Should graders take a coin's (alleged) history into account, when grading it?

[MarkFeld]

Recently, in another thread, the subject of a coin's history came up. It was in reference to trying to ascertain whether coins are truly/technically uncirculated or not. In most instances, there is no way to tell for certain.

 

But here is something I thought about, while I was a grader at NGC and have thought about since that time...

 

When evaluating a coin, if given the opportunity, should a grader make use of its' (alleged) history? In other words, should a submitter be able to provide graders with (alleged) information/history/documentation/provenance regarding a coin's history?

 

 

 

 

[Deerefan8420]

I think the history/information/provenance aspect of a coin should be left out of the grading room. In my opinion, that could potentially give away the owner of said coin(if the grader, or graders, knew it was coming in or if it was a well known coin in the Numismatic community) and could possibly influence the graders opinion of the coin. I think the grade of any coin being submitted should be based on the merits of the coin itself and not on any other information submitted with the coin regarding its history/provenance.

[RWB]

Objective and unbiased, only, please.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Recently, in another thread, the subject of a coin's history came up. It was in reference to trying to ascertain whether coins are truly/technically uncirculated or not. In most instances, there is no way to tell for certain.

 

But here is something I thought about, while I was a grader at NGC and have thought about since that time...

 

When evaluating a coin, if given the opportunity, should a grader make use of its' (alleged) history? In other words, should a submitter be able to provide graders with (alleged) information/history/documentation/provenance regarding a coin's history?

 

 

 

 

Alleged history is not history and the travels of the coin remain unproven without proof.

 

We can't have "...truly/technically uncirculated or not..." decided by alleged information. That is guessing, or for the lovers of books, a story.

 

I would also state that it is not even grading if the TPG uses such alleged information. It also falls short of fulfilling an independent numismatic opinion.

 

But what do I know.

[MarkFeld]

Recently, in another thread, the subject of a coin's history came up. It was in reference to trying to ascertain whether coins are truly/technically uncirculated or not. In most instances, there is no way to tell for certain.

 

But here is something I thought about, while I was a grader at NGC and have thought about since that time...

 

When evaluating a coin, if given the opportunity, should a grader make use of its' (alleged) history? In other words, should a submitter be able to provide graders with (alleged) information/history/documentation/provenance regarding a coin's history?

 

 

 

 

Alleged history is not history and the travels of the coin remain unproven without proof.

 

We can't have "...truly/technically uncirculated or not..." decided by alleged information. That is guessing, or for the lovers of books, a story.

 

I would also state that it is not even grading if the TPG uses such alleged information. It also falls short of fulfilling an independent numismatic opinion.

 

But what do I know.

 

How do you feel about using pedigrees from name collections on the grading labels?

 

What proof would you require?

 

What if you could match the coin to an auction catalog image despite the fact that the coin has dipped since the time it appeared in the sale?

 

Would you award the pedigree in that instance?

 

How would you feel about grading coins you thought or knew had come from a famous/name collection and you had heard about whom the buyer/owner was?

 

Would you view a coin any differently if you knew it had been off the market for decades and therefore escaped modern day doctoring techniques?

 

 

By the way, please don't answer my questions with questions and make me work hard to answer your questions, as you so often do

 

 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Recently, in another thread, the subject of a coin's history came up. It was in reference to trying to ascertain whether coins are truly/technically uncirculated or not. In most instances, there is no way to tell for certain.

 

But here is something I thought about, while I was a grader at NGC and have thought about since that time...

 

When evaluating a coin, if given the opportunity, should a grader make use of its' (alleged) history? In other words, should a submitter be able to provide graders with (alleged) information/history/documentation/provenance regarding a coin's history?

 

 

 

 

Alleged history is not history and the travels of the coin remain unproven without proof.

 

We can't have "...truly/technically uncirculated or not..." decided by alleged information. That is guessing, or for the lovers of books, a story.

 

I would also state that it is not even grading if the TPG uses such alleged information. It also falls short of fulfilling an independent numismatic opinion.

 

But what do I know.

 

How do you feel about using pedigrees from name collections on the grading labels?

 

What proof would you require?

 

What if you could match the coin to an auction catalog image despite the fact that the coin has dipped since the time it appeared in the sale?

