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

[physics-fan3.14]

Grade it, what we are saying is it is not a random sample. You have a very clear agenda, a very clear vendetta against the TPGs. Any sample you select will have a very strong selection bias. Being in QC for 40 years, you of all people should know that.

[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.

 

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

 

Why are you shaking your finger at me and telling me about the scope you use? That has nothing to do with my post that I wrote in reply to you. And, simply put, if you only use 10X magnification, you are looking at coins differently than the graders and most buyers do.

 

 

[cpm9ball]

Nope! I'm out of this. The way you want to do this is useless for anyone but you. If it makes you feel happy, you can do what you want.

 

My only request is that you please not post large photos which require the rest of us to scroll back and forth to read everything.

 

Chris

[grade it-migration]

Grade it, what we are saying is it is not a random sample. You have a very clear agenda, a very clear vendetta against the TPGs. Any sample you select will have a very strong selection bias. Being in QC for 40 years, you of all people should know that.

 

I have a goal to educate many readers of this post "to buy the coin not the holder"

 

No matter what I think of TPG is not the issue. I would let all decide that, given proper information including grading skills.

 

Many have disagreed with the issue of over graded coins present in the market place.

Is there blanket agenda unfair to the silent majority...

 

I think in the case of 16.6 percent of a population base is a random selection. No matter how you try and spin it......Unless you think I own all 1962 ms66fb a total of 288.

 

As I said in my humble opinion they are over graded....And offered to have them all regraded in this public forum.

 

Or pick a date and mm and will offer them for regrading on this public forum

 

just the facts mam

 

 

[James_OldeTowne]

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...

Grade_it, just be clear on something, are these coins that you sent in raw for certification? Or are they certified coins you purchased on the secondary market?

 

We could set up a test as follows:

 

(1) Grade_it selects some number of raw high-grade dimes, say 100.

(2) Mail the dimes to me.

(3) I'll photograph the raw dimes in high resolution.

(4) I will submit them to PCGS. I have only once ever submitted coins to PCGS in my name - it was for four free coupons that someone gave me, so I don't have an particularly biased history with PCGS submissions.

(4a) Or, I could submit them under yet another name, say my neighbor's. That ensures ultimate anonymity.

(5) I'll do another coin-by-coin analysis, only this time, we'll have "prior" images to compare to.

 

Just an idea. Oh, and of course, we need not pick on PCGS. We could use the grading service of your choice.

[grade it-migration]

Accept this study James! Thank you for diligence!!

 

I believe you would want the following coins for this study?

 

These coins will be both my submissions and bought in holders. It should make no difference as to results, but it is a good point and will identify each coin to its history

 

 

Will send 100 high grade FB coins graded by PCGS not having a full bands in IMHO.

 

I have few other grading service coins. I will send them if they meet the criteria above in addition to the 100.

 

Many will be more than non FB in their downgrades, but we call agree on a downgrade of FB by definition, which is well published.

 

Tonight I will do this and will ship in the AM.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[JStull]

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

 

Since TPG graders don't use microscopes for grading, to my knowledge, what is the point?

 

How about this, you're pissed off because a bulk amount of coins you sent in to PCGS for grading and slabbing didn't come back with the grade you think they should have.

 

I've said this once, you get what you pay for, an opinion. So far there is nothing in James' report that PCGS is responsible for the hairlines on your coins as James would not be able to say with 100% certainty that what PCGS did caused the hairlines on your coins.

 

The only thing James confirms is there is presence of hairlines on some of the coins you sent to him.

 

 

[Oldtrader3]

Hmm, why is it that none of you dealers will take that bait on a cleaner, better controlled process of grading coins? What are you afraid of? Maybe truth in advertizing instead of coins with food and saliva all over them because of the grading process lacking controls? I specifically would prefer having the ability to send a coin in for grading and have it come back no worse than when it was sent it in for grading.

 

I am sick of getting impaired, spotted coins back from grading services just because humans can not control their bodily functions and the services do not know how to protect the merchandise that they are grading. This bio-contamination should be removed from the equation of grading.

