More Proof that Coin Grading is Subjective

[leeg]

No offense meant here.

 

 

 

Enjoy your day........

[tejas1836]

Have you got any ideas on why these might have graded the same? Are some of those silent net grades coming into play or even the silent bumps?

 

I'm relatively new to collecting again. Newbies are advised to learn to grade but then you hear about market grading, net grading, eye appeal bumps, bumps for rarity etc.- makes it tough.

 

[leeg]

I can understand your concerns. It's concerns most of us have, regardless our time in coin collecting. I've been collecting less than 10 years, and still learning every day. I think it's important to start with the general term for this grade:

 

F-12

This is for "Fine" (the grade) and "12" (the numerical designation of the grade). The design detail is partially in evidence. The coin is still heavily worn. If there is any eye appeal in this grade it comes from the smooth surfaces associated with this grade, as any distracting marks have usually been worn off through circulation.

 

The grading services don't want to admit it, but grading standards have fluctuated throughout the years. I own the bottom coin and it is in a PCGS OGH holder. The myth is that coins in these holders are undergraded. Coins have been over and undergraded since day one.

 

The top coin is a rarer variety, R-4. Did this fact affect the grade? Only the graders know for sure. It is attractive to me.

 

For me, it's important to know the basics of coin grading and find a select few coin dealers who know coin grading in more detail and trust them to find you nice coins.

 

I try to always approach coin purchases with the thought in mind that it is a hobby and I'm not going to get rich in a hobby. Not at the price levels I purchase at anyway.

 

Since it is a hobby to me I'm just trying to have fun with it.

[Bugmann1974]

The top coin seems to have a much weaker strike. Is that typical for the variety?

[physics-fan3.14]

The top coin seems to have a much weaker strike. Is that typical for the variety?

 

That was my immediate first thought. Not being familiar with these, I don't know. But look at the obverses - they are very similar in terms of wear patterns. I'm guessing the reverse differences are mostly due to the variety, in which case I completely agree with grading based on variety characteristics.

[Walkerfan]

I would not care to own those as they look heavily worn but #2 looks better than #1. # 2 is a technical solid FINE graded coin and a much better piece. # 1's reverse looks partially occluded by some foreign substance while being struck.

[Oldtrader3]

Interesting Lee, the two obverses do look quite similar in grade and I can not comment on the reverses because I do ot know much about this series. However the bottom (1807) coin is to my, eye a beautiful specimen of this series but the other coin is certainly much mor scarce which would IMHO effect the grade assigned by the grading service. The scarce varieties always get the benefit of the doubt in grading.

[TomB]

I don't know if you chose the DBQ die marriages on purpose, but the 1806 appears to be a B-3, which is known to have an absence of details on the central portion of the reverse. However, it also appears to have some damage in the vertical lines of the shield where they bow out to the left at one spot.

[Conder101]

I'd say they are both F-12 with the 1806 being the slightly LESS worn piece. It looks so much worse though because of the striking. Probably the reverse die is sinking.

[WoodenJefferson]

One needs to go back in time, to the early1800’s when America was struggling to become a new nation. The smelter building created the amalgams of coin metals where strips of coin silver were rolled out on crude rollers and then individually stamped out to form blanks. These blanks were individually weighed and under weight blanks were scrapped and any over weight blanks were hand filed to the correct gram. When a new and improved coin press arrived at the Mint in Philadelphia in the spring of 1795, it made improvements possible both in the quantity of coins produced as well as their quality. By today standards, these advancements fail in comparison but were much welcomed.

 

Still, in 1806 & 1807, coins were individually fed into a coin press that was either operated by hand or by horse power. Dirty, dimly lit coining rooms were acceptable conditions where modern steam powered coin presses did nor arrive in Philadelphia until 1836. It was not a glorious occupation.

 

The larger coins such as the half dollar, created problems with early die deterioration creating areas that did not strike up well with high and low spots across the surfaces that did not wear evenly when placed in circulation.

 

Many of these factors created inconstancies in coin production quality where newly enacted laws decreed fineness and weight over beauty.

[Conder101]

Still, in 1806 & 1807, coins were individually fed into a coin press that was either operated by hand or by horse power.

The rolling mills were horse powered, the presses were hand powered. In 1816 the horses were replaced at the rolling mill by a steam engine.

[leeg]

Thanks everyone for sharing your thoughts and expertise to the thread.

 

(thumbs u

[Hard Times]

Lee you obviously don't have a clue about what you are talking about, the 1806 is a B-4 variety, always horribly struck. In fact in B-4 grading, this one is probably undergraded, it probably should be a F15. The weak strike and the mint created damage to the die makes grading these deceptive, but mint made it is and the top TPG's take this into account. Why? Because they have knowledge and have done their research.

 

Lee, I object to you taking my pictures and posting them without my permission. Do your homework next time about die varieties before you spew out such BS.

 

Walkerfan, only a few of this die variety are known that can be graded, most are problem coins, and the person who wrote the book on these (look it up for yourself mr. expert), says likely only around 75-200 extent. Take your Walkers, all of them, I will take this amazing 1806 over any Walker you can show me.