 

Would you award the pedigree in that instance?

 

How would you feel about grading coins you thought or knew had come from a famous/name collection and you had heard about whom the buyer/owner was?

 

Would you view a coin any differently if you knew it had been off the market for decades and therefore escaped modern day doctoring techniques?

 

 

By the way, please don't answer my questions with questions and make me work hard to answer your questions, as you so often do

 

 

Thank you Mark.

 

So:

Pedigreed is a story, an interesting one, usually, but just a story.

 

Blacks Law.

 

Images and dipping are not germane to the original question presented, which is "should a Grader make use of its' alleged history..." By re-phrasing your question, you create a posit flaw. So no, I would not and do not awrad the pedigree. I can prove (Blacks Law) my pedigree via my father, thus I should be graded accordingly....

 

What I think or know about who previously owned, how a coin arrives on the Grading Floor, or what collection the coin was in are not germane, again, to the original question "...should a Grader make use of its' alledged history...". This implies using the information for Grading. That would not be Grading. It would still be a story. You are simply re-phrasing, again.

 

Whether the coin survived Atilla the Hun of Dr. Dip is not germane to the question. That is a story, not Grading. Grading is evaluating the coin was not in the hands of Dr. Dip, and did survive the hooves of Atillas' war horse.

 

See? No questions

[WoodenJefferson]

Emery Norweb made pencil rubbings of many rare coins...Just because it was a proven Norweb coin from the collection, it should have no bearing on the actual condition of the coin being graded.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Emery Norweb made pencil rubbings of many rare coins...Just because it was a proven Norweb coin from the collection, it should have no bearing on the actual condition of the coin being graded.

 

Is this a friendly method of pointing out that I might be slightly long winded in describing my position?

 

You would not be wrong, and I appreciate your gentle encouragement to practice Brevity. It is just that Mr. Feld has an effect that.....never mind.

[rrantique]

Emery Norweb made pencil rubbings of many rare coins...Just because it was a proven Norweb coin from the collection, it should have no bearing on the actual condition of the coin being graded.

 

I agree with the no bearing scenario. The coin should always stand on it's own merits.

[physics-fan3.14]

You cannot and should not take a coins history into account when grading a coin. The coin can be graded solely on the condition of the coin itself. I can tell you a coin has never been dipped or wiped, but it is the physical evidence on the face of the coin which will be the ultimate test.

 

The flip side of this is the logical conclusion - if you cannot tell from the evidence on the coin, then it should not factor into the grade or the value. I could tell you that it has been dipped, but if there is no evidence (under reasonable, normal magnification), then I can't discount the grade or value. If I cannot tell from looking at the coin if it has circulated (by looking at wear, luster, finerprints, etc) - then I must call the coin Uncirculated (even if I received it in change from a cashiers till - the sole criteria is the evidence on the coin itself).

 

This is, as John states, the only logical conclusion.

[Kurtdog]

You cannot and should not take a coins history into account when grading a coin. The coin can be graded solely on the condition of the coin itself. I can tell you a coin has never been dipped or wiped, but it is the physical evidence on the face of the coin which will be the ultimate test.

I knew there was something I liked about you, ...

 

If there's one thing, above all others, graders have to get across, it's this: KEEP YOUR EYE ON THE FACE OF THE COIN. That's all that matters.

 

[ldhair]

You cannot and should not take a coins history into account when grading a coin. The coin can be graded solely on the condition of the coin itself. I can tell you a coin has never been dipped or wiped, but it is the physical evidence on the face of the coin which will be the ultimate test.

 

The flip side of this is the logical conclusion - if you cannot tell from the evidence on the coin, then it should not factor into the grade or the value. I could tell you that it has been dipped, but if there is no evidence (under reasonable, normal magnification), then I can't discount the grade or value. If I cannot tell from looking at the coin if it has circulated (by looking at wear, luster, finerprints, etc) - then I must call the coin Uncirculated (even if I received it in change from a cashiers till - the sole criteria is the evidence on the coin itself).

 

This is, as John states, the only logical conclusion.

Same here.

[MarkFeld]

Thanks for the replies.

 

I agree that "stories" should not be taken into consideration when grading coins. But I think some of you might be surprised by how many submitters try to make use of them.

