Plus or Star...Which would you choose

[coinman1794]

Given the same grade and CAC approval on both coins, which would you choose? For my arguments sake, the star is NOT awarded for toning(near PL surfaces for example).

 

I don't like this scenario because the Star is a designation and the Plus is a grade. In fact, the two coins are not the same grade at all, because one is a plus grade.

 

[Hard Times]

Here are my two stars - the first I call Jimmy the other Robert, unfortunately they won't buy me a stairway to heaven (wink, wink, Catbert), but they do show that the star is for eye appeal and a coin that is all there for the grade. Not my best image of the 1836 dime, I need to reshoot it in its new edgeview and unscratched slab. NGC does not give these out alot, so when they do, it means the graders felt the eye appeal was astounding for the grade. So if these two are representative, it shows the star has some meaning......

 

Best, HT

 

 

Those two coins look gorgeous to me. However, the star is awarded for eye appeal and has nothing to do with a coin being "all there for the grade".

 

Mark F,

I know the star is about eye appeal, but I think that if the coins were not all there for the grade, then NGC would not award the star. There are alot of eye appealing coins out there that did not get the star, so my suggestion. Also, JA beaned both of these, so they think both are strong (all there(?)) for the grade too.

 

Mark J,

I will gladly buy any coin you own/ed as you clearly have the eye, happy I got this one!

 

Best, HT

[MarkFeld]

Here are my two stars - the first I call Jimmy the other Robert, unfortunately they won't buy me a stairway to heaven (wink, wink, Catbert), but they do show that the star is for eye appeal and a coin that is all there for the grade. Not my best image of the 1836 dime, I need to reshoot it in its new edgeview and unscratched slab. NGC does not give these out alot, so when they do, it means the graders felt the eye appeal was astounding for the grade. So if these two are representative, it shows the star has some meaning......

 

Best, HT

 

 

Those two coins look gorgeous to me. However, the star is awarded for eye appeal and has nothing to do with a coin being "all there for the grade".

 

Mark F,

I know the star is about eye appeal, but I think that if the coins were not all there for the grade, then NGC would not award the star. There are alot of eye appealing coins out there that did not get the star, so my suggestion. Also, JA beaned both of these, so they think both are strong (all there(?)) for the grade too.

 

Mark J,

I will gladly buy any coin you own/ed as you clearly have the eye, happy I got this one!

 

Best, HT

 

I've seen just as many (if not more) low end coins with stars, as high end coins. Some people refer to the "double bump", wherein a coin has loads of eye appeal, and ends up receiving a star, as well as a grade bump (or two) due to the eye-appeal.

 

 

[Hard Times]

Here are my two stars - the first I call Jimmy the other Robert, unfortunately they won't buy me a stairway to heaven (wink, wink, Catbert), but they do show that the star is for eye appeal and a coin that is all there for the grade. Not my best image of the 1836 dime, I need to reshoot it in its new edgeview and unscratched slab. NGC does not give these out alot, so when they do, it means the graders felt the eye appeal was astounding for the grade. So if these two are representative, it shows the star has some meaning......

 

Best, HT

 

 

Those two coins look gorgeous to me. However, the star is awarded for eye appeal and has nothing to do with a coin being "all there for the grade".

 

Mark F,

I know the star is about eye appeal, but I think that if the coins were not all there for the grade, then NGC would not award the star. There are alot of eye appealing coins out there that did not get the star, so my suggestion. Also, JA beaned both of these, so they think both are strong (all there(?)) for the grade too.

 

Mark J,

I will gladly buy any coin you own/ed as you clearly have the eye, happy I got this one!

 

Best, HT

 

I've seen just as many (if not more) low end coins with stars, as high end coins. Some people refer to the "double bump", wherein a coin has loads of eye appeal, and ends up receiving a star, as well as a grade bump (or two) due to the eye-appeal.

 

 

Interesting, thanks for pointing this out.

