• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Another half eagle for your best guess at grade, you'll love this one

29 posts in this topic

63? I like the color of this one.

 

that's what drew my eye to it too, it is hard to find attractive naturally toned gold with original surfaces and this sure is a beauty!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm assuming a couple of you have found this coin for sale on the internet since I noticed one person changed his opinion from AU50 to MS64. The typical opinion here, and rightly so in my personal opinion, is MS62-63.

 

I'll say only this- I have about fifty MS62 and MS63 slabs (half eagles, top 2 TPGS only) in my collection and almost every single one of them has half the marks that this one does. I buy only attractive top of the grade coins for my set whenever I can so most of mine look nicer than the technical grade I admit, but that doesn't mean they're all MS64's, they're just very nice choice coins. This one, in my humble opinion, is MS63 and only due to the outstanding luster, color and eye appeal. It doesn't even have a sharp strike, so if graded by 'old days' standards, this would grade below MS63 at best, again in my humble but experienced opinion.

 

I'll post the photo of the slab in a day or two after everyone has had a chance to speak their mind. Thanks for the grades, I love a concensus but it appears there won't be one on this coin. And remember, everyone has their own standards so all opinions should be respected no matter how far out of line they are from the norm. We're all here to learn...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well that makes perfect sense, in fact, I read that lighting makes a huge difference in the appearance of a coin, the book even said specifically, if you are using halogen lamps to grade. (Or photograph) they can make a MS65 coin look MS63... I forget which book that is, maybe the ANA guide to grading US coins?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

65?!?

 

Well, I guess what I've learned from these past couple of threads is that Half Eagle grading is weird....

 

I have collected everything imaginable since PCGS and NGC started slabbing coins and I can tell you for sure that if it isn't a perfect modern, there will be plenty of mistakes made grading *every* classic series. I have seen AU58's labeled MS65 and I have seen MS63's labeled AU58 and everything else you could imagine that a human could err on. Even worse is their inane details 'grades'- a coin grades what it grades without regard for it's condition. And worse yet, when it states the problem but doesn't say where- how many have you seen that you couldn't find the defect stated on the holder?

 

The problem here is that people put a lot of faith and bet a lot of money on what may be just a human error.

 

The whole point of this exercise is to show those who think it not important to know how to grade that they could more easily be a victim of an over-graded or improperly evaluated coin out of blind trust for the grade on the holder. I have seen so many garbage slabs (yes, I'm talking the top two TPG's) on ebay the last few years that it has obviously become a dumping ground for problem slabs. I have sent back several high value slabs (a couple thousand dollars or more) in the past year or so but I can't remember returning anything raw in that period, demonstrating how dangerous it can be to put blind trust in the cert in the holder.

 

It is my experienced opinion that this coin is a 63 at best based solely on how many patches of marks on both sides of the coin. The numerical grade is a technical grade- it is based on marks, strike, luster and eye appeal. This coin has eye appeal due to outstanding luster but the number and severity of the bag marks warrants a much lower grade than given in my humble opinion. Look closely at it and you'll notice there isn't a ten square millimeter area anywhere on the obverse that doesn't have a mark or number of marks on it- that can't be a gem, sorry. A heavily bagmarked coin like this has never rated a grade higer than MS63 and if regraded, my bet is it would grade MS62 or 63.

 

Someone likely made a clerical error on this piece, and someone else is going to trust that grade and sock this one away in a bank box for half a lifetime until he realizes that no dealer will purchase it at that grade. It is a shame, but that's the reality of it. This demonstrates how important it is to LEARN TO GRADE before buying an expensive slab.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

65?!?

 

Well, I guess what I've learned from these past couple of threads is that Half Eagle grading is weird....

 

I have collected everything imaginable since PCGS and NGC started slabbing coins and I can tell you for sure that if it isn't a perfect modern, there will be plenty of mistakes made grading *every* classic series. I have seen AU58's labeled MS65 and I have seen MS63's labeled AU58 and everything else you could imagine that a human could err on. Even worse is their inane details 'grades'- a coin grades what it grades without regard for it's condition. And worse yet, when it states the problem but doesn't say where- how many have you seen that you couldn't find the defect stated on the holder?

 

The problem here is that people put a lot of faith and bet a lot of money on what may be just a human error.