 

I have also heard submitters complain about receiving no-grades for coins which were submitted in original mint packaging - how do you feel about that?

[Kurtdog]

You cannot and should not take a coins history into account when grading a coin. The coin can be graded solely on the condition of the coin itself. I can tell you a coin has never been dipped or wiped, but it is the physical evidence on the face of the coin which will be the ultimate test.

I knew there was something I liked about you, ...

 

If there's one thing, above all others, graders have to get across, it's this: KEEP YOUR EYE ON THE FACE OF THE COIN. That's all that matters.

You cannot and should not take a coins history into account when grading a coin. The coin can be graded solely on the condition of the coin itself. I can tell you a coin has never been dipped or wiped, but it is the physical evidence on the face of the coin which will be the ultimate test.

 

The flip side of this is the logical conclusion - if you cannot tell from the evidence on the coin, then it should not factor into the grade or the value. I could tell you that it has been dipped, but if there is no evidence (under reasonable, normal magnification), then I can't discount the grade or value. If I cannot tell from looking at the coin if it has circulated (by looking at wear, luster, finerprints, etc) - then I must call the coin Uncirculated (even if I received it in change from a cashiers till - the sole criteria is the evidence on the coin itself).

 

This is, as John states, the only logical conclusion.

Same here.

Well, that makes three of us. That's a start. Actually, there may be four, as John Curlis promised in another thread he'd make an effort to get on board, and I intend to hold him to it, .

 

Ever think of this, Larry? Ever think we ought to reclaim the hobby? A monkey can market grade, right? The standard for market grading is eye appeal. A monkey can't judge the condition of a coin, i.e., it can't technical grade, but it can easily tell what's eye appealing to it. Ever think we're being pushed around with this monkey grading business? Ever think we ought to start telling these TPGs what we want out of them rather than letting their marketing geniuses tell us that, and just sitting there, you know, buzzed out, going along? Ever think collectors ought to be proactive rather than reactive? Then, again, perhaps that's a little profound a challenge for this charming bunch of outcasts. Or, many of us, anyway. We got the axe, you know. Not me, but many of the rest of you bums, .

 

PS: I'm just here because I like you all so much.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Thanks for the replies.

 

I agree that "stories" should not be taken into consideration when grading coins. But I think some of you might be surprised by how many submitters try to make use of them.

 

I have also heard submitters complain about receiving no-grades for coins which were submitted in original mint packaging - how do you feel about that?

 

I am not surprised by this, and I would venture that the majority of knowledgeable collectors are not surprised.

 

A review of any numismatic auction or sales literature, and indeed the TPG Holder itself, reveals the influence a story has on a coin - I am not referring to raw coins, I am referring to TPG coins - and is simply marketing and market grading in printed form.

 

The no - grade issue; if a coin is submitted with original mint packaging, and has not been tampered with, the coin is deserving of an MS Grade. I have even seen MS 50 awarded to an original Mint packaged coin, unusual, sure, but clearly reflecting the condition of the face (that one is for Mr. Kurt) of the coin, while recognizing it is still Mint. I have a coin graded Proof 50. Did it circulate? Of course. The circulation wear is obvious. But an original Mint packaging coin is certainly not circulation wear.

 

The only reasons I can determine would cause a no grade for a coin in original packaging is a suspicion of authenticity, clearly obvious tampering, damage to the coin that precludes a Grade, simple human error, or a failure of the paperwork the coin was submitted with, i.e. the red tape reject syndrome (otherwise known as submit again so we can charge again grading).

[MarkFeld]

Thanks for the replies.

 

I agree that "stories" should not be taken into consideration when grading coins. But I think some of you might be surprised by how many submitters try to make use of them.

 

I have also heard submitters complain about receiving no-grades for coins which were submitted in original mint packaging - how do you feel about that?

 

I am not surprised by this, and I would venture that the majority of knowledgeable collectors are not surprised.

 

A review of any numismatic auction or sales literature, and indeed the TPG Holder itself, reveals the influence a story has on a coin - I am not referring to raw coins, I am referring to TPG coins - and is simply marketing and market grading in printed form.