 

Best, HT

[brg5658]

Here are my two stars - the first I call Jimmy the other Robert, unfortunately they won't buy me a stairway to heaven (wink, wink, Catbert), but they do show that the star is for eye appeal and a coin that is all there for the grade. Not my best image of the 1836 dime, I need to reshoot it in its new edgeview and unscratched slab. NGC does not give these out alot, so when they do, it means the graders felt the eye appeal was astounding for the grade. So if these two are representative, it shows the star has some meaning......

 

Best, HT

 

 

Those two coins look gorgeous to me. However, the star is awarded for eye appeal and has nothing to do with a coin being "all there for the grade".

 

Mark F,

I know the star is about eye appeal, but I think that if the coins were not all there for the grade, then NGC would not award the star. There are alot of eye appealing coins out there that did not get the star, so my suggestion. Also, JA beaned both of these, so they think both are strong (all there(?)) for the grade too.

 

Mark J,

I will gladly buy any coin you own/ed as you clearly have the eye, happy I got this one!

 

Best, HT

 

I've seen just as many (if not more) low end coins with stars, as high end coins. Some people refer to the "double bump", wherein a coin has loads of eye appeal, and ends up receiving a star, as well as a grade bump (or two) due to the eye-appeal.

 

 

In my experience, PCGS "integrates (confounds)" eye appeal into the grade bumps more than NGC does. One of the reasons why I prefer NGC grading is that they have uncoupled the "eye appeal" component at least to some extent by having the star designation. I have seen PCGS grade coins with color up to 3 points higher than they were grading the same coin 15-20 years ago. Some of it is simply gradeflation, but part of it IMO is also PCGS' move toward eye appeal bumps that, in some cases, have really gotten out of control.

[RWB]

An asterisk [ * ]. Because that means there's something special.

[MarkFeld]

Here are my two stars - the first I call Jimmy the other Robert, unfortunately they won't buy me a stairway to heaven (wink, wink, Catbert), but they do show that the star is for eye appeal and a coin that is all there for the grade. Not my best image of the 1836 dime, I need to reshoot it in its new edgeview and unscratched slab. NGC does not give these out alot, so when they do, it means the graders felt the eye appeal was astounding for the grade. So if these two are representative, it shows the star has some meaning......

 

Best, HT

 

 

Those two coins look gorgeous to me. However, the star is awarded for eye appeal and has nothing to do with a coin being "all there for the grade".

 

Mark F,

I know the star is about eye appeal, but I think that if the coins were not all there for the grade, then NGC would not award the star. There are alot of eye appealing coins out there that did not get the star, so my suggestion. Also, JA beaned both of these, so they think both are strong (all there(?)) for the grade too.

 

Mark J,

I will gladly buy any coin you own/ed as you clearly have the eye, happy I got this one!

 

Best, HT

 

I've seen just as many (if not more) low end coins with stars, as high end coins. Some people refer to the "double bump", wherein a coin has loads of eye appeal, and ends up receiving a star, as well as a grade bump (or two) due to the eye-appeal.

 

 

In my experience, PCGS "integrates (confounds)" eye appeal into the grade bumps more than NGC does. One of the reasons why I prefer NGC grading is that they have uncoupled the "eye appeal" component at least to some extent by having the star designation. I have seen PCGS grade coins with color up to 3 points higher than they were grading the same coin 15-20 years ago. Some of it is simply gradeflation, but part of it IMO is also PCGS' move toward eye appeal bumps that, in some cases, have really gotten out of control.

 

In my experience, NGC does the same (regarding "color" coins) even though they can make use of the star designation.

[coinman_23885]

In my experience, NGC does the same (regarding "color" coins) even though they can make use of the star designation.

