Heritage Auctions drive me crazy ...

[BillJones]

Nice coin. (Not what I would call an AU, however. Too much rub and field disturbance....) But, coins like this are not uncommonly found in "MS61 or MS62" holders.

 

You are becoming the Bill Noyes of gold coin graders. I have the finest known, according to Doug Winter, 1838-D $5 gold. It's in a PCGS MS-63 holder. I don't think you would like this one either. Pougue's coin was also graded MS-63 (It's the second of two MS-63s graded.), but it has a couple spots.

 

 

These coins were minted before there was much more than handful coin collectors in America. Among the few that there were saving $5 in contemporary coinage was like giving up a week's wages. As a result just about every example of the Classic Head coinage is going to have a mark of some kind.

 

And my photos always emphasize every mark.

 

Here's an 1834 that NGC graded MS-61. I think that the grade is correct. It is a low end Mint State piece with no rub in the field.

 

 

 

[RWB]

"If you wouldn't call that an AU, what on earth would you call it? I know you grade "old school," but this gorgeous coin is the quintessence of a high-AU."

 

An extremely nice EF, is what I would call it. That does nto mean the coin is not 'gorgeous,' only that I don;t care what the label says. There is only one "AU" - the faintest trace of abrasion and/or field disturbance separates it from uncirculated. Anything with more abrasion of field alteration is EF. Now -- that has nothing to do with the value of the coin. The pieces that Bill posted are, in my opinion, worth much more than normal EFs and in many instances should bring more than slabbed MS60-MS62 or even MS63 coins.

 

(Recently I bought a MS64 gold coin. To me it was really much lower in grade due to excessive marks -- and I paid a low-end MS62 price.)

 

[There has never been a time when coin grading has been stable -- it was always in flux. Over a century ago a "good fine" would be an extremely nice looking coin - fully upper-end EF by today's standards. Of course, if you were buying from Max Mehl, the coin might have been cleaned or marred in some other way - Good Ol' Max was not too careful about the quality of what he sold.]

[physics-fan3.14]

Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, Roger.

 

By today's grading standards, that coin is AU all day long - there is only the slightest trace of wear. Compare Bill's coin to the images shown on Photograde here: http://www.pcgs.com/photograde/#/Classic5/Grades

[MarkFeld]

"If you wouldn't call that an AU, what on earth would you call it? I know you grade "old school," but this gorgeous coin is the quintessence of a high-AU."

 

An extremely nice EF, is what I would call it. That does nto mean the coin is not 'gorgeous,' only that I don;t care what the label says. There is only one "AU" - the faintest trace of abrasion and/or field disturbance separates it from uncirculated. Anything with more abrasion of field alteration is EF. Now -- that has nothing to do with the value of the coin. The pieces that Bill posted are, in my opinion, worth much more than normal EFs and in many instances should bring more than slabbed MS60-MS62 or even MS63 coins.

 

(Recently I bought a MS64 gold coin. To me it was really much lower in grade due to excessive marks -- and I paid a low-end MS62 price.)

 

[There has never been a time when coin grading has been stable -- it was always in flux. Over a century ago a "good fine" would be an extremely nice looking coin - fully upper-end EF by today's standards. Of course, if you were buying from Max Mehl, the coin might have been cleaned or marred in some other way - Good Ol' Max was not too careful about the quality of what he sold.]

 

". There is only one "AU" - the faintest trace of abrasion and/or field disturbance separates it from uncirculated."

 

Under that definition, countless uncirculated coins in bank rolls and bags would not even qualify as AU.

[Walkerfan]

Looks about as close to mint state as you can get without actually reaching it.

 

That's a great coin.

[RWB]

". There is only one "AU" - the faintest trace of abrasion and/or field disturbance separates it from uncirculated."

 

Under that definition, countless uncirculated coins in bank rolls and bags would not even qualify as AU.

 

Possible; and if that is the result of honest grading, then so be it.

 

By today's grading standards, that coin is AU all day long.

 

Yep. Grade Inflation at work.

[MarkFeld]

". There is only one "AU" - the faintest trace of abrasion and/or field disturbance separates it from uncirculated."

 

Under that definition, countless uncirculated coins in bank rolls and bags would not even qualify as AU.

 

Possible; and if that is the result of honest grading, then so be it.

 

By today's grading standards, that coin is AU all day long.

 

Yep. Grade Inflation at work.

 

There's a difference between "honest grading" and unrealistic/ultra conservative grading. And I believe that your standard ("here is only one "AU" - the faintest trace of abrasion and/or field disturbance separates it from uncirculated.") is the latter, not the former.

 

[BillJones]

". There is only one "AU" - the faintest trace of abrasion and/or field disturbance separates it from uncirculated."

 

Under that definition, countless uncirculated coins in bank rolls and bags would not even qualify as AU.