 

How about the engineers and scientists who collect coins on this site, do you have an opinion on this matter? This really is not rocket science, just some modicum of process control. How does NGC weigh in on this process improvement? Speak up, don't hold back, this really is a serious problem that deserves some attention!

[grade it-migration]

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

 

Since TPG graders don't use microscopes for grading, to my knowledge, what is the point?

 

How about this, you're pissed off because a bulk amount of coins you sent in to PCGS for grading and slabbing didn't come back with the grade you think they should have.

 

I've said this once, you get what you pay for, an opinion. So far there is nothing in James' report that PCGS is responsible for the hairlines on your coins as James would not be able to say with 100% certainty that what PCGS did caused the hairlines on your coins.

 

The only thing James confirms is there is presence of hairlines on some of the coins you sent to him.

 

 

At a coin show I see customers peering at every coin that they might purchase with loupes, mini microscopes or other forms of magnification.

 

What your saying is TPG do not use a loupe when grading? So why should customers? Whats on the holder is always the correct grade right?

 

I use a 10x microscope instead of a 10x loupe .. To see hairlines it is a must. All so it allows me to see FB clearly. I can control the coin rotation and angle with two hands free, easier on the eyes as both are used. Proper light can be controlled. An additional 30X look can be done at a twist of a dial.. I have found hundreds of RPM s DDO and DDR with this function..Some TPG use a scope

 

( Grading tip: with a loupe keep both eyes open to avoid eye strain, try it you will like it)

 

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.

 

 

http://coins.about.com/od/coinsglossary/g/hairlines_coin.htm

 

Buy the coin not the holder and look at the coin not the holder with a loupe..

 

 

 

 

 

 

[coinman_23885]

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.

 

I don't believe that a perfect coin exists although I understand the concept of a coin being exactly as struck. With that said, I wouldn't put too much into any MS/PF 70 coin.

 

Also, everyone here is referencing 5x magnification, but I thought that most grading guides (ANA older editions, etc.) used 10x magnification? Is this part of the grade inflation or is the whole "old green" holder premium just a marketing ploy?

[coinman_23885]

 

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

 

This is scary; only about 40% stickered as being *solid* for the grade or better? I think this may elucidate CAC's rising prominence in the sight unseen market. Without CAC it probably would have collapsed. I think this would have affected prices even for sight seen transactions.

 

Has anyone else noticed a depreciation in quality at all third party grading services? Within the last few weeks, I'm finding that I find 65% low end for the grade, and estimate that an additional 20% lack the eye appeal that I used to find with ease. Perhaps I'm just becoming fussier about my purchases...

[Keigwin]

Apologies for not having read and digested the entire thread.

 

How long does a TPG grader spend with a coin before moving on to the next one? Perhaps 10 seconds? Or less, certainly. Each does hundreds per day, maybe a thousand.

 

I think we, who have the time to really examine coins with a thread like this, have much better opinions. And we do it for free.

Lance.

[grade it-migration]

Apologies for not having read and digested the entire thread.

 

How long does a TPG grader spend with a coin before moving on to the next one? Perhaps 10 seconds? Or less, certainly. Each does hundreds per day, maybe a thousand.

 

I think we, who have the time to really examine coins with a thread like this, have much better opinions. And we do it for free.

Lance.

 

Hi Lance what would like to look at? how about a couple of boxes of 69s deep cams? pick a year from 1973 to 2008 clad or silver 1979 has been done.

 

Post the year here so every one knows, as I like to random selection.,.

 

PM your address will send asp.....

[WoodenJefferson]

[grade it-migration]

 

Have the 100 non FB IMHO in a FB holder done. Had to go back to 1955 from 1964 to get those that would photo well.

 

Cut lines, defects,nicks, gouge lines, scraps that photo well for this test are important in between the band lines. This is one area that is only determined up or down..

 

So Woody would you like to make the accepted definition of Full Bands here on this post before James posts his results?..Or anyone else would be fine.

 

It is essential, while we wait results, we come to an acceptable definition of what "The line dividing the bands must be complete and unbroken......."means The operative word here is unbroken.....

 

In addition the PCGS definition states "requires that both the upper and lower pair of bands on the torch be distinct" Input into that would be appreciated.

 

I can foresee the arguments such as these..

