Star Designations...tighter.....looser.....?

[bigd5]

We occasionally talk about how the services have "tightened" or "loosened" in their grading.

 

Have we figured out if the * designation has gone through a "tightening" or "loosening" phase as of yet?

 

Was NGC more liberal at the "beginning" (or currently) handing out these *'s, or has it seemed to be relatively constant?

[ArtR]

Was NGC more liberal at the "beginning"

When it came to Morgan Dollars that were in the Binion Hoard which were the first Morgans to carry the Star Designation I would have to say Yes.

I have viewed many of these coins that carried the Star that in my opinion did not have exceptional eye appeal. This is a very subjective designation that can change from one submission to another.The old eyes of the beholder thing.What has exceptional eye appeal to me may not hold true in the eyes of some one else.

A case of fact 3 Textile Toned Morgans submitted for grading none received the star. A few months later the same coins were resubmitted and received the star.So as far as being constant in some cases I would have to say no.

[bigd5]

I did notice the Binion coins, as well as sporadic "other" singles, that really left one "puzzled" at how they could receive a * with a 15% crescent tone and really not much else to offer (example).

 

Sure, a pretty coin, but worthy of a *? I would think the majority would not agree with that designation on those coins.

 

Also, I would see these "borderline" * coins pop up on Teletrade, and the prices realized quickly fell over a short period of time. In essence, the market adjusting, most likely due to an overflow of these "borderline" * coins hitting the pavement in such a short period of time.

 

The Binion coins seem to have a seperate allure or demand, and haven't dipped in the same manner, or so it seams. Admittedly I don't follow those coins too, too closely, so I could be wrong, but that's my observation, for now.

[ArtR]

The Binion coins seem to have a seperate allure or demand, and haven't dipped in the same manner, or so it seams. Admittedly I don't follow those coins too, too closely, so I could be wrong, but that's my observation, for now.

The prices are staying up there because of the pedigree on the holder.

[TomB]

The Binion pedigree is one of the pedigrees that has me scratching my head in disbelief that folks would pay extra for, but that is only my opinion and I do not mean to denigrate those show like these coins.

 

As for the star holders, I send in relatively few coins and as such, I have never received a star. I will say, though, that there have been a very small percentage of star holder coins that I thought should not have been given the star. Again, this is only my opinion and I do not know the timeframe for each of these coins in terms of getting graded.

[gmarguli]

Have we figured out if the * designation has gone through a "tightening" or "loosening" phase as of yet?

 

I think it depends on series. The Buffalo & Jefferson nickel series are frequently awarded Star Designations way too easily. In fact, so much so that I think these two series dilute the value of the Star Designation moreso than any of those Binion coins.

 

Same thing with the one sided cameo coins getting the designation. I wish NGC had used a different designation for these coins.

[michael]

i love the star designation but i have found way too many morgan dollars receiving the star that are not even attractive to me

 

also i have seen some other coins that did not deserve the star whatsoever

 

but there have been some i have seen that have received the star that are killer amazing monster toned coins and also superlative high grades these coins are the NUTS

 

and others that had no star and where as amazing or evenmoreso than the amazing star coins i have seen

 

so in conclusion if you see a gem or super gem graded coin in an ngc holder and it has a star or notand it is an amazing killer coin technical wise and also eye appeaL WISE then it is great for me take these and leave all the rest

 

 

let it be written let it be done

[bigd5]

Have we figured out if the * designation has gone through a "tightening" or "loosening" phase as of yet?

 

The Buffalo & Jefferson nickel series are frequently awarded Star Designations way too easily. In fact, so much so that I think these two series dilute the value of the Star Designation moreso than any of those Binion coins.

 

Same thing with the one sided cameo coins getting the designation. I wish NGC had used a different designation for these coins.

 

Interesting. I really haven't seen any buffalo or Jefferson nickel coins that I would classify as blatantly "unstarworthy".

 

I wholeheartedly agree with the one sided cameo coins comment. I've seen *'s on some Frankies like this, and the designation really doesn't fit the coin, in my opinion.

[airplanenut]

A case of fact 3 Textile Toned Morgans submitted for grading none received the star. A few months later the same coins were resubmitted and received the star.So as far as being constant in some cases I would have to say no.

I think part of the problem is the extreme subjectivity of the star. With a grade, while there's subjective wiggle-room, most pro graders pretty much agree with a coin within a point. The star, however, is dependent on whether the particular grader really likes the look of a coin. One grader can love a certain type of color and star it, another may see it as just "nice."

 

Jeremy

[airplanenut]

Oh, I'll also say that I have coins with identical toning, one with a star, and one without. I'd guess that's some bit of a consistency issue, unless they factor in the numeric grade, as well, in some part of the formula.

[chinook]

I like the idea of the *. However I dont need NGC to tell me that a coin has superior eye appeal. Although I too have seen many * Morgans that to me were just average.

 

I also like it on modern cameo coins. Obviously a one sided cameo is more attractive than a non cameo, and thereofore is above average for the given grade.

[GoYankees]

I just submitted a 1971-S proof nickel that is ultra cameo on the obverse and brilliant on the reverse. However, there's a noticable mark above the Montecello home on the reverse. I'm hoping for a PF65* or PR66*.

[TomB]

I like the idea of the *. However I dont need NGC to tell me that a coin has superior eye appeal.

 

I believe that that is an absolutely terrific statement by chinook. The * designation has real value when one looks at it in terms of marketing the NGC Registry since these coins are worth 25% more points than their non-star counterparts and, as such, participants are more likely to include NGC product in the NGC Registry. It also puts some pressure on PCGS to follow a similar route.

[EZ_E]

The Binion coins seem to have a seperate allure or demand, and haven't dipped in the same manner, or so it seams. Admittedly I don't follow those coins too, too closely, so I could be wrong, but that's my observation, for now.

The prices are staying up there because of the pedigree on the holder.

 

 

Any idea what the market price is for common date Binion Morgans in MS 63 and MS 64?

 

Thanks!

[coinman1794]

I love the star designation, or at least the concept. It's great, in my opinion, to recognize a wonderful looking coin for what it is. However, I have seen too many coins that do not deserve the designation, and, at the same time, my beautiful coins won't make it. I have submitted coins that had absolutely phenominal eye apeal and that also met all the standards for the star designation, but which did not receive it, even after multiple tries! Then I sometimes come across these literally ugly coins with a star! I am not going to waist any more grading fees looking for the star designation. It is applied way too inconsistently to be useful.

[bigd5]

 

Do you have any more specific examples of the above?

 

I may not agree with all of the star designated coins out there, but I found virtually all of them to be attractive, and I would never use "ugly" to describe any of them.

 

Although some of those Frankies........

[coinman1794]

Most of the coins that are ugly but have a star are those that have a special characteristic, such as a cameo obverse, or DMPL obverse, etc. Sometimes NGC lets eye appeal rules slide in favor of wanting to note a special characteristic. However, this isn't always the case; it's inconsistent.

 

I have also seen a coin here and there that had ugly, dark, near black toning and had absolutley no right to get a star (under the star designation rules), but still did. These are the really irritating ones!

 

Further, most early-slab (maybe 1999-2001) NGC state quarters that were given a star have since toned with ugly haze, and are no longer worthy. (Actually, many State Quarters originally received a star because they were PL. For some reason NGC didn't want to put PL on the holders for these. Usually, when resubmitted, they will get PL and the star will be removed. You will almost never see a state quarter receive the star designation, anymore.)