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

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

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.

 

For no other purpose than my own curiosity, was this submission made before you read this Thread, or after?

[stldanceartist]

Before - just got my results yesterday afternoon.

[stldanceartist]

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?

 

 

Perhaps what I meant to say was I do not hold a grudge against the graders...

 

People make mistakes. I don't think it would be fair of me to assume that the graders can tell the complete history of a coin just by looking at it - but I think that by requiring coins to be submitted in a flip, you open the door for this kind of mistake.

 

So, maybe a submission should be acceptable in OGP or some variant of that, if the coin is still sealed in the OGP. Should I, the submitter, be able to describe the provenance of a coin and have the graders TRUST that? I seriously doubt whether that is helping or hindering the process...because, while I might tell the truth...professional coin doctors might not be so forthcoming.

[stldanceartist]

Oh, and it's not the only coin on the invoice with that problem (coming back Details, taken directly from OGP) - I also had a 1960 Proof Jefferson nickel that's coming back as Details - Environmental Damage. Yep. Straight from the Mint packaging.

 

 

I'm not very pleased with this submission. Two coins in Details holders straight from OGP...10 easy to see varieties completely missed...including a 1964 proof Kennedy QDO, super easy to see...and it's in the CPG...which is why all my varieties will go to ANACS from this point forward.

[MarkFeld]

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?

 

 

Perhaps what I meant to say was I do not hold a grudge against the graders...

 

People make mistakes. I don't think it would be fair of me to assume that the graders can tell the complete history of a coin just by looking at it - but I think that by requiring coins to be submitted in a flip, you open the door for this kind of mistake.

 

So, maybe a submission should be acceptable in OGP or some variant of that, if the coin is still sealed in the OGP. Should I, the submitter, be able to describe the provenance of a coin and have the graders TRUST that? I seriously doubt whether that is helping or hindering the process...because, while I might tell the truth...professional coin doctors might not be so forthcoming.

 

The type of situation that occurred with this coin is one of the possibilities I was thinking of when I started this thread.

 

For example, if a coin is submitted in original packaging, but the color looks questionable to the graders, should the packaging make a difference? Or should the graders grade in a vacuuum and render their opinions without any outside considerations? Neither option leads to close to perfect results.

[stldanceartist]

I feel like a good compromise would be to submit coins still in partial OGP, which works for mint cello but not for proof set plastic holders.

 

I'm sure NGC and other TPG decided upon the flip holder prep to save time and prevent legal liability in case a coin was damaged during its removal from the OGP holder. But you're right - this isn't perfect. But is it the best we can get?

 

Of course, there are two wonderful tangential discussions to be had:

 

Artificial vs Natural Toning

 

Conservation vs Doctoring

 

 

[kryptonitecomics]

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 submitter's complain about receiving no-grades for coins which were submitted in original mint packaging - how do you feel about that?

 

That is the one example I kind of agree with.....I have had numerous original coins that were housed in double mint sets or still in the proof cello packaging that got body bagged for AT, Cleaning, Wheel marks etc when it simply was not the case. Sure folks can swap coins out of double mint sets etc but when you open a sealed one and submit the coins and they get body bagged you know there was a mistake made.

 

I used to send in a lot of toned Proofs still in the cello packaging as I thought they made it to the graders that way so I was shocked when I would get a coin back as AT that was in a sealed set...but I now know that the coins are removed from the packaging before making it to the graders. So in my opinion...that is the one time where the story...or history of the coin should have some bearing on if it grades or not...but certainly not the overall grade of the coin.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

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?

 

 

Perhaps what I meant to say was I do not hold a grudge against the graders...

 

People make mistakes. I don't think it would be fair of me to assume that the graders can tell the complete history of a coin just by looking at it - but I think that by requiring coins to be submitted in a flip, you open the door for this kind of mistake.

 

So, maybe a submission should be acceptable in OGP or some variant of that, if the coin is still sealed in the OGP. Should I, the submitter, be able to describe the provenance of a coin and have the graders TRUST that? I seriously doubt whether that is helping or hindering the process...because, while I might tell the truth...professional coin doctors might not be so forthcoming.

 

The type of situation that occurred with this coin is one of the possibilities I was thinking of when I started this thread.

 

For example, if a coin is submitted in original packaging, but the color looks questionable to the graders, should the packaging make a difference? Or should the graders grade in a vacuuum and render their opinions without any outside considerations? Neither option leads to close to perfect results.