 

"The grading standards have changed and .........."

 

"there is only one cut thought the bands so it is a full bands"

 

"its only a 65 fb which has more acceptable defects".

 

"One can not see the unbroken band line with out magnification and some TPG do not use magnification now".

 

"The coin is graded without magnification therefor it looks like a full bands, it is"..

 

"They never grade both sides of the coin how can you expect it not to be a full bands".

 

"Full bands on Mercury dimes states............."

 

"Look at the luster and eye appeal"

 

"I never look at the FB, they are meaningless to me so who cares?"

 

"So you only sent a hundred that's a small sample of the 15,521 in FB maybe if you sent 10,000 you might have a true sample."

.

Here are some definitions and links I coped and pasted from the web

 

The PCGS "Full Bands" designation for Roosevelts requires that both the upper and lower pair of bands on the torch be distinct and show full separation. The line dividing the bands must be complete and unbroken......

 

 

http://www.pcgs.com/articles/article3795.chtml

 

PCGS starting attributing the “Full Bands” or “FB” designation for Roosevelt Dimes on April 1, 2003, citing demand for the designation from collectors. The PCGS “Full Bands” designation requires that both the upper and lower pair of bands on the torch to appear distinct and show full separation. The line dividing the bands must be full and unbroken.

 

NGC began using their own version of the attribution a few weeks later on April 14, 2003, but termed it “Full Torch” or “FT.” Their criteria for the designation are somewhat different than PCGS’s and arguably more strict. In addition to requiring the upper and lower pair of horizontal bands to show full separation, NGC also requires that the vertical lines of the torch must be defined.

 

 

[WoodenJefferson]

 

Definition of “FB” (Full Bands) or “FT” (Full Torch) on the 1946 to present Roosevelt Head dimes.

 

PCGS starting attributing the “Full Bands” or “FB” designation for Roosevelt Dimes on April 1, 2003, citing demand for the designation from collectors. The PCGS “Full Bands” designation requires that both the upper and lower pair of bands on the torch to appear distinct and show full separation. The line dividing the bands must be full and unbroken.

 

 

NGC began using their own version of the attribution a few weeks later on April 14, 2003, but termed it “Full Torch” or “FT.” Their criteria for the designation are somewhat different than PCGS’s and arguably more strict. In addition to requiring the upper and lower pair of horizontal bands to show full separation, NGC also requires that the vertical lines of the torch must be defined.

[James_OldeTowne]

!

[physics-fan3.14]

Woody, I believe that is the same standard used by each company for the torch on Mercury Dimes as well, right?

[grade it-migration]

Thanks Woody

 

OK if James is good with that, I agree.

 

Unbroken meaning no interruption in the troth between the bands by defect where the red arrows point. Cut lines, defects, nicks, gouge lines, scraps or other defects that make it unbroken shall not be called full bands..

[physics-fan3.14]

Thanks Woody

 

OK if James is good with that, I agree.

 

Unbroken meaning no interruption in the troth between the bands by defect where the red arrows point. Cut lines, defects, nicks, gouge lines, scraps or other defects that make it unbroken shall not be called full bands..

 

Agreeing amongst ourselves about a definition is terrific. But if the TPG doesn't use or uphold the same standard, we can't hold them to it. Even then, its open to interpretation because every coin is different. For example, tiny nicks and disturbances are usually allowed - but none of us would agree with any consistency on how severe the mark can be before the designation is no longer allowed. Full Step and FBL allow even more marks, and there is certainly no consistency from either TPG on this front.

[grade it-migration]

Thanks Woody

 

OK if James is good with that, I agree.

 

Unbroken meaning no interruption in the troth between the bands by defect where the red arrows point. Cut lines, defects, nicks, gouge lines, scraps or other defects that make it unbroken shall not be called full bands..

 

Agreeing amongst ourselves about a definition is terrific. But if the TPG doesn't use or uphold the same standard, we can't hold them to it. Even then, its open to interpretation because every coin is different. For example, tiny nicks and disturbances are usually allowed - but none of us would agree with any consistency on how severe the mark can be before the designation is no longer allowed. Full Step and FBL allow even more marks, and there is certainly no consistency from either TPG on this front.