 

The whole point of this exercise is to show those who think it not important to know how to grade that they could more easily be a victim of an over-graded or improperly evaluated coin out of blind trust for the grade on the holder. I have seen so many garbage slabs (yes, I'm talking the top two TPG's) on ebay the last few years that it has obviously become a dumping ground for problem slabs. I have sent back several high value slabs (a couple thousand dollars or more) in the past year or so but I can't remember returning anything raw in that period, demonstrating how dangerous it can be to put blind trust in the cert in the holder.

 

It is my experienced opinion that this coin is a 63 at best based solely on how many patches of marks on both sides of the coin. The numerical grade is a technical grade- it is based on marks, strike, luster and eye appeal. This coin has eye appeal due to outstanding luster but the number and severity of the bag marks warrants a much lower grade than given in my humble opinion. Look closely at it and you'll notice there isn't a ten square millimeter area anywhere on the obverse that doesn't have a mark or number of marks on it- that can't be a gem, sorry. A heavily bagmarked coin like this has never rated a grade higer than MS63 and if regraded, my bet is it would grade MS62 or 63.

 

Someone likely made a clerical error on this piece, and someone else is going to trust that grade and sock this one away in a bank box for half a lifetime until he realizes that no dealer will purchase it at that grade. It is a shame, but that's the reality of it. This demonstrates how important it is to LEARN TO GRADE before buying an expensive slab.

 

I don't believe it was a clerical error or I wouldn't have guessed it graded 65 (before you revealed the grade).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well that makes perfect sense, in fact, I read that lighting makes a huge difference in the appearance of a coin, the book even said specifically, if you are using halogen lamps to grade. (Or photograph) they can make a MS65 coin look MS63... I forget which book that is, maybe the ANA guide to grading US coins?

 

I have been photographing our collection for sale for several years and can tell you that photography didn't add all those bag marks. Not sure how you can ignore the numerous patches of bag marks, some are pretty severe when considering the grade given. Look up MS65 examples on the internet and compare- most will have very clean surfaces, that is how to grade a gem MS65, not this. If you look at the Official ANA grading guide you will see that this coin can't grade 65 and would be a stretch at MS63. No disrespect to the owner or graders, I'm trying to point out that it's just human error that put this coin in a MS65 slab. These are graded much like Morgan dollars and we all know what a Morgan dollar with this many bag marks would grade. With all respect for your opinion, lighting didn't put those marks all over the coin and at best all photography can do is hide them, as can be seen in the obverse full slab shot. The marks are much too severe to even pretend the coin warrants a gem or near gem grade- technically it is what it is- a non-gem, a choice looking lower end unc imho.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

65?!?

 

Well, I guess what I've learned from these past couple of threads is that Half Eagle grading is weird....

 

I have collected everything imaginable since PCGS and NGC started slabbing coins and I can tell you for sure that if it isn't a perfect modern, there will be plenty of mistakes made grading *every* classic series. I have seen AU58's labeled MS65 and I have seen MS63's labeled AU58 and everything else you could imagine that a human could err on. Even worse is their inane details 'grades'- a coin grades what it grades without regard for it's condition. And worse yet, when it states the problem but doesn't say where- how many have you seen that you couldn't find the defect stated on the holder?

 

The problem here is that people put a lot of faith and bet a lot of money on what may be just a human error.

 

The whole point of this exercise is to show those who think it not important to know how to grade that they could more easily be a victim of an over-graded or improperly evaluated coin out of blind trust for the grade on the holder. I have seen so many garbage slabs (yes, I'm talking the top two TPG's) on ebay the last few years that it has obviously become a dumping ground for problem slabs. I have sent back several high value slabs (a couple thousand dollars or more) in the past year or so but I can't remember returning anything raw in that period, demonstrating how dangerous it can be to put blind trust in the cert in the holder.

 

It is my experienced opinion that this coin is a 63 at best based solely on how many patches of marks on both sides of the coin. The numerical grade is a technical grade- it is based on marks, strike, luster and eye appeal. This coin has eye appeal due to outstanding luster but the number and severity of the bag marks warrants a much lower grade than given in my humble opinion. Look closely at it and you'll notice there isn't a ten square millimeter area anywhere on the obverse that doesn't have a mark or number of marks on it- that can't be a gem, sorry. A heavily bagmarked coin like this has never rated a grade higer than MS63 and if regraded, my bet is it would grade MS62 or 63.