 

Possible; and if that is the result of honest grading, then so be it.

 

By today's grading standards, that coin is AU all day long.

 

Yep. Grade Inflation at work.

 

There's a difference between "honest grading" and unrealistic/ultra conservative grading. And I believe that your standard ("here is only one "AU" - the faintest trace of abrasion and/or field disturbance separates it from uncirculated.") is the latter, not the former.

 

The "unrealistic/ultra conservative grading" has been a game that some dealers have played for as long as I've been a collector (since the early 1960s) and well before that.

 

When they are buying a coin, they do everything they can to knock it and discourage the collector / family member / or even another dealer to buy it as cheap as possible. When they sell it, it's "choice and PQ" for the grade.

 

I'm not accusing Roger of this, but he needs to recognize that his standards are far beyond what grading standards were 20 years ago when PCGS was issuing the Green Label holders and NGC was issuing "the fatty holders" before then. It's a mistake to assume that all of those coins are under graded, but a large number of them were accurately or conservatively graded.

 

Under grading can be as bad as over grading. It gives less than honest dealers opportunities to under pay for the coins they buy from less informed sellers. It also allows people who maintain condition census information to keep lesser coins at the top of the heap. Such claims can come in handy for auction houses when they sell "name collections." Sometimes "the finest known" or "among the finest know" protected from discoveries of better pieces by "convenient under grading."

 

[Nutmeg Coin]

I know a dealer who would scrutinize coins doing the critical analysis and always find a "scratch" even if it wasn't really there or a problem, it is one of the oldest buying strategies around, I don't know who were the biggest followers of it. One wonders if a coin were exceptional if some of those perfectionists would even be happy? Maybe they would say it may not be genuine, or looks doctored or something. "Something's not right". Or it could get sent off for grading by Mr. Critical Dealer and then if it graded high he has plenty of time to come up with a good argument how he could have been so mistaken. I don't think that is RWB's intention as I am sure he has never employed any underhanded strategies in grading, or profited thereby, but it is how some who buy large amounts of material operate. And if they pay a pittance for a collectible that ends up being worth staggering amounts of money, put it in their "private collection" where long term memory or amnesia should correct concerns by the original sellers.

[RWB]

The grading standards I follow were those of professional numismatists, especially Frank Katen of Silver Spring, Maryland. There is no reason to alter those, or to stretch them, or to avoid them in one kind of transaction or another. They apply equally buying, trading, selling, etc.

 

However, I deeply resent even the slightest implication of impropriety on my part from any board member, and under any guise of "differences of opinion."

[MarkFeld]

The grading standards I follow were those of professional numismatists, especially Frank Katen of Silver Spring, Maryland. There is no reason to alter those, or to stretch them, or to avoid them in one kind of transaction or another. They apply equally buying, trading, selling, etc.

 

However, I deeply resent even the slightest implication of impropriety on my part from any board member, and under any guise of "differences of opinion."

 

If, by chance, you thought I was implying any such impropriety on your part - and hopefully you didn't, since it wasn's as if you were trying to buy coins cheaply here, based on such standards - let me be clear - that was not my intention. I just happen to think your standard is unrealistic.

[BillJones]

I do not know Mr. Katen, but if his standards are as conservative as you say Roger, he's not buying much of anything in this market.

 

Things have not been that tight since the advent of very early days of PCGS "rattler." A lot of those coins were WAY under graded, and that helped to start the myth that ALL of them were under graded, which not the case.

 

The first four coins had sent it by a dealer, because in those days you couldn't do it your self, were all under graded. I traded one away but among the other three every one got an upgrade. The biggest upgrade was from AU-58 to MS-63 for a $5 Indian. Years later I sold that coin in the MS-63 to a dealer with no questions asked.

 

I did not mean to offend you Roger and I made it clear that I was not lumping you in with dealers who use the double standard. All I was trying to say was that the double grading standard has been used for years.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

I am very familiar with the Katens and spent a lot of time at their wonderful numismatic and philatelic shop. When he called it a day I became the recipient of part of the philatelic holdings, including most of Israel and UN and 19th century U.S., and goodness knows how many numismatic pieces I traded/purchased/begged/crawled to get from his hands to my hands. His standards were the norm, and would definitely be considered conservative these day. He and his wife had tons of stories.

 

An honorable man, a very honorable man and fair and loved educating others and paved the way for the likes of PCGS/NGC. He was not unfamiliar with Julian

 

The day he closed it down, I bought a substantial part of the UK and German States philatelic collection. He knew his stuff, and was not abrasive and was a gentleman.

 

Other than that, what is there to know?

[physics-fan3.14]

The grading standards I follow were those of professional numismatists, especially Frank Katen of Silver Spring, Maryland. There is no reason to alter those, or to stretch them, or to avoid them in one kind of transaction or another. They apply equally buying, trading, selling, etc.