 

I agree with Brandon. NGC does color bump some, but it seems far less than PCGS. NGC often will just use the star designation unless the coin is truly a knockout. Typically when I see a coin that I think NGC color bumped, it might be given a plus or one point for the most phenomenal pieces. On the other hand I have seen (and owned) PCGS coins that looked to be given a two point bump. PCGS even acknowledged on its website for eye appeal guidelines that up to a two point bump was possible, but it has since revised that statement. To be fair, a good number of the aggressive color bumps for both services that I saw were for truly phenomenal coins where the grade didn't really matter that much and was secondary to the toning, so maybe my views are skewed towards the highest quality and most vibrant toned coins.

 

 

[coinman_23885]

I have seen PCGS grade coins with color up to 3 points higher than they were grading the same coin 15-20 years ago. Some of it is simply gradeflation, but part of it IMO is also PCGS' move toward eye appeal bumps that, in some cases, have really gotten out of control.

 

If you are referring to the 1904-O Morgan that you have posted before, I do not agree that it was a three point color bump or simply grade inflation. That particular coin looked stupid in a MS64 holder, and it certainly deserved a gem grade. For what ever it is worth, I would have called the coin MS66 and PCGS called it MS67 upon resubmission. I would call it a one point (maybe one and a half point) color bump.

 

Edited: Of course, this is based on the True Views that you snagged from online. Given the way that True Views accentuate a coin's best features and often do not show luster very well, it is possible that I would feel differently in hand.

[brg5658]

Here are my two stars - the first I call Jimmy the other Robert, unfortunately they won't buy me a stairway to heaven (wink, wink, Catbert), but they do show that the star is for eye appeal and a coin that is all there for the grade. Not my best image of the 1836 dime, I need to reshoot it in its new edgeview and unscratched slab. NGC does not give these out alot, so when they do, it means the graders felt the eye appeal was astounding for the grade. So if these two are representative, it shows the star has some meaning......

 

Best, HT

 

 

Those two coins look gorgeous to me. However, the star is awarded for eye appeal and has nothing to do with a coin being "all there for the grade".

 

Mark F,

I know the star is about eye appeal, but I think that if the coins were not all there for the grade, then NGC would not award the star. There are alot of eye appealing coins out there that did not get the star, so my suggestion. Also, JA beaned both of these, so they think both are strong (all there(?)) for the grade too.

 

Mark J,

I will gladly buy any coin you own/ed as you clearly have the eye, happy I got this one!

 

Best, HT

 

I've seen just as many (if not more) low end coins with stars, as high end coins. Some people refer to the "double bump", wherein a coin has loads of eye appeal, and ends up receiving a star, as well as a grade bump (or two) due to the eye-appeal.

 

 

In my experience, PCGS "integrates (confounds)" eye appeal into the grade bumps more than NGC does. One of the reasons why I prefer NGC grading is that they have uncoupled the "eye appeal" component at least to some extent by having the star designation. I have seen PCGS grade coins with color up to 3 points higher than they were grading the same coin 15-20 years ago. Some of it is simply gradeflation, but part of it IMO is also PCGS' move toward eye appeal bumps that, in some cases, have really gotten out of control.

 

In my experience, NGC does the same (regarding "color" coins) even though they can make use of the star designation.

 

Mark, I agree that NGC does it some, but PCGS as of late (past 10ish years) has started bumping some toned coins to the level of absurd. Again, just my personal experiences and general Gestalt of the recent grading trends.

[brg5658]

I have seen PCGS grade coins with color up to 3 points higher than they were grading the same coin 15-20 years ago. Some of it is simply gradeflation, but part of it IMO is also PCGS' move toward eye appeal bumps that, in some cases, have really gotten out of control.

 

If you are referring to the 1904-O Morgan that you have posted before, I do not agree that it was a three point color bump or simply grade inflation. That particular coin looked stupid in a MS64 holder, and it certainly deserved a gem grade. For what ever it is worth, I would have called the coin MS66 and PCGS called it MS67 upon resubmission. I would call it a one point (maybe one and a half point) color bump.

