Interesting article on a submission to both NGC and PCGS

[Schatzy]

Here is an article I found very interesting.

 

Anyone who has submitted to one of the two major grading services has felt the letdown of lower than anticipated grades, perhaps wondering how the rival service might have evaluated the same coins–especially when those coins seem to possess deep mirrors.

 

Coin Update News decided to test that, first by purchasing from a reputable dealer five coins designated as having deep-mirror surfaces, sending them to PCGS and then cracking open those holders for resubmission to NGC.

 

Before disclosing the results, we will provide pictures and background information about the submission.

 

These five coins were purchased from a long-time Proxibid auctioneer whose company, Silver Trades, not only provides multiple photos of each coin but lengthy descriptions, often with a buyback guarantee if PCGS or NGC deem a coin ungradeable for any reason.

 

Here’s how Silver Trades described the five coins in its catalog:

 

* 1880-s Morgan Dollar. Grades Gem Uncirculated ms65++ DMPL PQ, In Addition to being a Striking DMPL this example also has Beautiful Light Pastel Rim Toning. Virtually no bag marks of significance. The fields are near mark free deep mirrors. A spectacular coin.

* 1881-s DMPL Morgan Dollar. $1 Grades ms65 DMPL, Nice Deeply Mirrored Morgan. While the Devices are not heavily frosted the Mirrored Fields are Very Deep. I will offer my personal buy back guarantee, that this coin is all original that this coin is all original and will not come back Ungradeable by any major grading service.

* 1883-cc Morgan Dollar. Grades Choice Uncirculated ms64 DMPL. A Beautiful Deep Mirror Proof Like Carson City Morgan Dollar. All Original with Great Eye Appeal. I will offer my personal buy back guarantee, that this coin is all original and will not come back Ungradeable by any major grading service.

* 1884-cc Morgan Dollar. Grades Choice Uncirculated ms64 DMPL. Wonderful Deep Mirror Proof Like Example with Great Frosted Devices and Beautiful Mirrored Fields. A very Clean Coin with great eye appeal. I will offer my personal buy back guarantee, that this is original and will not come back Ungradeable by any major grading service.

* 1885-o Morgan Dollar. Grades Choice Uncirculated ms64 DMPL. Wonderful Deep Mirror Proof Like Example with Great Frosted Devices and Beautiful Mirrored Fields. A very Clean Coin with great eye appeal. I will offer my personal buy back guarantee, that this coin is all original and will not come back Ungradeable by any major grading service.

 

Here are pictures of the coins as displayed in the Silver Trades catalog (click any image to enlarge).

 

When I received the coins, I felt the catalog descriptions were accurate for the most part, but that getting deep-mirror designations from PCGS or NGC was going to be difficult.

 

Generally, a semi-prooflike coin should reflect your finger at a distance of 1-2 inches; prooflike, 2-4 inches; and deep mirror prooflike (or “DMPL”), 4-plus inches.

 

The “DMPL” designation also has other requirements. Devices should be frosted with uniform reflectivity at 4-plus inches–on both sides of the coin. In other words, if a section of either obverse or reverse is duller without deep reflectivity, an otherwise “DMPL” coin could test prooflike or worse (no prooflike designation whatsoever).

 

On each of the coins, I noticed a small patch of duller than “DMPL” reflectivity.

 

But the coins were beautiful in their own right. Their cost was close to $1600 for all five, which would have been a bargain if they graded as described in the Silver Trades catalog. Deep-mirrored coins for these dates would be worth collectively between $2700-$3000.

 

The coins were sent in at the “Regular” submission rate, meaning that each was valued at $300 or more. Here is how PCGS graded them: 1880-S, MS64; 1881-S, MS63; 1883-CC, MS63; 1884-CC, MS63; and 1885-O, MS63PL.

 

Not one graded “DMPL.”

 

 

Coins were cracked out of their PCGS holders and sent at the same fee level to NGC. Here is how NGC graded the same coins: 1880-S, MS65; 1881-S, MS63; 1883-CC, MS63; 1884-CC, MS63; and 1885-O, MS63.