 

Someone likely made a clerical error on this piece, and someone else is going to trust that grade and sock this one away in a bank box for half a lifetime until he realizes that no dealer will purchase it at that grade. It is a shame, but that's the reality of it. This demonstrates how important it is to LEARN TO GRADE before buying an expensive slab.

 

I don't believe it was a clerical error or I wouldn't have guessed it graded 65 (before you revealed the grade).

 

so you can see all the marks, and not just marks, but patches of marks, all over the coin and you still would grade it 65? Please explain your reasoning, I don't understand, and I do know how to grade these proficiently. Do you use your own standards, 'market grading', or official ANA standards? I use ANA standards but compare to PCGS and NGC also, and I have rarely seen a coin with this many marks in a holder graded higher than MS63. Like I said, I have a LOT of MS63 and 62 slabs in my collection and none have near as many marks. This one has them in the most obvious areas as well as hidden thoughout the devices so how can this be reconciled?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe it was a clerical error or I wouldn't have guessed it graded 65 (before you revealed the grade).

 

so you can see all the marks, and not just marks, but patches of marks, all over the coin and you still would grade it 65? Please explain your reasoning, I don't understand, and I do know how to grade these proficiently. Do you use your own standards, 'market grading', or official ANA standards? I use ANA standards but compare to PCGS and NGC also, and I have rarely seen a coin with this many marks in a holder graded higher than MS63. Like I said, I have a LOT of MS63 and 62 slabs in my collection and none have near as many marks. This one has them in the most obvious areas as well as hidden thoughout the devices so how can this be reconciled?

 

Since he is a former NGC grader and cameo CAC grader in the past, it would be based on prevailing TPG/market standards and not personal standards. I suspect this is the type of coin he would have avoided as a dealer given the numerous abrasions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is certainly frosty, and has a fresh, just off the dies, look to it - except for the marks, of course. Morgans with this kind of frosty and fresh appearance can have many marks and still grade gem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is certainly frosty, and has a fresh, just off the dies, look to it - except for the marks, of course. Morgans with this kind of frosty and fresh appearance can have many marks and still grade gem.

 

Grade inflation is rampant in that series.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is certainly frosty, and has a fresh, just off the dies, look to it - except for the marks, of course. Morgans with this kind of frosty and fresh appearance can have many marks and still grade gem.

 

Grade inflation is rampant in that series.

 

 

 

Maybe it is contagious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe it was a clerical error or I wouldn't have guessed it graded 65 (before you revealed the grade).

 

so you can see all the marks, and not just marks, but patches of marks, all over the coin and you still would grade it 65? Please explain your reasoning, I don't understand, and I do know how to grade these proficiently. Do you use your own standards, 'market grading', or official ANA standards? I use ANA standards but compare to PCGS and NGC also, and I have rarely seen a coin with this many marks in a holder graded higher than MS63. Like I said, I have a LOT of MS63 and 62 slabs in my collection and none have near as many marks. This one has them in the most obvious areas as well as hidden thoughout the devices so how can this be reconciled?

 

Since he is a former NGC grader and cameo CAC grader in the past, it would be based on prevailing TPG/market standards and not personal standards. I suspect this is the type of coin he would have avoided as a dealer given the numerous abrasions.

 

Correct on all counts. I would grade it 64 at best. But I would not grade it as low as 62, and possibly not 63, either.

 

My MS65 grade guess was based on what I see in NGC (and to a lesser extent) and PCGS holders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very interesting ...

 

When I bought this 1907-D half eagle, which is in an NGC MS-65 holder, I thought that it was a bit marginal for the grade, but the price was right. Then I looked at a couple of PCGS MS-65, CAC coins, that were priced at $1,100 more (That's like 33% more.) and found that the two were quite similar.

 

1907-D5O.jpg1907-D5R.jpg

 

I guess you need to buy one in MS-66 or 67, which will require a second mortgage on your house, to get one that really looks like an MS-65 to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is certainly frosty, and has a fresh, just off the dies, look to it - except for the marks, of course. Morgans with this kind of frosty and fresh appearance can have many marks and still grade gem.

