Dual grade details holders?

[HCumberdale]

Today I came across a newer PCGS slab with a grade of FR/PR Details...what the heck?

Have others seen this type of grading, and if so with what types?

 

In this case it was a 1793 Half Cent and it appears PCGS was accounting for the fact that the obverse retained much more detail than the reverse. Still, I thought that style of grading was extinct, and I had never seen it on a PCGS slab regardless.

[michael]

i think it is an error in poor wording/judgment

 

but be that as it may i think they

 

are saying

 

fair-2 obverse poor-1 reverse

 

i think they did this as with a coin of this rarity demand and value if they said fair 2 with no mention on the reverse it makes the coin worth more as the obverse is 70% of the coins grade hence value they are hedging their bets for limiting their liability by saying fair 2 obverse; poor 1 reverse

 

 

as a sidenote 93 little half sisters for the most part are weaker on the reverses than the obverses

[michael]

also the submitter wanted a details holder with the grade which pcgs will do giving you this option

 

or genuine holder with no grade but a 2 digit number in the sequence of numbers on the bottom of the tag denoting the problem in numerical form

 

or if you so desire it is returned in a flip not holdered

 

now there are methods to this madness on which to choose which actually makes the coin more saleable for more $$ depending on many factors but this is for another thread

[Keigwin]

The half cent wasn't graded. It was "genuined". As such PCGS gave it a ballpark range. That's all.

Lance.

[BillJones]

I don't see anything wrong with giving different grades to each side of a coin. With early U.S. coins especially, one side is often better than the other. I owned a 1794 cent many years ago that had a decent obverse with nice strong date, but the reverse was virtually blank. How you would accurately grade that piece? The obverse had the sharpness of a Good, but the reverse was virtually a grade zero. To be accurate it was a 4/0.

[HCumberdale]

i think it is an error in poor wording/judgment

 

but be that as it may i think they

 

are saying

 

fair-2 obverse poor-1 reverse

 

i think they did this as with a coin of this rarity demand and value if they said fair 2 with no mention on the reverse it makes the coin worth more as the obverse is 70% of the coins grade hence value they are hedging their bets for limiting their liability by saying fair 2 obverse; poor 1 reverse

 

 

as a sidenote 93 little half sisters for the most part are weaker on the reverses than the obverses

 

I agree that this was they intended to communicate.

 

also the submitter wanted a details holder with the grade which pcgs will do giving you this option

 

or genuine holder with no grade but a 2 digit number in the sequence of numbers on the bottom of the tag denoting the problem in numerical form

 

or if you so desire it is returned in a flip not holdered

 

now there are methods to this madness on which to choose which actually makes the coin more saleable for more $$ depending on many factors but this is for another thread

 

Yes, I understand that sumbitters have these options and there is a method to the madness. But are you suggesting that submitters have an option to select a dual grade or is this something PCGS does at their own discretion?

 

I don't see anything wrong with giving different grades to each side of a coin. With early U.S. coins especially, one side is often better than the other. I owned a 1794 cent many years ago that had a decent obverse with nice strong date, but the reverse was virtually blank. How you would accurately grade that piece? The obverse had the sharpness of a Good, but the reverse was virtually a grade zero. To be accurate it was a 4/0.

 

Of course this is reasonable Bill, but I haven't seen PCGS do it before and following the same rationale could lead to assinine grading like the old ANACS photo certs (e.g. a 1878 Morgan dollar in a 63/62 holder). I think it would be better to just average pieces like you describe out using whatever formula 60/40, 70/30, 50/50...no, its not fully descriptive, but it is consistent.

 

If the TPGs introduced an option for dual grading, would people here use it? Though the grading standards are not equivalent would EAC members like to see this option? Personally, I vote for consistency over accuracy in this regard, and think that viewing the coin in-hand will always be more informative than the assigned grade anyway.

[michael]

Yes, I understand that sumbitters have these options and there is a method to the madness. But are you suggesting that submitters have an option to select a dual grade or is this something PCGS does at their own discretion?

 

submitters elect to get a details grade (a non numerical grade pr fr ag g vg f vf xf au unc. at pcgs' discretion) with problems stated OR just plain genuine holder OR the problem coin returned raw not in a slab