Details graded GSA morgan question.(updated with pics on page 6)

[Kurtdog]

I have one with an MS65 obverse that was graded MS63 because of a quarter inch gouge on the eagle's breast.

Yeah, and I think that's the operative thing to understand. Furthermore, the nature of that gradable threshold is coin-to-coin damage. Certainly if the coin was ejected erratically and ended up scathed on the concrete floor for it (go with me, here), that's damage that's not gradable.

 

This is what I don't like. They take his money, and they don't tell him. Checking a box that says "Damage" doesn't tell him a thing. What is this, a guessing game? They want to take his money, then call his coin damaged, at least give him a clue. Stand by themselves. Tell him, specifically, what they're calling "Damage." Then, keep his money, they earned it. Short of that, they just took it.

[MarkFeld]

I have one with an MS65 obverse that was graded MS63 because of a quarter inch gouge on the eagle's breast.

Yeah, and I think that's the operative thing to understand. Furthermore, the nature of that gradable threshold is coin-to-coin damage. Certainly if the coin was ejected erratically and ended up scathed on the concrete floor for it (go with me, here), that's damage that's not gradable.

 

This is what I don't like. They take his money, and they don't tell him. Checking a box that says "Damage" doesn't tell him a thing. What is this, a guessing game? They want to take his money, then call his coin damaged, at least give him a clue. Stand by themselves. Tell him, specifically, what they're calling "Damage." Then, keep his money, they earned it. Short of that, they just took it.

 

It can be a guessing game in some cases, regarding what the damage is or where the cleaning is, etc. But I think you chose a bad example with which to make your point. Because, having seen the image, in this instance, there is no need to guess - the damage is quite conspicuous.

 

Additionally, it's often virtually impossible to tell a submitter what he needs to know in order to be able to see the problem detected by the grading company. For example, even if the grading company were to write "Left side of obverse cleaned" the submitter still might not be able to find/see it.

[Kurtdog]

But he'll know what they're taking his money for, Mark, he'll know what they're hanging the fatal designation on. He doesn't have to agree with it. He doesn't even have to discern it. I think both TPGs do a rotten job, there, it's not just NGC, and we're just accustomed, by now, to accept it, lay down for it. I think we should stand up. Or, if they want to be that imprecise, give us our money back, that's how I see it.

[MarkFeld]

But he'll know what they're taking his money for, Mark, he'll know what they're hanging the fatal designation on. He doesn't have to agree with it. He doesn't even have to discern it. I think both TPGs do a rotten job, there, it's not just NGC, and we're just accustomed, by now, to accept it, lay down for it. I think we should stand up. Or, if they want to be that imprecise, give us our money back, that's how I see it.

 

In this particular case, what would you have had NGC do differently that would have made a practical difference? I am not being the least bit facetious.

 

I do agree that in many other instances the problem can be extremely difficult to detect, without the grading company pinpointing it for the submitter.

[Kurtdog]

But he'll know what they're taking his money for, Mark, he'll know what they're hanging the fatal designation on. He doesn't have to agree with it. He doesn't even have to discern it. I think both TPGs do a rotten job, there, it's not just NGC, and we're just accustomed, by now, to accept it, lay down for it. I think we should stand up. Or, if they want to be that imprecise, give us our money back, that's how I see it.

 

In this particular case, what would you have had NGC do differently that would have made a practical difference? I am not being the least bit facetious.

 

I do agree that in many other instances the problem can be extremely difficult to detect, without the grading company pinpointing it for the submitter.

"MEMORANDUM OF DECISION: In the learned opinion of NGC, the swipe on the cheek is not coin-to-coin contact, it's extraneous damage, necessitating a no-grade." That's on your first sentence. On your second sentence, whether it's conspicuous or not, they ought to tell us why they're taking our money.

 

[MarkFeld]

But he'll know what they're taking his money for, Mark, he'll know what they're hanging the fatal designation on. He doesn't have to agree with it. He doesn't even have to discern it. I think both TPGs do a rotten job, there, it's not just NGC, and we're just accustomed, by now, to accept it, lay down for it. I think we should stand up. Or, if they want to be that imprecise, give us our money back, that's how I see it.

 

In this particular case, what would you have had NGC do differently that would have made a practical difference? I am not being the least bit facetious.

 

I do agree that in many other instances the problem can be extremely difficult to detect, without the grading company pinpointing it for the submitter.

"MEMORANDUM OF DECISION: In the learned opinion of NGC, the swipe on the cheek is not coin-to-coin contact, it's extraneous damage, necessitating a no-grade." That's on your first sentence. On your second sentence, whether it's conspicuous or not, they ought to tell us why they're taking our money.

 

Fair enough - thanks for the reply.

 

Next question - if they offered an option that included feedback like that BUT charged extra, how would you feel about it and how much, if anything extra would (edited for spelling) it be worth to you? Please don't use a negative number in your answer.

