population was 1K, 5K or 10K randomly selected coins to be examined, then the results might be totally different. Since these were pre-selected coins in such a small population, the results of the sampling should be deemed insufficient to make a determination.

 

Chris

 

 

 

The sampling anyone want another sampling ??

 

Here might be a good example I have 48 PCGS graded 1962-P Roosevelt Dimes in MS65FB and MS66FB of questionable grade..

 

The population in both graded added together is around 368 check this out on the population report at PCGS

 

That would be 13% of the total population, which will be questioned for proper grade....I do have some, that I believe are graded correctly post those numbers latter......

 

I would applaud James for as his diligent work and ask no more of him in grading coins.

 

I would ask any one who wishes to PM James your unposted willingness to grade these 48 coins I will send them directly to the volunteer or James.

 

Results could be emailed to James for him to post. This giving creditability to the results and anonymity to the grader.......

 

I would never question the creditability of James....

 

I will post a photo of the coins in mass here later...

[grade it-migration]

As stated before here are photos..

 

Counted 49 1962-P dimes 42 1962 MS66FB 7 MS65FB

 

The 42 66fb equal 16.6% of the total PCGS population, which is around 288

 

here are the 49 dimes

 

 

[physics-fan3.14]

How on earth are we supposed to see anything with those pictures?

[grade it-migration]

 

Was editing photo transfer resolution when you posted above how is this better?

 

I would not want to post 98 photos here. This was to prove I have the 49 coins to be evaluated by a credible member ( as you know I am not Credible)

 

 

[physics-fan3.14]

No, that is not any better. I'm not sure what the point of your pictures are. Ok, you have 49 dimes. You wrote on all the slabs. You disagree with the grades. Big deal.

[cpm9ball]

At any rate, the coins in this analysis that were deemed "perfect" by virtue of the 70 grade vary considerably in quality from coin to coin, and that is perhaps most disturbing of all, given such a small sampling.

 

This is where I have to take issue with this sampling. If the statistical population was 1K, 5K or 10K randomly selected coins to be examined, then the results might be totally different. Since these were pre-selected coins in such a small population, the results of the sampling should be deemed insufficient to make a determination.

 

Chris

 

 

 

The sampling anyone want another sampling ??

 

Here might be a good example I have 48 PCGS graded 1962-P Roosevelt Dimes in MS65FB and MS66FB of questionable grade..

 

The population in both graded added together is around 368 check this out on the population report at PCGS

 

That would be 13% of the total population, which will be questioned for proper grade....I do have some, that I believe are graded correctly post those numbers latter......

 

 

You're missing my point. The results will be skewed because you are limiting the population to 1) questionable coins, 2) specific grades, 3) and only one TPGS. You would have to include all MS-graded coins, whether questionable or not, and all of the top grading services to give any credibility to your claim.

 

Chris

[JStull]

No, that is not any better. I'm not sure what the point of your pictures are. Ok, you have 49 dimes. You wrote on all the slabs. You disagree with the grades. Big deal.

 

He offered to send those to me for grading.

 

Un believe able.

[grade it-migration]

No, that is not any better. I'm not sure what the point of your pictures are. Ok, you have 49 dimes. You wrote on all the slabs. You disagree with the grades. Big deal.

\

 

As your name implies you must have some math skills.

 

There was a point made that James results where not a random sample and more coins need to evaluated..

 

CAC results are not a random sampling ( think about that)

 

I have been in a management position sine 1970 in quality control..

 

This new grading evaluation is that sample.

 

If you do not agree, post what would be a correct evaluation. 4000 slabs to do this with...

 

 

 

 

[cpm9ball]

No, that is not any better. I'm not sure what the point of your pictures are. Ok, you have 49 dimes. You wrote on all the slabs. You disagree with the grades. Big deal.

\

 

As your name implies you must have some math skills.

 

There was a point made that James results where not a random sample and more coins need to evaluated..

 

CAC results are not a random sampling ( think about that)

 

I have been in a management position sine 1970 in quality control..

 

This new grading evaluation is that sample.

 

If you do not agree, post what would be a correct evaluation. 4000 slabs to do this with...

 

 

 

 

It doesn't matter if you were George Steinbrenner's manager 40 years ago.

 

If I want to prove that butter tastes better, then all I have to do is make all of the samples butter. If I want to prove that Brookstone butter tastes better, then all I have to do is make all of the samples Brookstone.

 

That is exactly what you have done. All of the samples are, as you say, questionable coins, and all of the samples are PCGS MS66 & MS67.

 

Now, if you threw in NGC, ANACS & ICG in all MS grades (PCGS too!), then you would have a valid sample. Actually, it would make it even better if the examiners didn't know which coin was in which company's slab.