 

What was gained with the 1880-S coin at NGC was lost in the 1885-O coin, meaning both services essentially graded the set of coins similarly. Their collective worth was about $800.

 

 

This is the gamble we take purchasing raw coins online, even from the most knowledgeable auction companies, like Silver Trades, which unlike many houses offers buyback guarantees on select coins like these.

 

Many hobbyists claim that grading is a subjective exercise, and it is to a degree, as this exercise documents–a degree of one point in the 1880-S and one less “prooflike” label in the 1885-O.

 

On occasion, one of the two major companies get a grade wrong. But their reputations are earned through consistency, and grades here by both companies fall into that category.

 

On a personal level, I feel that these coins are worth more than $800. They failed in large part because I could not see the small duller patches undermining reflectivity and thereby depriving them of “DMPL” and even “prooflike” designations.

 

I would not have made the same mistake purchasing them at a coin shop and inspecting them first-hand with a loop. That said, I also would likely have paid close to $1600 if I purchased these premium-quality coins at a coin show without the knowledge of what qualifies as “semi-prooflike,” “prooflike,” and “deep mirror prooflike.”

 

In the end, that’s what this post is about. Make sure the coins have frosted devices with no duller patch of reflectivity. You’ll also need uniform reflectivity of 4-6 inches before having a shot at the coveted “deep mirror” designation.

 

You may not be able to do this with an online purchase. So take your chances, or only purchase prooflike and deep-mirrored coins already holdered by PCGS and NGC.

[KeeNoooo]

Thanks! I learned a few things from this thread! I really appreciate you taking the time to post this

Nick

[James_OldeTowne]

This is the gamble we take purchasing raw coins online, even from the most knowledgeable auction companies, like Silver Trades, which unlike many houses offers buyback guarantees on select coins like these.

 

Many hobbyists claim that grading is a subjective exercise, and it is to a degree, as this exercise documents–a degree of one point in the 1880-S and one less “prooflike” label in the 1885-O.

 

On occasion, one of the two major companies get a grade wrong. But their reputations are earned through consistency, and grades here by both companies fall into that category.

 

On a personal level, I feel that these coins are worth more than $800. They failed in large part because I could not see the small duller patches undermining reflectivity and thereby depriving them of “DMPL” and even “prooflike” designations.

I find this compelling in a very sad way. Personally, I find it extremely disheartening that someone can love a coin at one moment, but then not the next if it "fails to slab".

 

WAY WAY WAY too much emphasis is on numbers, and not nearly enough is on coins, and the enjoyment of owning nice ones. Somehow, it can't be "nice enough" if not in a slab.

[MarkFeld]

A number of grading company bashers like to claim that grading is entirely subjective, but that is not true.

 

If you get a group of expert graders together and have them assign grades to coins, in many cases, there will be a high percentage of opinions which agree with one another.

 

I remember one time at a show, many years ago, before Mark Salzberg or I had joined NGC, someone bet me that Mark and I wouldn't be able to agree on 80% or more of the grades on a roll of Morgan Dollars. I got quite nervous when we ended up with different grades on 2 of the first 8-10 coins. But I think we ended up assigning the same grade to 18 out of 20. Obviously, other types of coins might have been considerably more difficult. But I couldn't help it that the loser of the bet chose Morgan Dollars.

[James_OldeTowne]

If you get a group of expert graders together and have them assign grades to coins, in many cases, there will be a high percentage of opinions which agree with one another.

Mark, while I don't necessarily disagree with you (entirely), what you state doesn't in any way lessen the perception of subjectivity. (I happen to believe that grading is almost entirely subjective, within artificial parameters.)

 

You state that a group of experts may often assign the same grade to coins... but "experts" make up only a minority fraction of people who collect coins! A much fairer assessment of how subjective grading is would be to take a random selection of collectors (some expert, some novice, some in the middle) and see how often their grading agrees.

 

In other words, sure, if you skew the parameters such that people who are TAUGHT to grade a certain way are tested, then of course the results will reduce the perception of subjectivity. It just isn't a representative population of folks who collect, though.

 

Just an aside....