 

While I certainly understand, and this possibility was on your mind, it is not what you asked in the hypo. You did not present an original untampered packaging scenario. That would not be a story. It would be fact.

 

The difference now is that you contemplate a submission in original packaging being ignored (and I have doubts it would be, without a clear undisputed example).

 

That is not what Mr. stidanceartist did. He submitted a raw coin, without packaging. I don't doubt his story at all, but the fact is that it is a story.

[Kurtdog]

Unbelievable!

 

I wonder why they would consider that coin Artificial Toning?

Ask them to intelligibly define "Artificial Toning." There's your answer.

[MarkFeld]

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?

 

 

Perhaps what I meant to say was I do not hold a grudge against the graders...

 

People make mistakes. I don't think it would be fair of me to assume that the graders can tell the complete history of a coin just by looking at it - but I think that by requiring coins to be submitted in a flip, you open the door for this kind of mistake.

 

So, maybe a submission should be acceptable in OGP or some variant of that, if the coin is still sealed in the OGP. Should I, the submitter, be able to describe the provenance of a coin and have the graders TRUST that? I seriously doubt whether that is helping or hindering the process...because, while I might tell the truth...professional coin doctors might not be so forthcoming.

 

The type of situation that occurred with this coin is one of the possibilities I was thinking of when I started this thread.

 

For example, if a coin is submitted in original packaging, but the color looks questionable to the graders, should the packaging make a difference? Or should the graders grade in a vacuuum and render their opinions without any outside considerations? Neither option leads to close to perfect results.

 

While I certainly understand, and this possibility was on your mind, it is not what you asked in the hypo. You did not present an original untampered packaging scenario. That would not be a story. It would be fact.

 

The difference now is that you contemplate a submission in original packaging being ignored (and I have doubts it would be, without a clear undisputed example).

 

That is not what Mr. stidanceartist did. He submitted a raw coin, without packaging. I don't doubt his story at all, but the fact is that it is a story.

 

You are, of course, correct, John - I did not mention that scenario in my initial post. But it something which I have thought about on occasion, over a period of many years. And it was one of the considerations which caused me to start this thread. I also think it's a good scenario to include in a discussion about whether coins should be graded in a vacuum or not.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

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?

 

 

Perhaps what I meant to say was I do not hold a grudge against the graders...

 

People make mistakes. I don't think it would be fair of me to assume that the graders can tell the complete history of a coin just by looking at it - but I think that by requiring coins to be submitted in a flip, you open the door for this kind of mistake.

 

So, maybe a submission should be acceptable in OGP or some variant of that, if the coin is still sealed in the OGP. Should I, the submitter, be able to describe the provenance of a coin and have the graders TRUST that? I seriously doubt whether that is helping or hindering the process...because, while I might tell the truth...professional coin doctors might not be so forthcoming.

 

The type of situation that occurred with this coin is one of the possibilities I was thinking of when I started this thread.

 

For example, if a coin is submitted in original packaging, but the color looks questionable to the graders, should the packaging make a difference? Or should the graders grade in a vacuuum and render their opinions without any outside considerations? Neither option leads to close to perfect results.

 

While I certainly understand, and this possibility was on your mind, it is not what you asked in the hypo. You did not present an original untampered packaging scenario. That would not be a story. It would be fact.

 

The difference now is that you contemplate a submission in original packaging being ignored (and I have doubts it would be, without a clear undisputed example).

 

That is not what Mr. stidanceartist did. He submitted a raw coin, without packaging. I don't doubt his story at all, but the fact is that it is a story.

 

You are, of course, correct, John - I did not mention that scenario in my initial post. But it something which I have thought about on occasion, over a period of many years. And it was one of the considerations which caused me to start this thread. I also think it's a good scenario to include in a discussion about whether coins should be graded in a vacuum or not.

 

We are of like mind. I have often wondered about the OGP scenario-untampered, of course- and I am sure you have seen many more incorrect assumptions by a Grader than I have.

 

The only logical solution I could arrive at, which is not really a solution at all, is to have the Mint ship the OGP coin directly to the TPG.

 

Actually, I see this happening in the future, as a market plan for the TPGs, with the TPGs then encapsulating and selling the coin, either thru a Contract arrangement, or directly to a member type list.

 

Short of original untampered packaging -and I am the first to state that this is not easy to conclude- I am still of the opinion that the coin should be graded in a vacuum.