How is this MS63???

[BillJones]

Here is one that I have with an obviously weak strike: http://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/FQgAAOSw37tV-xwY/s-l1600.jpg

http://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/3o8AAOSwQPlV-xxM/s-l1600.jpg

 

I bought it as a weakly struck nice Unc. from a PNG dealer. I'm not sure how the grading service can factor in all the strong and weak points on any given coin.

 

Although it has the attributes of an MS-64 with respect to marks and luster, the strike would keep me from paying MS-64 money for it. There is a reason that it is in an ICG holder. It would have little chance crossing to a PCGS or NGC holder in that grade.

 

Strike does matter when it comes to grading. If a particular issue can be found decently or well struck, the poorly struck coins bring lower prices. If ALL of the coins from a particular issue are poorly struck, like the 1855-C gold dollar, the you take what you can get. By the way PCGS has never graded an 1855-C gold dollar higher that MS-61. The reason the initial quality of the coin.

[Afterword]

"Strike does matter when it comes to grading. If a particular issue can be found decently or well struck, the poorly struck coins bring lower prices."

 

 

 

 

Unless I am not understanding correctly, you are saying that a coin with a poor mint strike receives a lesser grade because it does not do as well in the market as one with a better strike (identical coins otherwise). Is this not market grading?

 

I ask this because some seem to condone certain forms of market grading but condemn other forms. Can a grade based (at least in part) on what a coin sells for in the market be a good thing? Should price play a part in determining grade?

 

When a coin is graded does originality only matter if it is attractive? If so, would this not make it little more than a beauty contest?

 

IS coin grading a beauty contest, and does the market define for the TPGs what makes coins attractive by the prices they realize?

 

 

[BillJones]

A poorly struck coin with a high grade on it is "C" coin. It will not sell for the big money to any collector who knows what he or she is doing. It will either be a "trap" for an inexperienced collector, or a "bargain basement" registry coin for those want points but don't really care about the coin.

 

Originality only counts if the coin is attractive. An ugly original coin is hard to sell for the grade assigned. That's part of reason why so many coins have been dipped or cleaned.

 

To me "market grading" is defined as assigning a higher than warranted grade to a coin because the market will accept it. Downgrading a piece because it is poorly struck is not market grading. Collectors and dealers have been lowering grades for poor strikes for many years. You can go back to articles in "The Numismatist" published in the 1940s that discuss this issue.

 

When a coin gets a grade of MS-66 or 67 or higher, you should expect that the piece has an exceptional strike. If it doesn't, it's over graded.

 

If you want test my advice, go try and sell a poorly struck coin like one in ICG holder and see what dealers are willing to pay you for it. You will be unpleasantly surprised.

[Afterword]

"To me "market grading" is defined as assigning a higher than warranted grade to a coin because the market will accept it. Downgrading a piece because it is poorly struck is not market grading."

 

 

 

If a coin is downgraded because it is poorly struck, is it because the market will not accept it? If so, it sounds like market grading to me.

[BillJones]

Poorly struck coins are worth less that well struck pieces in most cases. Just ask anyone who collects Charlotte and Dahlonega coins. The coins with poor reverse and weak mint marks sell for less. Ditti for the "weak D" 1911-D quarter eagles.

 

I've taken the time to explain the issue to you, and you don't seem to want to believe it so there is not much else I can do.

[Afterword]

Poorly struck coins are worth less that well struck pieces in most cases. Just ask anyone who collects Charlotte and Dahlonega coins. The coins with poor reverse and weak mint marks sell for less. Ditti for the "weak D" 1911-D quarter eagles.

 

I've taken the time to explain the issue to you, and you don't seem to want to believe it so there is not much else I can do.

 

 

 

I agree with want you say above. Unfortunately, it does not have anything to do with what I have been talking about.

[MarkFeld]

Poorly struck coins are worth less that well struck pieces in most cases. Just ask anyone who collects Charlotte and Dahlonega coins. The coins with poor reverse and weak mint marks sell for less. Ditti for the "weak D" 1911-D quarter eagles.

 

I've taken the time to explain the issue to you, and you don't seem to want to believe it so there is not much else I can do.

 

 

 

I agree with want you say above. Unfortunately, it does not have anything to do with what I have been talking about.

 

I think I understand your point about downgrading a coin which is weakly struck (and worth less,as a result), amounting to "market grading". Perhaps Bill believes that such coins are down-graded due solely to weak strike and not the lower values which result. If so, that would explain why he doesn't consider it to be market grading.