[Ducksoup]

It seems to me that there could be a way to accurately grade each coin across the board without having human judgement come into play. I'm surprised that a laser scanner hasn't been configured with the proper details to determine a grade on a particular coin (for those that go for numbers versus those that enjoy the coin itself). If you take a laser scan of a coin you could determine overall wear, dings, dents, bends, bagmarks, reflectivity (for PL etc coins) and throw the numbers that come back against the chart for each grade to see where it lands.. at least this way grading would be much more consistent. Obviously we don't have all the original dies with which to base the perfect coin of each series on, but I think we could do a pretty good job on determining what the original die's dimensions were. Just a random thought I had based on some of my experience in the manufacturing processes I've seen.

[TonerGuy]

A number of grading company bashers like to claim that grading is entirely subjective, but that is not true.

 

If you get a group of expert graders together and have them assign grades to coins, in many cases, there will be a high percentage of opinions which agree with one another.

 

I remember one time at a show, many years ago, before Mark Salzberg or I had joined NGC, someone bet me that Mark and I wouldn't be able to agree on 80% or more of the grades on a roll of Morgan Dollars. I got quite nervous when we ended up with different grades on 2 of the first 8-10 coins. But I think we ended up assigning the same grade to 18 out of 20. Obviously, other types of coins might have been considerably more difficult. But I couldn't help it that the loser of the bet chose Morgan Dollars.

 

Very interesting story and thank you for sharing. While everyone thinks they got hosed on grades (including me especially in the last two submissions) I would say that it doesnt happen that often. But it does happen. We all have our crack out and resubmit stories. However I would say that I agree with 80-90% of the grades I have seen on NGC and PCGS Peace $... Thats a pretty good percentage in any profession or sport. (I cant comment on any other series since I would never claim to know how to grade another series as well)

[Conder101]

Interesting story. Now send them back through both a few more times to check consistency.

[mkman123]

great article and informative.

[JIM F.]

Any commentary regarding Silver Trades' higher assigned grades compared with the TPG's? They are entitled to their own opinion, but is this common for Silver Trades' grading opinion relative to the TPGs?

 

 

[FishyOne]

It seems to me that there could be a way to accurately grade each coin across the board without having human judgement come into play. I'm surprised that a laser scanner hasn't been configured with the proper details to determine a grade on a particular coin (for those that go for numbers versus those that enjoy the coin itself). If you take a laser scan of a coin you could determine overall wear, dings, dents, bends, bagmarks, reflectivity (for PL etc coins) and throw the numbers that come back against the chart for each grade to see where it lands.. at least this way grading would be much more consistent. Obviously we don't have all the original dies with which to base the perfect coin of each series on, but I think we could do a pretty good job on determining what the original die's dimensions were. Just a random thought I had based on some of my experience in the manufacturing processes I've seen.

 

This has been suggested and attempted before. Many grading parameters can be picked up by computer optics. Eye appeal is going to be a tough one.

 

It will be interesting to see where this goes in the future.

[James_OldeTowne]

It seems to me that there could be a way to accurately grade each coin across the board without having human judgement come into play. I'm surprised that a laser scanner hasn't been configured with the proper details to determine a grade on a particular coin (for those that go for numbers versus those that enjoy the coin itself). If you take a laser scan of a coin you could determine overall wear, dings, dents, bends, bagmarks, reflectivity (for PL etc coins) and throw the numbers that come back against the chart for each grade to see where it lands.. at least this way grading would be much more consistent.

But your scenario completely ignores what I believe to be true (and Mark Feld disagrees with above): grading IS (almost) completely subjective - and it should be! After all, what is a grade? Contrary to the almost universal misconception, it is NOT an evaluation of the condition of a coin, it's an evaluation of the value of a coin. And we will all value a specific coin differently.

 

I can walk down the hallway of a museum full of paintings, each one unique, and tell you which ones I like and would buy for lots of money (let's pretend money is not issue ) and which ones I would give pennies for, and you could walk down the same hallway and you would pay lots of money for others that I can't stand, and pay pennies for some that I think are worth millions.

 

The point is, are personal valuations is utterly and completely subjective. Really, when all is said and done, "consistency" isn't nearly as important as it is made out to be. What really, truly matters is learning what it is that YOU like... whatever it is about certain coins that reach into your soul.

