Mercury FB opinions please.

[wdrob]

 

Out of these two following pictures are either of them FB and if so why and if not also why?

 

? #1

 

 

? #2

 

 

 

Fire away!

 

 

[coinman_23885]

No, neither has full separation of the horizontal bands. I see discontinuities.

[wdrob]

 

Ok. Thanks for your take on that.

 

Any other feel different?

 

Trust me. There is a method to my madness.

[BillJones]

Neither piece has full bans. I see four gaps in #1, and three gaps plus a general weakness in #2.

[physics-fan3.14]

No, neither has full separation of the horizontal bands. I see discontinuities.

 

I agree.

[$ilverHawk]

I agree. What's the method, what's the madness?

 

Carl

[wdrob]

Why the inconsistency in PCGS Grading?

 

The first is a 1945S and they gave it a FB designation along with an MS66 grade. Why? I have not a clue.

 

 

 

 

The second coin was also graded by PCGS and they allowed that coin to carry a MS64 Grade. No FB on that one.

 

 

 

Since I am just becoming involved in this hobby; are these the type of questions I will be dealing with often. The question of-course being why the inconsistency? Am I getting myself into a hobby where the grading bar is continually raised an lowered based upon the value of the coin?

 

I wouldn't mind knowing the thoughts of the experienced before I get all involved with this hobby to the point in spending money having coins graded that will not meet a previous declaration of standards.

 

I did not have that bottom 64 graded however I do have possession of it and based upon the previous deceleration of FB on that other coin it would make one think that the second coin was in need of a re-grading. In person as you rotate the second coin you can clearly can see separation all along the bands. I am not that great of a photographer or set up to be able to show that. But I know that it has to have been seen that way by the "Professional Graders" if they can come to the conclusion that the first coin is an FB.

 

If you look at that 45S on the reverse. Look at the denomination area as well as the olive branch stalk. Do you see how it is wore down considerably compared to the second picture where there are details in that area that do not show on the first one. Notice how the 'one' in the denomination is clear and raised on the second coin, the 45, but worn down and missing in the first 45S?

 

Yet they gave that 45S a grade of MS66FB while dropping this second coin, the 45, down to a MS64 and no FB. One can only wonder why they would do this when they boast on having multiple professional graders look at each coin and a senior professional grader break any discrepancies in grade. What happened here? Did all the graders call out sick and the mail room clerk was doing the grading on those particular days?

 

Or is this just what I need to brace myself for and consider this the norm?

 

 

 

 

[BLive1972]

I'm fairly new at collecting as well. I've found that learning about a coin before you purchase it can be helpful. I've learned that TPG slabs aren't always as accurate as you'd like them to be, and I've made my mistakes relying on what the slab says. Time after time folks have told me to buy the coin and not the plastic. This isn't always easy unless you know what to look for.

 

If you're buying online, perhaps you can consider coins that are CAC approved. Not everyone agrees, but at least you know that it's been evaluated by another pair of eyes.

 

http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/mercs.html

 

[wdrob]

Yeah thanks for the response and all that good info and that is exactly what I did is "buy the coin". I did it intentionally and not because the PCGS slab said this or that but based on the fact that if they can judge and grade that previously mentioned and pictured coin a FB to me means that this coin would have a chance at re-grade.

 

I bought this 45 because I thought I knew which coin it was based on reading this forum. And I believe it is the very same coin so it was worth, to me, what I paid for it just to ask these questions and challenge PCGS's 'Guarantee'. I am not sure exactly how one would go about doing that and I will have to read about it much more but I think these two coins are good candidates for challenging a guarantee of consistency and proper grading.

 

Or does PCGS want to admit their error and that they are not consistent with their grading therefore making that BS video on the front page with David Hall exactly that BS. It has been mentioned to me on one occasion here that there is an inherent danger in buying 'Raw Coins' unless you know what your doing, have been doing this for years, and even then (because of the photos can conceal so much) your still doing so at enormous risk.

 

Well with that being true apparently you are doing the same thing even when buying slabbed coins. I see no reason for these grading companies to make billions in the process of charging us excessive fees and requiring membership in order to submit coins to a BS arbitrary system. Maybe some should not consider PCGS and NGC as the be all and end all and maybe companies like ANACS should be given at least as much respect in coin grading since this is a clear indication that the 800# Gorilla in grading can pull some incompetent BS grades out of their butts like these.

 

If I am out of line in my editorial then I apologize and will take head to any warnings that I might receive. I just had to ask the question. It was gnawing at me and until I had other opinions It would continue to fester.

 

 

[Dave1384]

I see no reason for these grading companies to make billions in the process of charging us excessive fees and requiring membership in order to submit coins to a BS arbitrary system. Maybe some should not consider PCGS and NGC as the be all and end all and maybe companies like ANACS should be given at least as much respect in coin grading since this is a clear indication that the 800# Gorilla in grading can pull some incompetent BS grades out of their butts like these.

 

If I am out of line in my editorial then I apologize and will take head to any warnings that I might receive.