 

The no - grade issue; if a coin is submitted with original mint packaging, and has not been tampered with, the coin is deserving of an MS Grade. I have even seen MS 50 awarded to an original Mint packaged coin, unusual, sure, but clearly reflecting the condition of the face (that one is for Mr. Kurt) of the coin, while recognizing it is still Mint. I have a coin graded Proof 50. Did it circulate? Of course. The circulation wear is obvious. But an original Mint packaging coin is certainly not circulation wear.

 

The only reasons I can determine would cause a no grade for a coin in original packaging is a suspicion of authenticity, clearly obvious tampering, damage to the coin that precludes a Grade, simple human error, or a failure of the paperwork the coin was submitted with, i.e. the red tape reject syndrome (otherwise known as submit again so we can charge again grading).

 

John, the mint packaging no-grades I recall were mostly for questionable color. But I believe a few others were labeled "improperly cleaned".

[Conder101]

History and provenance are important and can have an effect on value, but they have nothing to do with grading and should not be a consideration.

 

 

How do you feel about using pedigrees from name collections on the grading labels?

 

Personally I don't like it. Who decides what pedigrees are important enough to be listed? Some great collections are important enough. In other cases you can have an important collection in a particular series that isn't important to anyone but a series specialist. That would give you a pedigreed slab that no one but a specialist recognizes. Plus there would be the confusion with all the vanity pedigreed slabs the TPG's have been putting out.

 

What proof would you require?

 

Now that is a good question. Obviously coins that can be traced to the plates in a sale would be good enough, but what about unplated coins? Would having the coin in the collectors hand labeled flip (2X2, envelope) be good enough if the coin matched the description on the flip? Slabbed coins would be a problem unless the collector kept a record of the serial numbers in his collection and then you still need to have access to his inventory notes.

 

What if you could match the coin to an auction catalog image despite the fact that the coin has dipped since the time it appeared in the sale?

 

If you can match it to the plates it still deserves its provenance even though the appearance has changed. The finest known 1794 starred rev cent was at one time stripped and then later recolored. It doesn't look like it did in its early plated sales, but it is still the same coin and still came from those collections.

 

[bWould you award the pedigree in that instance?[/b]

 

Yes, but remember I don't agree with pedigrees on the labels.

 

How would you feel about grading coins you thought or knew had come from a famous/name collection and you had heard about whom the buyer/owner was?

 

I would try to ignore the provenance and grade the coins based solely on the wear and condition of what I see on the coin itself.

 

Would you view a coin any differently if you knew it had been off the market for decades and therefore escaped modern day doctoring techniques?

 

All I can go on is what I see. It may have missed the modern day doctors, but people have been doctoring coins for a long long time.

 

 

Remember the grader has no idea whether or not a coin came in in the OGP. If he looks at the coin and thinks it looks like it has been damaged or messed with he says so.

[World Colonial]

Late to this topic but I agree with the consensus. Especially with prominent or what I like to call "celebrity" coins, using pedigree or history in the grading opinion seems like simply another rationalization to influence how most view it. In my opinion, many of these coins are already over rated and over hyped anyway.

[MarkFeld]

Thank you Conder.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Thanks for the replies.

 

I agree that "stories" should not be taken into consideration when grading coins. But I think some of you might be surprised by how many submitters try to make use of them.

 

I have also heard submitters complain about receiving no-grades for coins which were submitted in original mint packaging - how do you feel about that?

 

I am not surprised by this, and I would venture that the majority of knowledgeable collectors are not surprised.

 

A review of any numismatic auction or sales literature, and indeed the TPG Holder itself, reveals the influence a story has on a coin - I am not referring to raw coins, I am referring to TPG coins - and is simply marketing and market grading in printed form.

 

The no - grade issue; if a coin is submitted with original mint packaging, and has not been tampered with, the coin is deserving of an MS Grade. I have even seen MS 50 awarded to an original Mint packaged coin, unusual, sure, but clearly reflecting the condition of the face (that one is for Mr. Kurt) of the coin, while recognizing it is still Mint. I have a coin graded Proof 50. Did it circulate? Of course. The circulation wear is obvious. But an original Mint packaging coin is certainly not circulation wear.