 

The operative word is unbroken. Thus any break would be broken . Thus it would be unbroken. So if ain't broke don"t fix it. and if you can't fix it duck it.. I see how interpretation of the TPG comes into play. It shall be an interesting post .............

[James_OldeTowne]

This is essentially a repeat of what I posted previously, modified a little. Here is what I think would make for a really effective, unbiased test.

 

(1) Grade_it selects some number of high-grade dimes, say 100.

(2) Mail the dimes to me.

(3) I'll photograph the raw dimes in high resolution.

(4) I crack out all the dimes, keeping the original inserts. The high-res images ensure we can always match up the dimes with their original grades.

(5) I will submit them to PCGS. I have only once ever submitted coins to PCGS in my name - it was for four free coupons that someone gave me, so I don't have an particularly biased history with PCGS submissions.

(5a) Or, I could submit them under yet another name, say my neighbor's. That ensures ultimate anonymity.

(6) I'll do another coin-by-coin analysis, only this time, we'll have "prior" images to compare to.

 

This would be a pretty expensive test, and that's one of the reason such tests (really, it's an "audit") are probably never performed.

 

What does everyone think?

[physics-fan3.14]

I think its a huge waste of money. I mean, if grade_it really wants to spend $3k to prove a point, then I guess its his money. It just seems it would be better spent donated to a YN program or a scholarship to an ANA seminar or something. I just don't see what he's going to get/prove by this outlandish expenditure.

[JStull]

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

 

Since TPG graders don't use microscopes for grading, to my knowledge, what is the point?

 

How about this, you're pissed off because a bulk amount of coins you sent in to PCGS for grading and slabbing didn't come back with the grade you think they should have.

 

I've said this once, you get what you pay for, an opinion. So far there is nothing in James' report that PCGS is responsible for the hairlines on your coins as James would not be able to say with 100% certainty that what PCGS did caused the hairlines on your coins.

 

The only thing James confirms is there is presence of hairlines on some of the coins you sent to him.

 

 

.

 

What your saying is TPG do not use a loupe when grading? So why should customers? Whats on the holder is always the correct grade right?

 

 

 

 

In the same sense that you can not differentiate the difference between there, they're and their you have comprehension problems as well.

 

Where in my post did I state TPGs do not use loupes?

 

The difference between a loupe

 

and a microscope

 

in case you didn't/don't know the difference.

[Tradedollarnut]

For the most part, they don't even use the loupe on circ strike coinage. Especially on low value stuff like Roosies.

[grade it-migration]

My mistake JStull

 

I mentioned I only used a 10X microscope and was answering a fact, I thought you stated I use a 20x on your post. That was a statement by another poster..

 

Apologize are in order as read back your post..

 

 

 

 

 

[WoodenJefferson]

Woody, I believe that is the same standard used by each company for the torch on Mercury Dimes as well, right?

 

Mercury Dimes pertains to the central (center) two bands on the Fasces, their description is as follows:

 

To PCGS graders, a Mercury dime with full band details will have fully separated horizontal bands on the central part of the fasces (the bundle of rods on the reverse). In addition, there can be no interruption on the trough (depression) of the bands due to strike, contact, planchet problems or any other damage, whether mint caused or not, if the coin is to obtain the PCGS Full Band designation.

 

Although the central bands must be fully separated with no interruption, it is not necessary to have full roundness to the bands – the so-called “McDonald's Arches” that are sometimes referred to as Full Split or Full Rounded Bands.

[mike169]

I have a question, and pardon me if this has already been asked in the thread, but is it possible (even likely) that the person who submitted these coins to you already has a bias and picked the worst of the lot just to prove a point?

 

 

[WoodenJefferson]

I have a question, and pardon me if this has already been asked in the thread, but is it possible (even likely) that the person who submitted these coins to you already has a bias and picked the worst of the lot just to prove a point?

 

 

That's the gist of the ending of this epic thread, I say epic, because it's just getting started, that the person of interest has a biased precognitive assumption that the coins culled are the worst of the worst and do not represent a valid cross reference of the combined grade. ~whew~

[Schatzy]

grade_it Here is my personal experience with PCGS. Link