[blu62vette]

Is there a link to the pics? Being a DMPL collector the number of times people come and show me DMPL coins that are not DMPL astounds me. Not saying that is the case in the article but the services are rumored to be tight in that area right now.

 

Also flashy luster is not DMPL. Any break in the mirror can costs you are grading, the mirrors need to be full.

[coinman_23885]

Being a DMPL collector the number of times people come and show me DMPL coins that are not DMPL astounds me.

 

I have noticed this with some of the PL and DMPL Morgan Dollars in NGC old no line fatties and PCGS old green holders. There are several that I don't think would keep the same designation if resubmitted today.

[blu62vette]

Being a DMPL collector the number of times people come and show me DMPL coins that are not DMPL astounds me.

 

I have noticed this with some of the PL and DMPL Morgan Dollars in NGC old no line fatties and PCGS old green holders. There are several that I don't think would keep the same designation if resubmitted today.

 

I agree, many are weak or semi PL at best. I am very cautious with older holders and the DMPL designation.

[MarkFeld]

Being a DMPL collector the number of times people come and show me DMPL coins that are not DMPL astounds me.

 

I have noticed this with some of the PL and DMPL Morgan Dollars in NGC old no line fatties and PCGS old green holders. There are several that I don't think would keep the same designation if resubmitted today.

 

I agree, many are weak or semi PL at best. I have am very cautious with older holders and the DMPL designation.

 

I don't doubt any of that. But, it's quite possible, if not probable, that tougher standards had nothing to do with PCGS and NGC not agreeing with the designations of the dealer mentioned in the article.

[James_OldeTowne]

Is there a link to the pics? Being a DMPL collector the number of times people come and show me DMPL coins that are not DMPL astounds me. Not saying that is the case in the article but the services are rumored to be tight in that area right now.

 

Also flashy luster is not DMPL. Any break in the mirror can costs you are grading, the mirrors need to be full.

I believe both grading services have tightened up over the last couple years, and anecdotal evidence agrees with me. I know of someone who cracked out quite a number of CAMs and UCAMs and tried to upgrade them (basically a crackout artist), and he got thoroughly hosed. If memory serves correct, about 80% of the coin designations downgraded, several losing the designation altogether!

 

[ModCrewman-migration]

I can walk down the hallway of a museum full of paintings, each one unique, and tell you which ones I like and would buy for lots of money (let's pretend money is not issue ) and which ones I would give pennies for, and you could walk down the same hallway and you would pay lots of money for others that I can't stand, and pay pennies for some that I think are worth millions.

 

The point is, are personal valuations is utterly and completely subjective. Really, when all is said and done, "consistency" isn't nearly as important as it is made out to be. What really, truly matters is learning what it is that YOU like... whatever it is about certain coins that reach into your soul.

Outstanding summary James_EarlyUS. This last bolded statement is Sig-Line worthy IMHO. Thanks for that.

[Hard Times]

There is no question that at least NGC has tightened up for the last couple years. Some may attribute this to having them back checked by CAC. I don't have any experience of submitting raw to PCGS so can't say there.

[physics-fan3.14]

Being a DMPL collector the number of times people come and show me DMPL coins that are not DMPL astounds me.

 

I have noticed this with some of the PL and DMPL Morgan Dollars in NGC old no line fatties and PCGS old green holders. There are several that I don't think would keep the same designation if resubmitted today.

 

I agree, many are weak or semi PL at best. I am very cautious with older holders and the DMPL designation.

 

Is anyone surprised that a buyer bought a handful of raw coins described by a seller as DMPL - and not a single one came back that way (and only one came back PL)? I'm not surprised at all. People, you need to be aware of this when attempting to buy raw coins: SELLERS OVERGRADE THEIR COINS. Almost always happens on Ebay. Compound that with the problem that many people don't understand prooflike coins - or know how to designate them, and you have a serious problem.

 

Obviously, we don't have the pictures that the seller posted - but I'm guessing they were deceptively photographed to show higher reflectivity than they actually do. When buying raw coins YOU MUST BE ABLE TO INTERPRET PHOTOGRAPHS. If you can't, you will be end up buying a bunch of overgraded, overvalued, overpriced stuff. If you can grade coins yourself, you may be able to return them once you get them in hand. But if you don't, you are going to get screwed. It may turn out to be an expensive lesson, like this person learned.