 

The only reasons I can determine would cause a no grade for a coin in original packaging is a suspicion of authenticity, clearly obvious tampering, damage to the coin that precludes a Grade, simple human error, or a failure of the paperwork the coin was submitted with, i.e. the red tape reject syndrome (otherwise known as submit again so we can charge again grading).

 

John, the mint packaging no-grades I recall were mostly for questionable color. But I believe a few others were labeled "improperly cleaned".

 

Thank you Mr. F.

 

Assuming non-tampered packaging, I would venture human error.

It is certainly not impossible that someone at the Mint cleaned a coin and packaged it, or it was a coin returned to the Mint and was put in packaging a second time, a more likely scenario, if indeed it was cleaned and not being misinterpreted by the Grader.

 

The improper color? Not so much. I would place that under the human error factor, as a cautious decision so the TPG does not get caught up in an AT issue, unless, again, it was a returned coin that was re-packaged, which is human error.

[coinman_23885]

You cannot and should not take a coins history into account when grading a coin. The coin can be graded solely on the condition of the coin itself. I can tell you a coin has never been dipped or wiped, but it is the physical evidence on the face of the coin which will be the ultimate test.

 

The flip side of this is the logical conclusion - if you cannot tell from the evidence on the coin, then it should not factor into the grade or the value. I could tell you that it has been dipped, but if there is no evidence (under reasonable, normal magnification), then I can't discount the grade or value. If I cannot tell from looking at the coin if it has circulated (by looking at wear, luster, finerprints, etc) - then I must call the coin Uncirculated (even if I received it in change from a cashiers till - the sole criteria is the evidence on the coin itself).

 

This is, as John states, the only logical conclusion.

 

I agree with this.

[Walkerfan]

You cannot and should not take a coins history into account when grading a coin. The coin can be graded solely on the condition of the coin itself. I can tell you a coin has never been dipped or wiped, but it is the physical evidence on the face of the coin which will be the ultimate test.

 

The flip side of this is the logical conclusion - if you cannot tell from the evidence on the coin, then it should not factor into the grade or the value. I could tell you that it has been dipped, but if there is no evidence (under reasonable, normal magnification), then I can't discount the grade or value. If I cannot tell from looking at the coin if it has circulated (by looking at wear, luster, finerprints, etc) - then I must call the coin Uncirculated (even if I received it in change from a cashiers till - the sole criteria is the evidence on the coin itself).

 

This is, as John states, the only logical conclusion.

 

I agree with this.

 

Me too.

 

Provenance is MOSTLY hearsay and, besides, I care little of the coins history outside of the condition (strike, luster, surf. pres.) of the coin. Not that I don't appreciate history as some history is VERY interesting and might even add a little value but it should never affect the numerical grade.

[coinman_23885]

I have also heard submitters complain about receiving no-grades for coins which were submitted in original mint packaging - how do you feel about that?

 

I think that it is perfectly logical that a coin could "no grade" even when taken from mint packaging. Even after having been packaged and processed, I would venture to say that very few of them are actually as struck. I could conceivably see a mint operator sneezing on a coin here or there and wiping it off. Wiping, if it left hairlines and was traceable, would certainly warrant a no grade or a details grade in my opinion. While the mint quality control has probably improved drastically throughout the years, I am sure that it stills happens.

 

With regards to your comments about coins in original mint packaging not grading because of toning, I do not think this is illogical either necessarily. Mint packaging is not air tight, and those can be gassed or treated in such a way as to cause them to artificially tone or otherwise enhance a coin (think of extremely high temperatures that might not produce market acceptable effects); thus, I think a grader should be just as cautious with these as with a coin in a 2.5x2.5 mylar flip.

[jimjum12]

You cannot and should not take a coins history into account when grading a coin. The coin can be graded solely on the condition of the coin itself. I can tell you a coin has never been dipped or wiped, but it is the physical evidence on the face of the coin which will be the ultimate test.

 

The flip side of this is the logical conclusion - if you cannot tell from the evidence on the coin, then it should not factor into the grade or the value. I could tell you that it has been dipped, but if there is no evidence (under reasonable, normal magnification), then I can't discount the grade or value. If I cannot tell from looking at the coin if it has circulated (by looking at wear, luster, finerprints, etc) - then I must call the coin Uncirculated (even if I received it in change from a cashiers till - the sole criteria is the evidence on the coin itself).