 

Do your research before you pass judgement on a coin you know nothing about - get out of the common coin 20th century and things are complicated, especially in the early years of the mint.

[Hard Times]

To anyone reading this thread, the 1806 are my pictures, I was not asked permission by Mr. Lee to use them. He had no right to post them here with asking me for his own personal purposes, no matter what the legalities of the web are, or are not. If anyone here wishes to post my photos for their own purposes, please ask me first.

 

Thanks, HT

[leeg]

No offense meant. Could have been taken care of in a more adult way, yes? Been to war and back so your threats via PM don't bother me.

 

 

Enjoy the hobby and have a great day.

 

 

[ldhair]

Even with the missing image, this was a great learning thread. Thanks leeg.

Early coins can be really tricky to grade, for me.

[WoodenJefferson]

Still, in 1806 & 1807, coins were individually fed into a coin press that was either operated by hand or by horse power.

The rolling mills were horse powered, the presses were hand powered. In 1816 the horses were replaced at the rolling mill by a steam engine.

 

That's some good obscure info, not much is known publicly about the original smelter and limited info on other aspects of the original Mint.

 

Man, there's some rather harsh comments contained in this thread that could have been done via PM instead of waving a flag. These things happen.

[physics-fan3.14]

HT - since this has turned into an educational thread on the minting techniques of the early mint, would you mind reposting the images? The differences in technology, the lengths the mint would go to to use dies, striking characteristics of different die pairs and how they must be graded differently - all very good topics.

[Coindude]

...waving a flag. These things happen.

Are we going to Pancho's? I love mexican food.... not so much Pancho's tho!

[WoodenJefferson]

...waving a flag. These things happen.

Are we going to Pancho's? I love mexican food.... not so much Pancho's tho!

 

sopapillas!

 

Edit: I can still see the images of the coins? Were they once removed and no back?

[Conder101]

The images of the 1807 are still there but the 1806 is gone.

[WoodenJefferson]

I see that now.

[Frank Provasek]

I am confused. Are you showing the OBVERSE of an 1807 coin and the REVERSE of the 1806 coin? How can a judgement be made unless both sides of both coins are shown?

[ldhair]

I am confused. Are you showing the OBVERSE of an 1807 coin and the REVERSE of the 1806 coin? How can a judgement be made unless both sides of both coins are shown?

The image of the 06 was taken down. The 07 images are still up.

[WoodenJefferson]

When the post started, b4 the *spoon* hit the fan, there were 4 images which showed obverse and reverse of the 1806 half and a set for the 1807 half, it was a good comparison of two coins with the same amount of wear, same grade, but looked totally different in wear characteristics.

[Hard Times]

leeg took the 1806 images down after I chastized him. They were my pictures, lifted and modified, without giving credit to the source. In addition, he used them to try to make the claim that somehow, PCGS is being subjective in grading. Unfortunately, he did not do his research. Early issues have all kinds of complications that bear on grading, so a die variety for an 1807 will be very different than a die variety of 1806, with die damage, and horrendous, but consistently horrendous striking, when it comes to what is a F12 versus an F15 etc. Only an expert grader with numismatic knowledge of the particular die varieties will be able to grade these properly. Having said that, I ask that anyone who uses my images here, whether they are public domain or not (still debated about what the legalities are on this), please cite the source, ask me for their use, and don't use them out of context without the research behind what is being said. If they do those things, please feel free to use them, but please respect me and others efforts to bring nice images to the threads. I don't think that is too much to ask and I do the same in return to anyone here who posts and image. I work hard at producing images that tell us about the beauty and history of the coins I post. They are there for all to enjoy, not to grab and use out of context.

 

Sorry for destroying the thread and the OP's point (which was in my view out of context given the die variety issues), but I thank leeg for removing the images.

 

Here is the original I posted. There is a lot of info about these die varieties and their issues being discussed here. It is useful I think to use that context when discussing grading.

 

Best, HT

 

[Hard Times]

When the post started, b4 the *spoon* hit the fan, there were 4 images which showed obverse and reverse of the 1806 half and a set for the 1807 half, it was a good comparison of two coins with the same amount of wear, same grade, but looked totally different in wear characteristics.

 

Untrue about wear characteristics, what is the issue is strike characteristics because of the die varieties, please refer to Steve Tompkins book on this issue.

[Hard Times]

Frankly, I think this is a perfect example, at least to me about how good NGC and PCGS graders are. First glance, you say 'no way', but then you ask the question 'why did they grade both of these the same'. Okay you think,' let me do some research on this'. Then, you find out, 'okay, PCGS is doing a pretty darned good job'. That is why I purchased this coin when it was presented to me. I did the research to find out why it was graded as it was but not in the classic F12 in the books. And I found out, and then realized what a bargain it was and bought it.

 

Talk to any EACer. They will tell you that the 300 or so Sheldon varieties each have to be graded completely different. The question is why?

 

Best, HT

[WoodenJefferson]

Remind me not to post in any of your threads.

[ldhair]

Remind me not to post in any of your threads.

Same goes for me. This could have been handled in a much nicer way.