 

I agree with this. And I posted a comment about ANACS in another thread which didn't receive any support. I know a few dealers and one retailer who refuses to send submissions to PCGS. And I guarantee if I go to sell some of my ANACS coins, they will be treated like grenades.(But show them a '55 DD, oh,they'll take that one).That is what bothers me about the hobby. And greysheet quotes relegate ANACS to the bottom of bid/asks. I'm only a hobbyist, not in the field like many here, but I am sure there are as many qualified graders at ANACS as there are at the other 2. ( or 3). I met Randy Campbell at the Philly show in 2002, and submitted a dozen to him when he was with them. All fair opinions and accurate grades. They've been around the longest, I would think some respect would be in order. IAlthough I am new and don't wish to flame any business, I don't expect anyone here to side with me.

 

[coinsandmedals]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe when TPG'S look for FB designation they mainly look at the middle bands. With that being said, it is clear that the interruptions in the bands of the 45S are much less severe than those of the 1945, judging by your pictures. As far as numerical grade goes there may some other issues at play not readily visable in the photos. Before reading the opinions of the others my thought was that the first coin had a shot at FB and the other coin didn't (no date bias because I didn't look further into the post at the time). This is just my opinion, but I don't find it odd at all the the 45S got the FB designation, and based on the pictures of the 45P I don't see enough seperation in the middle bands to earn the designation.

[BillJones]

First two comments about the coins involved. The 1945-S dime with fully split bands is not that big of a deal. Using Gray Sheet numbers the coin is bid $19 for MS-65 and at $80 for MS-65 Full Bands. That is a big percentage jump, but it's just $61, not a fortune.

 

The 1945-P is another story. That coin is bid at $13 in MS-64, but it goes up to $3,750 in MS-64 Full Bands. Neither of the major services hand out the "Full Bands" designation to on 1945-P dimes with any regularity because they are well aware of that price difference.

 

As to consistency the grading services are only as good as the people who are doing the grading. The grading business is a business and they are in business to make a profit. Sometimes they have "not quite ready for primetime players" doing the grading for financial reasons. When they are saving money, sometimes the quality slips. Sometimes these less than great graders are too conservative; sometimes they are too liberal. That's the crux of matter, and that's why CAC exists, and that 's why competent collectors know how to grade coins on their own.

 

[wdrob]

 

This is just my opinion, but I don't find it odd at all the the 45S got the FB designation, and based on the pictures of the 45P I don't see enough seperation in the middle bands to earn the designation.

 

That is fair but one would have a hard time explaining the MS66 to go along with that FB designation when compared to the 45P where the details are so much more detailed and less worn, imo. If the grades were switched around I would be able to accept the grading much easier. On the 45P you can see the bottom broken limb on the branch and the details are, once again imo, so much better. The only two things it, the 45P, lacks are the big spot under her chin like is on the 45S and the ONE in ONE DIME not being worn down as well as there being so much a lesser degree of detail all together with the relief on the olive branch leaves. I think I have a fairly strong and reasonable case that the grades are backwards without respect to the FB.

 

The 1945-P is another story. That coin is bid at $13 in MS-64, but it goes up to $3,750 in MS-64 Full Bands. Neither of the major services hand out the "Full Bands" designation to on 1945-P dimes with any regularity because they are well aware of that price difference.

 

Exactly. A sliding bar. The current third party grading system existence is touted to have been "a greatly needed method of consistency within the numismatic community". This of-course being the reasoning behind the initial creation. But as I can see that although the intentions are good the consistency is not there and as you say it still comes down to buying a coin for what you think the coin is.

 

I think a greater aid to the entire modern day numismatic community, given the ability to freely trade via the internet and therefore eliminating the need to have physical access to a potential purchase, would be to have a device and method for consistency when taking pictures of coins digitally. Now if someone were to create such a device and could keep the cost down then third party grading would not have such a stranglehold on coin acceptance.

 

Either way I have learned quite a bit about the entire system as it stands right now and I am also aware that I am on a forum that is provided by NGC, a third party grader (I think this is their forum), so I had best shut my mouth and quit saying anything further to come across as promoting the demise of a corporation or, maybe worse than that, a whiny coin collector that has nothing positive or constructive to add. Oooops! Maybe to late on that one.

 

that 's why competent collectors know how to grade coins on their own

 

Yep... That is what I need to focus on and that is what I am going to do. Even then I guess it will still be a toss up as to whether I get 'lucky' and the TPG service I send it to will see the coin as I do.

 

 

[BillJones]

I think a greater aid to the entire modern day numismatic community, given the ability to freely trade via the internet and therefore eliminating the need to have physical access to a potential purchase, would be to have a device and method for consistency when taking pictures of coins digitally. Now if someone were to create such a device and could keep the cost down then third party grading would not have such a stranglehold on coin acceptance.

 

 

Short of a revolution in technology, nothing can replace an in-person grading a evaluation of a coin. Coins need to be viewed a different angles and different levels of magnification for grading. That's why grades provided from pictures, a least in the Mint State and Proof levels are at best approximations.

 

When it is accurately and honesty rendered, third party grading and authenticity services have been of great benefit to the collecting community. The problems start when inconsistency, for whatever reason, comes into the picture. Some inconsistency is due to the nature of different perceptions. Other inconsistencies are a product of political pressures which are too controversial to enumerate here. The bottom line nothing will even be better than personal contact between the buyers, sellers and the items that they exchange.