 

Chris

[Dudley the 1st]

Thank you for taking your time to review these coins . The examples you have highlighted that have been over-graded , are but just a few that are in today's secondary market . Time and time again , I would see coins just like these while searching current auction inventories , primarily by offered through just one auction house , but certainly not limited to just them. Sad but true .

[MarkFeld]

Thank you for taking your time to review these coins . The examples you have highlighted that have been over-graded , are but just a few that are in today's secondary market . Time and time again , I would see coins just like these while searching current auction inventories , primarily by offered through just one auction house , but certainly not limited to just them. Sad but true .

Which auction house?

[grade it-migration]

 

 

 

It doesn't matter if you were George Steinbrenner's manager 40 years ago.

 

If I want to prove that butter tastes better, then all I have to do is make all of the samples butter. If I want to prove that Brookstone butter tastes better, then all I have to do is make all of the samples Brookstone.

 

That is exactly what you have done. All of the samples are, as you say, questionable coins, and all of the samples are PCGS MS66 & MS67.

 

Now, if you threw in NGC, ANACS & ICG in all MS grades (PCGS too!), then you would have a valid sample. Actually, it would make it even better if the examiners didn't know which coin was in which company's slab.

 

Chris

 

Chris pick a year and MM from 1946 to 1964 as I did with Fishyone.( he came up with 77% over graded) Key dates such as 1949 1949-s 1950-s are exempt because of low population in my 1000+ ms inventory

 

I will pull all slabs in all TPG services I feel over graded in all grades.

 

I wait for your pick .

 

I remember when I worked for a parts subcontractor for General Motors in 1971 in QC. The department head of QC took a full day to manufacture the parts for a "random sampling" of 10.. They always passed..

 

How long do collectors and dealers take to pick coins to submit to CAC and get only 40% with a green bean? .......

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ldhair]

Fishyone said this.

 

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

 

 

[MarkFeld]

 

 

It doesn't matter if you were George Steinbrenner's manager 40 years ago.

 

If I want to prove that butter tastes better, then all I have to do is make all of the samples butter. If I want to prove that Brookstone butter tastes better, then all I have to do is make all of the samples Brookstone.

 

That is exactly what you have done. All of the samples are, as you say, questionable coins, and all of the samples are PCGS MS66 & MS67.

 

Now, if you threw in NGC, ANACS & ICG in all MS grades (PCGS too!), then you would have a valid sample. Actually, it would make it even better if the examiners didn't know which coin was in which company's slab.

 

Chris

 

Chris pick a year and MM from 1946 to 1964 as I did with Fishyone.( he came up with 77% over graded) Key dates such as 1949 1949-s 1950-s are exempt because of low population in my 1000+ ms inventory

 

I will pull all slabs in all TPG services I feel over graded in all grades.

 

I wait for your pick .

 

I remember when I worked for a parts subcontractor for General Motors in 1971 in QC. The department head of QC took a full day to manufacture the parts for a "random sampling" of 10.. They always passed..

 

How long do collectors and dealers take to pick coins to submit to CAC and get only 40% with a green bean? .......

 

 

 

 

 

OK, so you and some others feel that there are a lot of over-graded coins out there and/or have different standards - we get it, already.

 

The fact that CAC doesn't sticker a coin doesn't necessarily mean they think it is over-graded. So, your quoted percentages with them are essentially meaningless.

[grade it-migration]

 

 

It doesn't matter if you were George Steinbrenner's manager 40 years ago.

 

If I want to prove that butter tastes better, then all I have to do is make all of the samples butter. If I want to prove that Brookstone butter tastes better, then all I have to do is make all of the samples Brookstone.

 

That is exactly what you have done. All of the samples are, as you say, questionable coins, and all of the samples are PCGS MS66 & MS67.

 

Now, if you threw in NGC, ANACS & ICG in all MS grades (PCGS too!), then you would have a valid sample. Actually, it would make it even better if the examiners didn't know which coin was in which company's slab.

 

Chris

 

Chris pick a year and MM from 1946 to 1964 as I did with Fishyone.( he came up with 77% over graded) Key dates such as 1949 1949-s 1950-s are exempt because of low population in my 1000+ ms inventory

 

I will pull all slabs in all TPG services I feel over graded in all grades.

 

I wait for your pick .

 

I remember when I worked for a parts subcontractor for General Motors in 1971 in QC. The department head of QC took a full day to manufacture the parts for a "random sampling" of 10.. They always passed..

 

How long do collectors and dealers take to pick coins to submit to CAC and get only 40% with a green bean? .......

 

 

 

 

 

OK, so you and some others feel that there are a lot of over-graded coins out there and/or have different standards - we get it, already.

 

The fact that CAC doesn't sticker a coin doesn't necessarily mean they think it is over-graded. So, your quoted percentages with them are essentially meaningless.

 

Ok back to the random sampling issue pick a year and mm. Please

 

I only use a 10x microscope as I have stated many times