 

However, I deeply resent even the slightest implication of impropriety on my part from any board member, and under any guise of "differences of opinion."

 

If, by chance, you thought I was implying any such impropriety on your part - and hopefully you didn't, since it wasn's as if you were trying to buy coins cheaply here, based on such standards - let me be clear - that was not my intention. I just happen to think your standard is unrealistic.

 

I certainly mean no disrespect to you, Roger, and don't mean to imply any impropriety.

 

I merely mean to intimate that grading has evolved in the past 30-75 years. There has been a continuous refinement of the grading scale since the first ANA grading guide was published, and even since the TPG's started slabbing. Using the grading "standards" of 1985 today will not service you very well. Call it gradeflation, call it loosening, call it what you will - the fact of the matter is, by today's standards, the coin Bill posted is a very high quality, AU+ piece, as designated by the TPG.

[BillJones]

To make one last point on this grading controversy, some dealers, years ago, had a retail marketing strategy which was, "under grade, over price." The theory was if you clearly under graded a coin the potential buyer might think that he or she was getting a bargain. The lower than expected grade was offset by a price that was above the catalog price for the given grade. Whether or not the coin was still a good buy depended upon the "true grade" and the then market price.

 

I purchased this 1805 dime in the early 1970s. It was the first high quality early coin that I acquired, and it got me "hooked" on early U.S. coins. The coin was graded "EF" and the price was $485. At the time dealers were advertising 1805 for $325 in "EF." This coin was clearing better than "EF" even then. It was an "AU" no matter how you sliced it.

 

 

When I had my core collection graded circa 2000, PCGS graded this coin AU-58, which is what it is.

 

I can cite other examples of this. Back in the 1980s when the Goldberg's were running the Superior Auction sales, they customarily placed very conservative grades on their auction lots and also give low ball estimates for what they thought the lots would bring. The theory was that more bidders would be attracted to the lots, and the auction would get more "action." From the few Goldberg auctions I attended in those days, I think that strategy worked.

[MarkFeld]

To make one last point on this grading controversy, some dealers, years ago, had a retail marketing strategy which was, "under grade, over price." The theory was if you clearly under graded a coin the potential buyer might think that he or she was getting a bargain. The lower than expected grade was offset by a price that was above the catalog price for the given grade. Whether or not the coin was still a good buy depended upon the "true grade" and the then market price.

 

I purchased this 1805 dime in the early 1970s. It was the first high quality early coin that I acquired, and it got me "hooked" on early U.S. coins. The coin was graded "EF" and the price was $485. At the time dealers were advertising 1805 for $325 in "EF." This coin was clearing better than "EF" even then. It was an "AU" no matter how you sliced it.

 

 

When I had my core collection graded circa 2000, PCGS graded this coin AU-58, which is what it is.

 

I can cite other examples of this. Back in the 1980s when the Goldberg's were running the Superior Auction sales, they customarily placed very conservative grades on their auction lots and also give low ball estimates for what they thought the lots would bring. The theory was that more bidders would be attracted to the lots, and the auction would get more "action." From the few Goldberg auctions I attended in those days, I think that strategy worked.

 

Unrealistically low pre-sale estimates also allow an auction house to later brag about how strong their prices realized were compared to the estimates.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

The whole concept is silly, and is not logical.

 

In the pictured example the market schtick did not work at all, and in fact is logically reversed and I suspect part of the original scheme on that particular coin pricing is that the person selling and pricing was not familiar with dies or strike condition. I don't think it had anything to do with some brainiac lets fool them attempt.

[mark]

Mark:

 

Does your comment about "unrealistically low pre-sale estimates help the auction house" foretell a new Heritage policy of pre-sale price estimates that are somewhat less than the lot's face value?

 

 

Mark

[MarkFeld]

Mark:

 

Does your comment about "unrealistically low pre-sale estimates help the auction house" foretell a new Heritage policy of pre-sale price estimates that are somewhat less than the lot's face value?

 

 

Mark

 

Please define "somewhat less".

 

But seriously, in the US coins division in which I work, we do not include published estimates - at least none that I'm aware of. And personally, I think estimates can be a no-win situation. Most of the time, they will be too high or too low, and there are potential negatives for either scenario.

[RWB]

I do not know Mr. Katen, but if his standards are as conservative as you say Roger, he's not buying much of anything in this market.

 

Things have not been that tight since the advent of very early days of PCGS "rattler." A lot of those coins were WAY under graded, and that helped to start the myth that ALL of them were under graded, which not the case.

 

The first four coins had sent it by a dealer, because in those days you couldn't do it your self, were all under graded. I traded one away but among the other three every one got an upgrade. The biggest upgrade was from AU-58 to MS-63 for a $5 Indian. Years later I sold that coin in the MS-63 to a dealer with no questions asked.