[Afterword]

Thanks, Mark. I guess you are right.

 

At any rate, now I have a headache and I am going to take a nap.

[numisport]

A poorly struck coin with a high grade on it is "C" coin. It will not sell for the big money to any collector who knows what he or she is doing. It will either be a "trap" for an inexperienced collector, or a "bargain basement" registry coin for those want points but don't really care about the coin.

 

Originality only counts if the coin is attractive. An ugly original coin is hard to sell for the grade assigned. That's part of reason why so many coins have been dipped or cleaned.

 

To me "market grading" is defined as assigning a higher than warranted grade to a coin because the market will accept it. Downgrading a piece because it is poorly struck is not market grading. Collectors and dealers have been lowering grades for poor strikes for many years. You can go back to articles in "The Numismatist" published in the 1940s that discuss this issue.

 

When a coin gets a grade of MS-66 or 67 or higher, you should expect that the piece has an exceptional strike. If it doesn't, it's over graded.

 

If you want test my advice, go try and sell a poorly struck coin like one in ICG holder and see what dealers are willing to pay you for it. You will be unpleasantly surprised.

I agree with your definition of 'market grade' however this coin is an A or B coin according to CAC although in a low grade holder. Coin could be 64 and not CAC ?

[coinman1794]

The obverse looks AU55 at best.

http://www.greatcollections.com/Coin/367139/1917-D-Walking-Liberty-Half-Dollar-Obverse-Mintmark-PCGS-MS-63-CAC-Toned

 

Pre-1921 Walkers are known for being weakly struck like this. The discoloration makes it seem like wear in the pictures, but luster probably shows on the high points, when viewed in-hand. It would not have gotten a CAC sticker this was wear.

[Walkerfan]

Here is one that I have with an obviously weak strike: http://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/FQgAAOSw37tV-xwY/s-l1600.jpg

http://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/3o8AAOSwQPlV-xxM/s-l1600.jpg

 

I bought it as a weakly struck nice Unc. from a PNG dealer. I'm not sure how the grading service can factor in all the strong and weak points on any given coin.

 

Although it has the attributes of an MS-64 with respect to marks and luster, the strike would keep me from paying MS-64 money for it. There is a reason that it is in an ICG holder. It would have little chance crossing to a PCGS or NGC holder in that grade.

 

Strike does matter when it comes to grading. If a particular issue can be found decently or well struck, the poorly struck coins bring lower prices. If ALL of the coins from a particular issue are poorly struck, like the 1855-C gold dollar, the you take what you can get. By the way PCGS has never graded an 1855-C gold dollar higher that MS-61. The reason the initial quality of the coin.

 

The 1945-S does come very weakly struck. Finding a decent one begins at the MS 66 level. I searched long and hard for mine. Fully struck 45-S coins don't exist IMHO. If this 64 was struck better it would be a 65 or 66. I feel that the 64 grade is appropriate. Certainly not below 63.

[Nutmeg Coin]

I thought it was a nice coin. Paid $40 or a little more don't remember exactly. ICG is cheap and fast, holders are substandard though. NGC in economy is the next best option for me on lower value coins much faster than PCGS. I have serious questions about PCGS and their guarantees though I like their holders more.

 

Better to have it in a holder than not, and I would agree overgraded coins or coins that aren't all there sell at a discount. The day when people bought coins just based on a holder or a sticker are long gone.

[MJ]

Here is one that I have with an obviously weak strike: http://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/FQgAAOSw37tV-xwY/s-l1600.jpg

http://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/3o8AAOSwQPlV-xxM/s-l1600.jpg

 

I bought it as a weakly struck nice Unc. from a PNG dealer. I'm not sure how the grading service can factor in all the strong and weak points on any given coin.

 

Although it has the attributes of an MS-64 with respect to marks and luster, the strike would keep me from paying MS-64 money for it. There is a reason that it is in an ICG holder. It would have little chance crossing to a PCGS or NGC holder in that grade.

 

Strike does matter when it comes to grading. If a particular issue can be found decently or well struck, the poorly struck coins bring lower prices. If ALL of the coins from a particular issue are poorly struck, like the 1855-C gold dollar, the you take what you can get. By the way PCGS has never graded an 1855-C gold dollar higher that MS-61. The reason the initial quality of the coin.