 

This is, as John states, the only logical conclusion.

 

I agree with this.

 

Me too.

 

Provenance is MOSTLY hearsay and, besides, I care little of the coins history outside of the condition (strike, luster, surf. pres.) of the coin. No that I don't appreciate history as Some history is VERY interesting and might even add a little value but it should never affect the numerical grade.

 

..... specific info regarding provenance or pedigree should be kept separate with the submission paperwork to avoid the appearance or suggestion of bias or impropriety on the grader's part..... not that this would happen. Checks and balances for impartiality are imperative in the slabbing game.... IMHO....... GOD BLESS...

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

[Kurtdog]

Pedigree is as much an ANA standard in market grading as is eye appeal. You didn't know that, did you?

[jimjum12]

...... there's a LOT that I don't know ..... Pedigree is very important in the comic world also..... and many grader's will recognize some of them without documentation...... but grading there occurs with no input other than the item to be graded. This is how unbiased 3rd party grading should be.All paperwork is kept separate, except the most minimal barcode type stuff that accompanies the specimen into the grading dungeon. GOD BLESS....

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

 

P.S. I'm VERY teachable. A pedigree,in my opinion, SHOULD be on the label.... just not in the grading room.

[Kurtdog]

Amen to that, Jimbo. (thumbs u

[stldanceartist]

I'll add this because I feel it is relevant to the discussion -

 

I recently submitted a coin to NGC that was graded UNC Details - Artificial Toning.

 

I personally removed this coin from the OGP (which if you're familiar with this set is flimsy plastic but sealed in a cardboard/paper holder) photographed and shared these photos online here (it's that Botanical Dollar with the great toning around the rim) then submitted it for grading and encapsulation. At no time was a product applied, or any treatment done to the coin to improve its appearance. And yet it came back in a Details holder.

 

Am I disappointed? Absolutely.

 

Do I blame the graders for this error? Absolutely not. But it's still an error.

 

So what's the solution to this particular problem? Would it still have gotten tagged Details if I'd left it in the OGP? I seriously doubt it. So perhaps a solution is to find an acceptable means of providing proper provenance in regards to the true state and prior care of the submitted coin.

 

Here, in case you were wondering, is the coin I'm talking about:

 

 

FWIW, I plan to call NGC tomorrow and just touch base with them about this issue. Perhaps my words will fall on deaf ears, perhaps not. But at least I will have asked and hopefully furthered the discussion.

 

[wdrob]

I recently submitted a coin to NGC that was graded UNC Details - Artificial Toning.

 

Unbelievable!

 

I wonder why they would consider that coin Artificial Toning?

 

Do I blame the graders for this error? Absolutely not. But it's still an error.

 

If not the graders then who?

 

The receptionist?

 

 

[MarkFeld]

I'll add this because I feel it is relevant to the discussion -

 

I recently submitted a coin to NGC that was graded UNC Details - Artificial Toning.

 

I personally removed this coin from the OGP (which if you're familiar with this set is flimsy plastic but sealed in a cardboard/paper holder) photographed and shared these photos online here (it's that Botanical Dollar with the great toning around the rim) then submitted it for grading and encapsulation. At no time was a product applied, or any treatment done to the coin to improve its appearance. And yet it came back in a Details holder.

 

Am I disappointed? Absolutely.

 

Do I blame the graders for this error? Absolutely not. But it's still an error.

 

So what's the solution to this particular problem? Would it still have gotten tagged Details if I'd left it in the OGP? I seriously doubt it. So perhaps a solution is to find an acceptable means of providing proper provenance in regards to the true state and prior care of the submitted coin.

 

Here, in case you were wondering, is the coin I'm talking about:

 

 

FWIW, I plan to call NGC tomorrow and just touch base with them about this issue. Perhaps my words will fall on deaf ears, perhaps not. But at least I will have asked and hopefully furthered the discussion.

 

You have a very understanding attitude.

 

You might want to consider writing, rather than calling, initially, to touch base with them about the issue. That would give you adequate time to lay out/present your points and not force them to take it in and react quickly. Then, you could follow that up with a call. Just a thought.