• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Why have no 5 oz ATBs been graded 70?

Started by delta,

25 posts in this topic

delta

delta

Posted
Posted

Just checked the NGC census, and tried to approximate the number of 5 oz America The Beautiful silver coins of all kinds already graded by NGC. The total is in the neighborhood of 25,000. Yet not even a single one has been assigned a grade of 70. I'd be interested in getting an explanation for this, since it seems to me that a conscious decision was made to avoid awarding any 70s, even for coins that indeed appeared to be absolutely flawless. This isn't a complaint, just an inquiry, as I've not submitted any myself. hm

Link to comment
Share on other sites
michael

michael

Posted
Posted

too big bulky and heavy and also they were all softer silver 999 fine

 

also they had no special careful handling and were shipped to authorized distributers in bulk rolls

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Keigwin

Keigwin

Posted
Posted

That's a good question. I wonder if it's the size. More real estate. Or something to do with the handling.

 

I haven't followed the minting process with the new press. I would guess there isn't anything new and this somehow is due to the bigger coin and its greater susceptibility to post-strike flaws.

Lance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Conder101

Conder101

Posted
Posted

I think the key point is the size. The hockey puck has 8.8 times as much surface area available to acquire a mark. As a way to estimate how many 70s there should be lets look at one of the satin finish 2010 state quarters say the Hot Springs quarter. How many MS-70's of those have been graded? Take the mintage of the sets, divided by the number of 70's gives you one 70 per so many coins. Now since the hockey puck is 8.8 times as likely to get a mark, multiply that "per so many coins" figure by 8.8 and you should expect one MS-70 hockey puck out of that many coins. Now I don't have access to the pop reports but say there are 100 MS-70 quarters, that would give a figure for the hockey pucks of about 1 MS-70 out of every 70,000 coins. Or figured the other way round if there is 1 MS-70 hockey puck, there should be about 213 MS-70 quarters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bsshog40

bsshog40

Posted
Posted

As large as those coins are, I doubt there will be a 70. That's a pretty large coin to not have one single mark on it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
delta

delta

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Thanks for all those helpful replies. Okay, I've now done the math to see where things stand on the basis of size alone. For comparison, I used the 2010 and 2011 bullion silver eagles, because they have the same exact composition of metal, 0.9993 silver, with the .0007 copper, and because they were also distributed in bulk in mint tubes.

 

According to my math, each 1 1/2 inch silver eagle has 3.5 square inches of surface area both sides. Each 3 inch ATB has 14 square inches of surface area both sides, twice the diameter but four times as much surface area.

 

For silver eagle bullion coins dated 2010 and 2011, there were a total of 1,482,384 graded by NGC (an amazingly high number, probably mostly bulk submissions). Of those, 96,086 were graded MS 70, a rate of 6.5%.

 

On the basis of surface area alone, a rate of one-fourth of 6.5% of the 5 oz ATBs should have deserved a grade of 70, that's 1.6%, and so of the 25,000 graded so far, 400 should have gotten 70s. :acclaim:

 

All the figures above are rounded off and are approximate. I welcome anyone else checking my calculations. Also, we know every single coin if examined carefully enough will be found to have some imperfections, but the grade of 70 as used for modern bullion coins doesn't demand absolute perfection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bsshog40

bsshog40

Posted
Posted

 

Also, we know every single coin if examined carefully enough will be found to have some imperfections, but the grade of 70 as used for modern bullion coins doesn't demand absolute perfection.

Ok so let me ask you something. Would you pay 70 prices for a coin you know is maybe 69? I don't think I understand the concept of giving a coin 70 if it's not. Also what is the purpose of a 70 grade if it doesn't demand perfection?? With this basis of thinking, I would suspect someone buying a slab instead of the coin!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cpm9ball

cpm9ball

Posted
Posted
Thanks for all those helpful replies. Okay, I've now done the math to see where things stand on the basis of size alone. For comparison, I used the 2010 and 2011 bullion silver eagles, because they have the same exact composition of metal, 0.9993 silver, with the .0007 copper, and because they were also distributed in bulk in mint tubes.

 

According to my math, each 1 1/2 inch silver eagle has 3.5 square inches of surface area both sides. Each 3 inch ATB has 14 square inches of surface area both sides, twice the diameter but four times as much surface area.

 

For silver eagle bullion coins dated 2010 and 2011, there were a total of 1,482,384 graded by NGC (an amazingly high number, probably mostly bulk submissions). Of those, 96,086 were graded MS 70, a rate of 6.5%.

 

On the basis of surface area alone, a rate of one-fourth of 6.5% of the 5 oz ATBs should have deserved a grade of 70, that's 1.6%, and so of the 25,000 graded so far, 400 should have gotten 70s. :acclaim:

 

All the figures above are rounded off and are approximate. I welcome anyone else checking my calculations. Also, we know every single coin if examined carefully enough will be found to have some imperfections, but the grade of 70 as used for modern bullion coins doesn't demand absolute perfection.