 

The 1945-S does come very weakly struck. Finding a decent one begins at the MS 66 level. I searched long and hard for mine. Fully struck 45-S coins don't exist IMHO. If this 64 was struck better it would be a 65 or 66. I feel that the 64 grade is appropriate. Certainly not below 63.

 

Here is 45-s in 67*

 

Is it a 67? I don't think so. It is one of the best 45-s I've ever seen. That's why I bought it

 

mark

 

[Walkerfan]

Here is one that I have with an obviously weak strike: http://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/FQgAAOSw37tV-xwY/s-l1600.jpg

http://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/3o8AAOSwQPlV-xxM/s-l1600.jpg

 

I bought it as a weakly struck nice Unc. from a PNG dealer. I'm not sure how the grading service can factor in all the strong and weak points on any given coin.

 

Although it has the attributes of an MS-64 with respect to marks and luster, the strike would keep me from paying MS-64 money for it. There is a reason that it is in an ICG holder. It would have little chance crossing to a PCGS or NGC holder in that grade.

 

Strike does matter when it comes to grading. If a particular issue can be found decently or well struck, the poorly struck coins bring lower prices. If ALL of the coins from a particular issue are poorly struck, like the 1855-C gold dollar, the you take what you can get. By the way PCGS has never graded an 1855-C gold dollar higher that MS-61. The reason the initial quality of the coin.

 

The 1945-S does come very weakly struck. Finding a decent one begins at the MS 66 level. I searched long and hard for mine. Fully struck 45-S coins don't exist IMHO. If this 64 was struck better it would be a 65 or 66. I feel that the 64 grade is appropriate. Certainly not below 63.

 

Here is 45-s in 67*

 

Is it a 67? I don't think so. It is one of the best 45-s I've ever seen. That's why I bought it

 

mark

 

 

Beautiful coin, Mark.

 

The colors are magnificent and the strike is well above average.

 

I see that in all MS grades there are 46 1945-S NGC Star coins. Yours is the one and only 67 with none finer.

 

Here's Mine---it's a MS 66:

 

 

[EleMint Man]

It amazes me how some people feel obligated to circle the wagons around the PCGS - CAC combination. I have blown up this picture to the max. The strike is so weak that Ms. Liberty has no hand, and much the detail from her head to her toes is missing. MS-63 means "Choice Uncirculated."

 

What is choice about this coin that is missing so much detail? I don't get it. Why do you guys feel the need to rollover to this? Shouldn't you be doing all you can to maintain gracing standards.

 

 

[MarkFeld]

It amazes me how some people feel obligated to circle the wagons around the PCGS - CAC combination. I have blown up this picture to the max. The strike is so weak that Ms. Liberty has no hand, and much the detail from her head to her toes is missing. MS-63 means "Choice Uncirculated."

 

What is choice about this coin that is missing so much detail? I don't get it. Why do you guys feel the need to rollover to this? Shouldn't you be doing all you can to maintain gracing standards.

 

 

 

It comes down to how many grading points should be deducted for a weak strike. While I haven't seen the coin in hand, as far as I'm concerned, a weak strike, alone, shouldn't preclude a 64 grade.

 

And I don't see anyone "circling the wagons". I think they just have more favorable opinions of the coin and aren't as bothered by the weak strike.

[BillJones]

Sorry Mark, but you need to look at the reactions ATS whenever someone says anything negative about CAC and most especially the PCGS- CAC combination. So far as they are concerned coins graded by PCGS with the CAC endorsement are ALWAYS graded correctly.

[Afterword]

"It comes down to how many grading points should be deducted for a weak strike."

 

 

 

 

 

Mark, does attractiveness add grading points?

[MarkFeld]

Sorry Mark, but you need to look at the reactions ATS whenever someone says anything negative about CAC and most especially the PCGS- CAC combination. So far as they are concerned coins graded by PCGS with the CAC endorsement are ALWAYS graded correctly.

 

I'm addressing this thread and discussion, not what is posted elsewhere in other threads. I thought you were, as well.

[MarkFeld]

"It comes down to how many grading points should be deducted for a weak strike."

 

 

 

 

 

Mark, does attractiveness add grading points?

 

Absolutely and sometimes more than I think it should.

 

[BillJones]

Sorry Mark, but you need to look at the reactions ATS whenever someone says anything negative about CAC and most especially the PCGS- CAC combination. So far as they are concerned coins graded by PCGS with the CAC endorsement are ALWAYS graded correctly.