[jpcienkus]

But he'll know what they're taking his money for, Mark, he'll know what they're hanging the fatal designation on. He doesn't have to agree with it. He doesn't even have to discern it. I think both TPGs do a rotten job, there, it's not just NGC, and we're just accustomed, by now, to accept it, lay down for it. I think we should stand up. Or, if they want to be that imprecise, give us our money back, that's how I see it.

 

In this particular case, what would you have had NGC do differently that would have made a practical difference? I am not being the least bit facetious.

 

I do agree that in many other instances the problem can be extremely difficult to detect, without the grading company pinpointing it for the submitter.

"MEMORANDUM OF DECISION: In the learned opinion of NGC, the swipe on the cheek is not coin-to-coin contact, it's extraneous damage, necessitating a no-grade." That's on your first sentence. On your second sentence, whether it's conspicuous or not, they ought to tell us why they're taking our money.

 

Fair enough - thanks for the reply.

 

Next question - if they offered an option that included feedback like that BUT charged extra, how would you feel about it and how much, if anything extra woudl it be worth to you? Please don't use a negative number in your answer.

 

I'd pay additional to have this feedback for both details and graded coins. I don't know how much additional cost this would add to their process. I would want the feedback to be meaningful and I'd be willing to pay an additional 50% of the grading fee price.

 

If I submitted a coin under the $30 service and was on the fence regarding the grade, could go 64 or 65, I'd pay an additional $15 on that coin for detailed feedback on the grade.

 

Edited for grammar.

[Kurtdog]

I don't think they should be charging extra for explaining to us why they're already charging us in the first place and not delivering on a grade. They're seeing something that's justifying charging us and not delivering on what we're paying them for. At least tell us what they're seeing, that's justifying that. At least, then, we get something back for the charges. In this case, it may be conspicuous, as you pointed out. This case isn't like all cases. It's along the lines of being responsible. They want to cop out on a grade in their holder, and charge us for that, tell us what their issue is, tell us why they're doing it. They know. What's the big secret? They don't want us to be in a position to hold them? Is that why they don't want to disclose to us? I think their charging us entitles us to that particularity when they're not delivering on what they're charging us for. Tell us specifically why they're charging us and not returning a grade for it. That's all. Then I'm a satisfied customer.

[AHFreak]

I don't think they should be charging extra for explaining to us why they're already charging us in the first place and not delivering on a grade. They're seeing something that's justifying charging us and not delivering on what we're paying them for. At least tell us what they're seeing, that's justifying that. At least, then, we get something back for the charges. In this case, it may be conspicuous, as you pointed out. This case isn't like all cases. It's along the lines of being responsible. They want to cop out on a grade in their holder, and charge us for that, tell us what their issue is, tell us why they're doing it. They know. What's the big secret? They don't want us to be in a position to hold them? Is that why they don't want to disclose to us? I think their charging us entitles us to that particularity when they're not delivering on what they're charging us for. Tell us specifically why they're charging us and not returning a grade for it. That's all. Then I'm a satisfied customer.

 

I am not expert, nor do I have all the experience in the world, but I have never gotten the impression that it was a secret, or that they, "were not telling us" something. Seems to me that the holder saying "details" tells us what we would need to know about said coin, doesn't it go without saying, that when you see a "details" holder or description, that it might be a really good idea to actually inspect the coin very closely under the proper lighting? IMO, at that point, if you still cant see/understand the "details" grade, well... I don't see how NGC or PCGS could be to blame for that.

 

 

[Kurtdog]

I don't think they should be charging extra for explaining to us why they're already charging us in the first place and not delivering on a grade. They're seeing something that's justifying charging us and not delivering on what we're paying them for. At least tell us what they're seeing, that's justifying that. At least, then, we get something back for the charges. In this case, it may be conspicuous, as you pointed out. This case isn't like all cases. It's along the lines of being responsible. They want to cop out on a grade in their holder, and charge us for that, tell us what their issue is, tell us why they're doing it. They know. What's the big secret? They don't want us to be in a position to hold them? Is that why they don't want to disclose to us? I think their charging us entitles us to that particularity when they're not delivering on what they're charging us for. Tell us specifically why they're charging us and not returning a grade for it. That's all. Then I'm a satisfied customer.

I am not expert, nor do I have all the experience in the world, but I have never gotten the impression that it was a secret, or that they, "were not telling us" something. Seems to me that the holder saying "details" tells us what we would need to know about said coin, doesn't it go without saying, that when you see a "details" holder or description, that it might be a really good idea to actually inspect the coin very closely under the proper lighting? IMO, at that point, if you still cant see/understand the "details" grade, well... I don't see how NGC or PCGS could be to blame for that.

When you hire a doctor for a professional opinion, and you get back, "sick," do you blame him for that? The TPGs hold themselves out as professionals, and yet we stand for "details" opinions. I don't think so. If my coin is "sick," I want to know why, I want better than, it's got "details." Maybe that's selfish. If it is, I'm sorry about it.

[coinman_23885]

But he'll know what they're taking his money for, Mark, he'll know what they're hanging the fatal designation on. He doesn't have to agree with it. He doesn't even have to discern it. I think both TPGs do a rotten job, there, it's not just NGC, and we're just accustomed, by now, to accept it, lay down for it. I think we should stand up. Or, if they want to be that imprecise, give us our money back, that's how I see it.

 

In this particular case, what would you have had NGC do differently that would have made a practical difference? I am not being the least bit facetious.

 

I do agree that in many other instances the problem can be extremely difficult to detect, without the grading company pinpointing it for the submitter.

"MEMORANDUM OF DECISION: In the learned opinion of NGC, the swipe on the cheek is not coin-to-coin contact, it's extraneous damage, necessitating a no-grade." That's on your first sentence. On your second sentence, whether it's conspicuous or not, they ought to tell us why they're taking our money.

 

 

But then people would want to know why their coin only graded "MS65" as supposed to some higher grade, etc. And if NGC is going to offer written statements on every coin then the cost of submission would go up tremendously. Are those who demand this sort of service willing to pay an extra $10-$15 a coin for this service? I bet not. And not every coin would involve a one liner and this would be unpredictable so everyone would presumably be charged this fee.

 

On another note, if you want written or oral feedback, submit it to CAC.

 

(I hope I didn't open a can of worms...)

[Kurtdog]

But he'll know what they're taking his money for, Mark, he'll know what they're hanging the fatal designation on. He doesn't have to agree with it. He doesn't even have to discern it. I think both TPGs do a rotten job, there, it's not just NGC, and we're just accustomed, by now, to accept it, lay down for it. I think we should stand up. Or, if they want to be that imprecise, give us our money back, that's how I see it.

In this particular case, what would you have had NGC do differently that would have made a practical difference? I am not being the least bit facetious.

 

I do agree that in many other instances the problem can be extremely difficult to detect, without the grading company pinpointing it for the submitter.

"MEMORANDUM OF DECISION: In the learned opinion of NGC, the swipe on the cheek is not coin-to-coin contact, it's extraneous damage, necessitating a no-grade." That's on your first sentence. On your second sentence, whether it's conspicuous or not, they ought to tell us why they're taking our money.

But then people would want to know why their coin only graded "MS65" as supposed to some higher grade, etc. And if NGC is going to offer written statements on every coin then the cost of submission would go up tremendously. Are those who demand this sort of service willing to pay an extra $10-$15 a coin for this service? I bet not. And not every coin would involve a one liner and this would be unpredictable so everyone would presumably be charged this fee.

On another note, if you want written or oral feedback, submit it to CAC.

 

(I hope I didn't open a can of worms...)

You didn't open up a can of worms. Or, if you did, I'm not going there. To stick to the subject, your MS65 analogy is inapt, as MS65 is a grade, they're giving us their professional opinion on a grade. They're not just giving, "MS." "Details" is a no-grade. What are those "details?" They purport to know them, tell us. Don't just tell us, "Details."

[AHFreak]

I hear what you are saying Kurtdog... and I understand your point, in fact, I agree.. I think I am just missing something. What I mean is, all the "details" coins I have seen (not like I have even seen very many relatively speaking) did have a reason as to why they were "details", i.e. artificial toning (your favorite), improperly cleaned, whizzed, obv wheel mark, stained, scratched, altered surfaces, environmental damage, etc.... so in my comment I was basically stating that I was under the impression that they do specify why it has a "details" grade.

 

Are you telling me that there are some coins in a "details" holder where that is all it says? Or are you saying NGC should go further in the explanation like if its "wheel mark" than tell us exactly where, how big, the wheel mark damage is? Or If its altered metal, specify what where and how is "altered"? Is that what you are saying? I think I'm sort of wondering what more is needed than said coin being slabbed in a "details" holder (with the general explanation like they do) and then with an eye-ball, loupe, and a light, (if it isn't obvious to the naked eye) you could easily find what they are talking about... maybe I lack the experience and there just are many coins where it isn't "easy" to find the reason they "details" graded it.

 

[Kurtdog]

AH, have a heart, don't get me started on my "favorite," .

 

On the rest, look, they know, don't they? Put a comment in the box with the corpus delicti. "Damaged--cuts on rim." "Cleaned--hairlines in fields." Give a clue. They purport to know what they're doing, right? Articulate it. Be particular on the certificate of death. Be accountable.

 

They're too conclusory, do you want to know? And there's no good reason for it. I think they're afraid of commitment, to tell you the truth.