 

You can't use a straightforward multiply or divide computation. As the size increases, the risk of a grade-reducing ding increases exponentially.

 

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites
delta

delta

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Also, we know every single coin if examined carefully enough will be found to have some imperfections, but the grade of 70 as used for modern bullion coins doesn't demand absolute perfection.

Ok so let me ask you something. Would you pay 70 prices for a coin you know is maybe 69? I don't think I understand the concept of giving a coin 70 if it's not. Also what is the purpose of a 70 grade if it doesn't demand perfection?? With this basis of thinking, I would suspect someone buying a slab instead of the coin!!!

 

I understand what you're saying, and what you just expressed is maybe the classical view. And of course you're right nobody wants to pay for a 69 as if it were a 70. But things have changed, at least when it comes to modern bullion coins.

 

For example, NGC has graded 113,399 buffalo nickels, with none getting a 69 or 70. Even for proof buffalo nickels, with 4081 graded, there was only one single 69 and no 70s. Now compare that to modern gold buffalos, mostly larger in size than the nickels. NGC has graded almost 200,000 of them and more than half were given 70s. For the proof gold buffalos, with about 60,000 graded, around 2/3 were given 70s.

 

Various things have changed, it's not just a single factor. The mint is using better equipment and has improved quality control. People are handling their coins with much greater care. And maybe the grading services have adjusted their expectations for the moderns. How else can the enormous disparity be explained?

 

In any case, there's a complete continuum of objective grades between 69 and 70; no objective line can be drawn between the two grades. Deciding on which side of the line to put any coin is often a matter of subjective opinion. I read somewhere that in an experiment, about 15% of certain modern coins graded 69 when cracked out and resubmitted to PCGS were awarded 70s, and that was done without cherrypicking.

 

Also, different TPGs have different standards for giving 70s to moderns. We all know that PCGS is much stingier in giving 70s to certain coins than NGC, and that ANACs and ICQ are often much laxer. The disparity in 70s between different TPGs can be startling. For example, I recently looked at 2009 proof platinum eagles. NGC has graded 2082 with 1739 getting 70s, that's a rate of 83.5%. By contrast, PCGS has graded 1425, with 556 getting a 70, or a rate of 39%, less than half the frequency of NGC.

 

All 70s are not equal, each one is different, and each coin when minutely examined will be seen to have some flaws, no matter how tiny. One coin dealer I know offers to sell his better 70s as PQ for a higher price, even though it's only his personal judgement and not reflected in any TPG label or sticker.

 

You'll agree that not all 69s are equal either, some are possible candidates for resubmission to get 70s, and others might really deserve a 68. The different types, sizes, and locations of flaws on coins have different impact on the viewer. If there's a tiny nick on the nose of the face on the obverse you'll see it right away every time, but if almost the exact same tiny nick is hidden somewhere next to the rim it might be missed by even professional graders a certain percentage of the time. Or even if not missed, then dismissed.

 

There are no perfect coins, all 70s are flawed to one degree or another. Which is one reason why I thought it was legitimate to ask the question beginning this thread. (thumbs u

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
delta

delta

Posted
  • Author
Posted

You can't use a straightforward multiply or divide computation. As the size increases, the risk of a grade-reducing ding increases exponentially.Chris

 

That might be true, but I was trying to first discuss the size factor in isolation.

 

And then, how do we really know there is always an exponential increase? It might be just the opposite, in cases where the majority of coin flaws occur during human handling, and where the chance of a getting a flaw might be completely unrelated to the coin size. I'm not convinced, what's the evidence? (shrug)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
physics-fan3.14

physics-fan3.14

Posted
Posted

 

That seller obviously doesn't think they'll go for much of a premium, listing it at a thousand bucks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mkman123

mkman123

Posted
Posted

guys, I believe this guy might be talking about the bullion version?? I don't see any bullion version getting a 70 as they were put into rolls, some were shipped to companies loose who then shipped to people here loose, etc

 

. The mint one with the "P" there should be some 70s.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Conder101

Conder101

Posted
Posted
You can't use a straightforward multiply or divide computation. As the size increases, the risk of a grade-reducing ding increases exponentially.

You might be able to use it as a theoretical maximum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Didz

Didz

Posted
Posted

Both of my Hot Springs look flawless.. I'm actually thinking of submitting both of mine. I don't see one scratch, scuff or mark anywhere on the coin. It will be the first coin I've ever submitted for grading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kbsig106

kbsig106

Posted
Posted

 

 

 

This is for the Special Version - not the Bullion Version and possible under the special matte finish. Interesting on the quick return from NGC with the comment certificate number may vary - how many - 2? This seller mist have received their's rather quickly from the mint.

 

The 2010 bullion version of the ATB's I received from APMEX when they were running their deal on BU or better sets a few weeks ago all received MS 69PL, looking at the coins I would see it could be hard to have a MS 70 in such a large business strike.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing