Curiosity got the better of me....

[Afterword]

Some of you will no doubt remember these coins - especially the 1924. NGC gave the 1924 a details grade of "Artificially Toned" and the 1928 a details grade of "Environmental Damage".

 

Presented, for what it is worth.

 

 

 

 

 

[bsshog40]

I've taken my pic down. I mis-read your post and thought it meant something else. Hope I didn't hijack it too bad.

[Raisethis2]

The Peace Dollar toning might be real but I suspect NGC got it right. The SLQ is dark but unless it's got actual corrosion it should straight grade IMO. I think PCGS got that one right.

[Nutmeg Coin]

Are there objective criteria being used in judging coins as problem? What if they are wrong? Heck, I've had NGC call a Bust coin "environmental damage" that came back after NCS did their thing as XF45 and sold quickly.

[bochiman]

Too hard from the pictures for me to say.

 

Both NGC and PCGS had them raw, and in hand, and could evaluate them better.

Obviously, PCGS felt they were worth putting in NP holders and putting their guarantee on the line for the coins.

[brg5658]

Too hard from the pictures for me to say.

 

Both NGC and PCGS had them raw, and in hand, and could evaluate them better.

Obviously, PCGS felt they were worth putting in NP holders and putting their guarantee on the line for the coins.

 

What's left of their guarantee. Outside of guaranteeing they are genuine, minted coins from the US Mint, I'm not sure what else you perceive them putting on the line here. PCGS defines the coins as market acceptable -- what they say goes. By that I mean, once a coin is in their problem-free plastic, it will trade freely and very few will even think twice about it's validity.

[Afterword]

The fact that the two TPGs have differing opinions on these two coins, demonstrates the subjective nature of coin grading, and nothing more.

 

In my opinion, neither TPG is wrong.

[Nutmeg Coin]

Too hard from the pictures for me to say.

 

Both NGC and PCGS had them raw, and in hand, and could evaluate them better.

Obviously, PCGS felt they were worth putting in NP holders and putting their guarantee on the line for the coins.

 

What's left of their guarantee. Outside of guaranteeing they are genuine, minted coins from the US Mint, I'm not sure what else you perceive them putting on the line here. PCGS defines the coins as market acceptable -- what they say goes. By that I mean, once a coin is in their problem-free plastic, it will trade freely and very few will even think twice about it's validity.

 

And looking at their statistics page there is a precious small chance of the coin being sent in for their guarantee: http://www.pcgs.com/Statistics/

 

Possibly if you had enough evidence in the form of long term dealer/experts saying a given coin represented a threat to the hobby if the grade stood, they would take the issue seriously. Not likely. Would they CAC? That would be a test.

[Afterword]

"Would they CAC? That would be a test."

 

 

 

How would you know why they did not earn a sticker?

[brg5658]

"Would they CAC? That would be a test."

 

How would you know why they did not earn a sticker?

 

Ask John Albanese. Many here have talked to him on the phone to discuss specific reasons why CAC didn't bless their coins. It's still just one man's opinion though -- so even with CAC, it's not magical.

 

 

[e1cnr]

Too hard from the pictures for me to say.

 

Both NGC and PCGS had them raw, and in hand, and could evaluate them better.

Obviously, PCGS felt they were worth putting in NP holders and putting their guarantee on the line for the coins.

 

What's left of their guarantee. Outside of guaranteeing they are genuine, minted coins from the US Mint, I'm not sure what else you perceive them putting on the line here. PCGS defines the coins as market acceptable -- what they say goes. By that I mean, once a coin is in their problem-free plastic, it will trade freely and very few will even think twice about it's validity.

 

And looking at their statistics page there is a precious small chance of the coin being sent in for their guarantee: http://www.pcgs.com/Statistics/

 

Possibly if you had enough evidence in the form of long term dealer/experts saying a given coin represented a threat to the hobby if the grade stood, they would take the issue seriously. Not likely. Would they CAC? That would be a test.

 

Their warranty submission costs might even cover their claims paid....

[RWB]

The obvious solution is to send your coins to V. Putin All Russia Coin Grading and Invading Service. Top customer service - you tell them what grade you want and that's the grade you get!

[Afterword]

If grading is just an opinion, why does the topic of which TPG grades the most accurately come up so often? And when it does come up, do we not side with the TPG that most often agrees with our own opinion? And if we use this TPG, are we not then paying for the grade we want?

[brg5658]

For the record, I like the look of that Peace dollar. It has a very pretty lustrous appeal to it.

 

 

[Nutmeg Coin]

NGC has a reputation for being the most reliable. PCGS is stricter in some series, more a grading "style" focusing on overall aesthetic qualities, not so much technical analysis. It's tougher to get a PCGS AU58 than one with NGC in my experience. Probably the painful lessons PCGS has gotten over the years through guarantee submissions, especially after 2008 with the doctoring issues, colored their grading so they wouldn't go through that again.

[Afterword]

For the record, I like the look of that Peace dollar. It has a very pretty lustrous appeal to it.

 

 

 

Thanks. I like it as well, regardless of what the label says or does not say. I also have a 1893 Columbian half that is one of my favorite coins, even though the label says it has been "cleaned".

[jerseycat10]

I like both coins and I think pcgs got them right.

 

And why are people calling for CAC as the tiebreaker? CAC is just one man's opinion.