 

I'm addressing this thread and discussion, not what is posted elsewhere in other threads. I thought you were, as well.

 

Did you read the posts from the guy who told me I couldn't pass an opinion on the 1917-D half dollar in MS-63 because I had not seen it "in hand." That's code for circle the wagons around the PCGS - CAC combination.

 

You can't do a complete job with luster issue from photopraphs, but you can tell when a coin is very poorly struck. You don't need to see it in hand to note that.

[MarkFeld]

Sorry Mark, but you need to look at the reactions ATS whenever someone says anything negative about CAC and most especially the PCGS- CAC combination. So far as they are concerned coins graded by PCGS with the CAC endorsement are ALWAYS graded correctly.

 

I'm addressing this thread and discussion, not what is posted elsewhere in other threads. I thought you were, as well.

 

Did you read the posts from the guy who told me I couldn't pass an opinion on the 1917-D half dollar in MS-63 because I had not seen it "in hand." That's code for circle the wagons around the PCGS - CAC combination.

 

You can't do a complete job with luster issue from photopraphs, but you can tell when a coin is very poorly struck. You don't need to see it in hand to note that.

 

 

No, I did not see the post. And in general, I agree that one can decipher strike much better than luster in images.

 

However, the issue here isn't whether the coin is weakly struck (edited for typo). It's how much a coin should be penalized for such.

[Afterword]

"Absolutely and sometimes more than I think it should."

 

 

 

 

Thanks Mark.

 

So unlike bag marks and wear that are not original features of coins produced by the mint, attractiveness is used in the grading process because…? When you were being trained to grade coins, did anyone explain the reason it is used in the grading process?

 

[MarkFeld]

"Absolutely and sometimes more than I think it should."

 

 

 

 

Thanks Mark.

 

So unlike bag marks and wear that are not original features of coins produced by the mint, attractiveness is used in the grading process because…? When you were being trained to grade coins, did anyone explain the reason it is used in the grading process?

 

Because, like it or not, eye-appeal is part of the grading equation.

[BillJones]

Because, like it or not, eye-appeal is part of the grading equation.

 

Ugly coins do not bring the top prices unless all or virtually all of the known examples are ugly. An example of this are the 1793 "Strawberry Leaf" large cents. All of them are unattractive so the specialists are willing to bid them up to high prices. Otherwise, an unattractive coin generally brings an unattractive price.

 

Another part of the mix is originality. Some collectors are obsessed with this and will pay premium prices for pieces that have not been dipped, and will even shun coins that have been.

 

[Afterword]

So you believe it is because of the money?

[Afterword]

"Absolutely and sometimes more than I think it should."

 

 

 

 

Thanks Mark.

 

So unlike bag marks and wear that are not original features of coins produced by the mint, attractiveness is used in the grading process because…? When you were being trained to grade coins, did anyone explain the reason it is used in the grading process?

 

Because, like it or not, eye-appeal is part of the grading equation.

 

 

 

So you cannot say or do not know why.

 

I guess it really does not matter.

[MJ]

Sorry Mark, but you need to look at the reactions ATS whenever someone says anything negative about CAC and most especially the PCGS- CAC combination. So far as they are concerned coins graded by PCGS with the CAC endorsement are ALWAYS graded correctly.

 

This is simply not true. You are projecting your narrative. You need to read all the posts. There are several non CAC advocates ATS. They rally on any CAC tread started.

 

mark

[BillJones]

 

 

Sorry Mark, but you need to look at the reactions ATS whenever someone says anything negative about CAC and most especially the PCGS- CAC combination. So far as they are concerned coins graded by PCGS with the CAC endorsement are ALWAYS graded correctly.

 

This is simply not true. You are projecting your narrative. You need to read all the posts. There are several non CAC advocates ATS. They rally on any CAC tread started.

 

mark

 

I never said that ALL of the posters ATS are PCGS - CAC advocates. There are people over there who dispute the contention that those coins are always properly graded, but you known darn well that there are lots of CAC-A-FILES over there who push that position. And to them the NGC-CAC combination doesn't cut it.

[mommam17]

Who you gonna believe PCGS/CAC or someone that's seen a picture of the coin. Look at whole picture, not just the strike. I never understood the PCGS only collector. I would of lost my NGC coins.