 

One final thought - the buyers comments that areas of dullness will impede a PL designation is only partially correct. For Morgans, the entire coin needs to be at least PL (or DMPL) to get the designation. But I have seen a number of other series graded PL that had less-PL areas. Be familiar and well-studied on the series you intend to buy, and you should be able to minimize costly errors like this guy.

[ultra-crepidarian]

... After all, what is a grade? Contrary to the almost universal misconception, it is NOT an evaluation of the condition of a coin, it's an evaluation of the value of a coin. ...

 

James, I don't think I understand what you mean by this. I understand your argument about the subjectivity of "value" and I understand that, to a degree, grading can be subjective and quality graders can disagree on a coin's grade. But isn't the coin's grade essentially (primarily if not exclusively) determined by the physical attributes of the coin? It seems to me that market value is more dependent on grade than grade is on market value.

[Raisethis2]

I agree. The technical grade of any coin affects it's value in terms of dollars whereas, the subjective characteristics of strike, toning, hits, eye appeal and DMPL make people either like or dislike a coin (often based upon it's price).

The technical grade (primarily) is what a buyer will determine when deciding whether that coin is worth buying.

 

There are a few high end auctioneers that make a serious effort to properly grade coins they will sell for consignors. There are others who don't even bother. I think this auctioneer in the article tries to properly grade but is out of his element with coins that are DMPL.

[physics-fan3.14]

... After all, what is a grade? Contrary to the almost universal misconception, it is NOT an evaluation of the condition of a coin, it's an evaluation of the value of a coin. ...

 

James, I don't think I understand what you mean by this. I understand your argument about the subjectivity of "value" and I understand that, to a degree, grading can be subjective and quality graders can disagree on a coin's grade. But isn't the coin's grade essentially (primarily if not exclusively) determined by the physical attributes of the coin? It seems to me that market value is more dependent on grade than grade is on market value.

 

Read the link in my signature. That may help clear it up. The concept of grade being a value is shocking to many, but that's the way it is. This is called market grading, and is the most commonly practiced form of grading.

[James_OldeTowne]

... After all, what is a grade? Contrary to the almost universal misconception, it is NOT an evaluation of the condition of a coin, it's an evaluation of the value of a coin. ...

 

James, I don't think I understand what you mean by this. I understand your argument about the subjectivity of "value" and I understand that, to a degree, grading can be subjective and quality graders can disagree on a coin's grade. But isn't the coin's grade essentially (primarily if not exclusively) determined by the physical attributes of the coin? It seems to me that market value is more dependent on grade than grade is on market value.

Look at two 1881-S Morgan dollars, both graded MS-65. One is blast white and sells at a true auction for $200. Another has amazing rainbow toning and sells at auction for $950.

 

What was different? the grade?

 

Nope, it was two people's subjective opinion about the coin.

 

 

[MarkFeld]

... After all, what is a grade? Contrary to the almost universal misconception, it is NOT an evaluation of the condition of a coin, it's an evaluation of the value of a coin. ...

 

James, I don't think I understand what you mean by this. I understand your argument about the subjectivity of "value" and I understand that, to a degree, grading can be subjective and quality graders can disagree on a coin's grade. But isn't the coin's grade essentially (primarily if not exclusively) determined by the physical attributes of the coin? It seems to me that market value is more dependent on grade than grade is on market value.

Look at two 1881-S Morgan dollars, both graded MS-65. One is blast white and sells at a true auction for $200. Another has amazing rainbow toning and sells at auction for $950.

 

What was different? the grade?

 

Nope, it was two people's subjective opinion about the coin.

 

 

But in YOUR example, the grades were the same. So the grades were probably assigned, based on condition, not value.

[JIM F.]

Value is not necessarily the grade of a coin alone. For instance if one had two 1796 silver dollars both with identical grades, but one was documented as "George Washington's pocket piece" do you think the value would be the same? Point is that assigned grade is only one aspect of value, unless something is a true commodity value is subjective.