 

Edited: Of course, this is based on the True Views that you snagged from online. Given the way that True Views accentuate a coin's best features and often do not show luster very well, it is possible that I would feel differently in hand.

 

Kenny, I have enough examples saved up to be pretty confident in my observations. Absurd or not, the example I have posted of the 1904-O was graded MS64 and then MS67 later. If it's really an MS66 coin, then that begs the question, why was it put in an MS64 holder some years back? Either way you look at it, a 3 point swing for an MS grade is a wildly inconsistent margin, and requires some head scratching.

 

Sometimes they are even wildly inconsistent in a matter of as short as a 5 year window. Here's a full 2 point bump example...

 

 

[coinman_23885]

I have seen PCGS grade coins with color up to 3 points higher than they were grading the same coin 15-20 years ago. Some of it is simply gradeflation, but part of it IMO is also PCGS' move toward eye appeal bumps that, in some cases, have really gotten out of control.

 

If you are referring to the 1904-O Morgan that you have posted before, I do not agree that it was a three point color bump or simply grade inflation. That particular coin looked stupid in a MS64 holder, and it certainly deserved a gem grade. For what ever it is worth, I would have called the coin MS66 and PCGS called it MS67 upon resubmission. I would call it a one point (maybe one and a half point) color bump.

 

Edited: Of course, this is based on the True Views that you snagged from online. Given the way that True Views accentuate a coin's best features and often do not show luster very well, it is possible that I would feel differently in hand.

 

Kenny, I have enough examples saved up to be pretty confident in my observations. Absurd or not, the example I have posted of the 1904-O was graded MS64 and then MS67 later. If it's really an MS66 coin, then that begs the question, why was it put in an MS64 holder some years back? Either way you look at it, a 3 point swing for an MS grade is a wildly inconsistent margin, and requires some head scratching.

 

Sometimes they are even wildly inconsistent in a matter of as short as a 5 year window. Here's a full 2 point bump example...

 

 

If you read my other posts in this thread, you'll see that I generally agreed with you, but I have not seen a three point bump yet. That doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. I posted the comment that I did regarding the 1904-O because that coin is an extreme anomaly. The coin was undergraded as a MS64 IMHO (even if the coin were blast white), unless the PCGS images are deceiving us. I wouldn't use it as an example of extreme color bumping, although it is a great example of inconsistency by PCGS.

[brg5658]

If you read my other posts in this thread, you'll see that I generally agreed with you, but I have not seen a three point bump yet. That doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. I posted the comment that I did regarding the 1904-O because that coin is an extreme anomaly. The coin was undergraded as a MS64 IMHO, unless the PCGS images are deceiving us. I wouldn't use it as an example of extreme color bump, although it is a great example of inconsistency by PCGS.

 

Kenny, a 3 point bump is a 3 point bump. You can call it an anomaly all you want, or say the coin was undergraded, that doesn't change the fact that it WAS in an MS64 holder, then appeared in an MS67 holder some years later.

 

That 1964 dime of Wondercoin's in another thread here would be another coin that I believe is overgraded by at least 2 points in the MS68FB holder, likely due to the color. There are countless others...and IMO the color isn't even that nice on that coin.

 

Believe what you want I guess -- I tend to base my opinions on observed factual examples.

 

 

 

[Hard Times]

 

Sometimes they are even wildly inconsistent in a matter of as short as a 5 year window. Here's a full 2 point bump example...

 

 

 

 

When I see something like this above, it is very disheartening. I like CAC because they are good at detecting, and hence rejecting, coins with too much human assistance. But one would hope they would also be protecting against over grading. Time and time again we see examples of coin bumps having a bean at both grades, and this time we see a 2 grade bump, a bean at both. Very disheartening.

 

One must learn how to value coins independent of the sticker for sure.......

 

Best, HT

 

 

 

 

 

[Afterword]

Everyone knows that eye appeal is extremely subjective and therefore susceptible to misuse, but everyone likes the fact that eye appeal is a part of the grading process anyway. Right?