 

I have collected gem Morgans since adolescence and would never consider a coin with that many marks a gem, and even though it has a choice appearance, the technical grade is much different than the condition of the luster or eye appeal. I would have rejected anything that marked up, outstanding eye appeal or not, simply because a true gem can not be marked that much. Again, to each his own, but I don't see how you get MS65 money for that coin once you've paid the price to procure it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very interesting ...

 

When I bought this 1907-D half eagle, which is in an NGC MS-65 holder, I thought that it was a bit marginal for the grade, but the price was right. Then I looked at a couple of PCGS MS-65, CAC coins, that were priced at $1,100 more (That's like 33% more.) and found that the two were quite similar.

 

1907-D5O.jpg1907-D5R.jpg

 

I guess you need to buy one in MS-66 or 67, which will require a second mortgage on your house, to get one that really looks like an MS-65 to me.

 

I agree that market grading has caused gradeflation but not really so much in this series- I have an extensive collection and follow all the auctions as well as ebay and can say with conviction that this one is way off the charts for sure but for the most part, these are graded fairly conservatively. I reject a lot of MS64 and MS65 coins because I like top of the grade slabs in my set but they get them right most of the time (98-99%) imho. Also I'll add that I don't collect MS65 examples simply because they are overpriced for their scarcity level unless you get lucky enough to find a condition rarity at that grade level, but then it is so expensive that most collectors can't spring for it. Nice example shown sir, I see nice gems in 65 holders all the time and if the market corrects I might add a few to my set, but a really nice 63 or 64 can look just as nice if you are picky enough, and you can buy three or four nice ones for the same money a properly graded 65 can cost, thus my reasoning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe it was a clerical error or I wouldn't have guessed it graded 65 (before you revealed the grade).

 

so you can see all the marks, and not just marks, but patches of marks, all over the coin and you still would grade it 65? Please explain your reasoning, I don't understand, and I do know how to grade these proficiently. Do you use your own standards, 'market grading', or official ANA standards? I use ANA standards but compare to PCGS and NGC also, and I have rarely seen a coin with this many marks in a holder graded higher than MS63. Like I said, I have a LOT of MS63 and 62 slabs in my collection and none have near as many marks. This one has them in the most obvious areas as well as hidden thoughout the devices so how can this be reconciled?

 

Since he is a former NGC grader and cameo CAC grader in the past, it would be based on prevailing TPG/market standards and not personal standards. I suspect this is the type of coin he would have avoided as a dealer given the numerous abrasions.

 

Correct on all counts. I would grade it 64 at best. But I would not grade it as low as 62, and possibly not 63, either.

 

My MS65 grade guess was based on what I see in NGC (and to a lesser extent) and PCGS holders.

 

Agreed, and it is difficult to grade any coin by mere photos as some of those marks likely don't show as well in hand so you're right- a 62 might be too harsh without personally viewing the coin.

 

I understand your reasoning Mark, but that lends to 'market grading', a scourge on the hobby in my opinion and the biggest cause of gradeflation that I can see. When will professionals (no insult intended to present company) understand that what they're now doing is destructive to the hobby? How do we get intelligent people to become new collectors when anyone with a little intelligence can see what a mess they've caused? Why would they trust an opinion on a slab when one looks so much different than the next in the same grade holder? That is why PCGS and NGC are not my guide- the ANA grading guide is what I base my grades on, and it is becoming rather difficult to reconcile those standards with today's market grading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is certainly frosty, and has a fresh, just off the dies, look to it - except for the marks, of course. Morgans with this kind of frosty and fresh appearance can have many marks and still grade gem.

 

I have collected gem Morgans since adolescence and would never consider a coin with that many marks a gem, and even though it has a choice appearance, the technical grade is much different than the condition of the luster or eye appeal. I would have rejected anything that marked up, outstanding eye appeal or not, simply because a true gem can not be marked that much. Again, to each his own, but I don't see how you get MS65 money for that coin once you've paid the price to procure it...

 

 

 

Fortunately, I do not collect gold coins or Morgans. I have one gold coin I inherited and a half a dozen or so Morgans. At least half of the Morgans were come-a-longs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites