Old commems what are the grading standards?

[pawnee101]

Seems like the old commemoratives have a different scale of grading to me maybe I am wrong but sure seems that way to me. The MS grades that is, marks don't seem to be the way these are graded, because most of em don't have any marks, sure confusing to me! A really clean not marked coin normally would get a really high grade, can anyone explain to me what sets the criteria for the old commems, is it mostly just the looks of the coin or what? I would love to spend one day in the grading room just as an observer and be allowed to ask questions. Would be interesting day for sure!

[Oldtrader3]

Since most of these did not circulate, I would venture to say that eye appeal, luster, strike, handling marks and hairlines are the criteria for grading these coins. Similar to grading proof coins.

[pawnee101]

I got one back a California that I thought was perfect with a no grade on a crossover from ICG 65 holder, and the explaination on the coin for why it wouldn't cross was (Thick Tone)I thought it was lovely tone HMMM! Well how thick can tone be and still grade? Guess I should have measured the tone before sending it must have been 2 mollicules to thick.

[mommam17]

Did the tone affect the luster? Did it mute the luster in any way? Nice coins should have the luster bursting through the toning. Just a thought about no crossover.

[James_OldeTowne]

I will state this - and I hope nobody at NGC takes this the wrong way, because I'm trying to make an objective observation here.

 

At the Ivey-Selkirk auction that I attended a couple of weeks ago, the auction house had submitted about 1/3 of the consignor's Booker T's. At least a dozen of these coins were graded MS-66 or higher by NGC, and in my opinion, they were among the poorest "gems" I've ever seen, with an awful lot of bagmarks and chicken-scratches on the cheeks and in the fields. There were quite a few whispered comments regarding "loose grading" on those particular coins, though the grading on other coins (shield nickels, Liberty nickels, Indian head cents) did seem up to par. Evidently, the audience was aware of the very loose grading on the BTWs, because they sold for way below sheet.

 

James

[pawnee101]

What gets me is the California commem its a hard one for them to get right, I think personally, it has a lot of marks that are hard to disinguish from mint markings, especially on the reverse bear, I have submitted the same coin to several graders and always a different outcome, just a really tough one for the graders I think, pcgs at 63 anacs at 62 ngc at 64 icg 65 same coin!!

[gmarguli]

At the Ivey-Selkirk auction that I attended a couple of weeks ago, the auction house had submitted about 1/3 of the consignor's Booker T's. At least a dozen of these coins were graded MS-66 or higher by NGC, and in my opinion, they were among the poorest "gems" I've ever seen, with an awful lot of bagmarks and chicken-scratches on the cheeks and in the fields. There were quite a few whispered comments regarding "loose grading" on those particular coins

 

BTWs are a very misunderstood coin when it comes to grading. You will find that many of the coins have what appears to be "chicken-scratches" and hits on the cheek/face, but is really just the result of being poorly struck. You can find coins in MS67 slabs (NGC & PCGS) that will have some of these "features" on the coins. The obverse design also allows for hits to really show, which is also taken into consideration when grading them.

 

In the early days of certification, I used to be able to buy BTWs from dealers as MS63 since they has the SOS pad face and submit them and get an MS65 or MS66.