 

I did not mean to offend you Roger and I made it clear that I was not lumping you in with dealers who use the double standard. All I was trying to say was that the double grading standard has been used for years.

http://www.coinbooks.org/esylum_v19n11a11.html

 

One of only a few consistent, honest coin dealers of his era. Buying/selling is about the coin, not a silly piece of paper that touts an inflated grade opinion. The OPs coin is not "AU" and never will be, regardless of what the label says - but, the value of the coin is the same regardless of the label. The example quoted above is also clear: the coin did not "upgrade" only the label changed. Calling a dandelion a rose does not make it a rose....only a dandelion with inflated ambitions.

[BillJones]

Well Roger I guess we will agree to disagree. If your grading system is more conservative than the ANA grading guide which was published in the late 1990s or early 2000s, you are either an EAC grader or you are out of touch.

 

EAC grading is very much like "under grade, over price" system. They will stick an EF or even Choice VF grade on an AU coin, but when you ask the price, it will invariability be on the AU+ or even Unc. level. One way or other knowledgeable sellers get their money.

 

[coinman_23885]

EAC grading is very much like "under grade, over price" system. They will stick an EF or even Choice VF grade on an AU coin, but when you ask the price, it will invariability be on the AU+ or even Unc. level. One way or other knowledgeable sellers get their money...

 

...which all that really matters.

 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Well Roger I guess we will agree to disagree. If your grading system is more conservative than the ANA grading guide which was published in the late 1990s or early 2000s, you are either an EAC grader or you are out of touch.

 

EAC grading is very much like "under grade, over price" system. They will stick an EF or even Choice VF grade on an AU coin, but when you ask the price, it will invariability be on the AU+ or even Unc. level. One way or other knowledgeable sellers get their money.

 

I must be misinterpreting your posit. Glen Smedley who was instrumental in the grading standards committee, brought a final version of the Grading Guide to committee approval in mid 77 and it was published in late 77. If you think the late 90s to early 2000s were conservative, the 77 version had 60, 65 and 70, and that was considered a lofty goal.

 

 

Yes, based on Sheldon from the 40s, the point was to technical grade, not market grade. Your preference may be market grade and your preference may be to evaluate the coin accordingly and base an economic value accordingly. There is really nothing that I can equate between market grading and technical grading that would yield an equality of grading approach. I, too, am of the opinion that the majority of pieces I have seen that are market graded (since the late 90s), are lacking compared to a technical grade evaluation. But, that is just me. I do think I am a reasonable open minded guy though, so I have that going for me.

[RWB]

Coin grading - as with "grading" nearly anything - must be separate from any presumed "value." That your breakfast egg is Grade A, Large is not a consequence of its cost to produce or buy in a store. Free market forces act on the item to determine if the assigned grade is more or less valuable: it remains an egg of specific dimensions.

 

Sheldon's scale was based entirely on money....contrary to all logic and commercial structures. The "grade number" was a multiplier of "basal value," and not an independent assessment of condition since being struck. Sheldon's scale was a foolish choice for ANA, but at the time it must have seemed the only thing most would agree on. Sheldon's scale was based entirely on money....contrary to all logic and commercial structures. Adjectival descriptions were so wildly out of control (and still are, but now we also have out of control numbers) that collectors and the general public were under constant siege by crooks, fly-by-night dealers, and investment conmen.

 

Adding the koolaid of money to the grading situation has produced the present mess.

 

I admit that I am probably too stupid and ignorant to understand the present situation. That can't be helped, especially at my imputed age. So rather than continue a pointless argument (not discussion) I'll wander off into something simple such as castrating boars.

 

 

[originalisbest]

I do not know Mr. Katen, but if his standards are as conservative as you say Roger, he's not buying much of anything in this market.

 

Things have not been that tight since the advent of very early days of PCGS "rattler." A lot of those coins were WAY under graded, and that helped to start the myth that ALL of them were under graded, which not the case.

 

The first four coins had sent it by a dealer, because in those days you couldn't do it your self, were all under graded. I traded one away but among the other three every one got an upgrade. The biggest upgrade was from AU-58 to MS-63 for a $5 Indian. Years later I sold that coin in the MS-63 to a dealer with no questions asked.

 

I did not mean to offend you Roger and I made it clear that I was not lumping you in with dealers who use the double standard. All I was trying to say was that the double grading standard has been used for years.

http://www.coinbooks.org/esylum_v19n11a11.html

 

One of only a few consistent, honest coin dealers of his era. Buying/selling is about the coin, not a silly piece of paper that touts an inflated grade opinion. The OPs coin is not "AU" and never will be, regardless of what the label says - but, the value of the coin is the same regardless of the label. The example quoted above is also clear: the coin did not "upgrade" only the label changed. Calling a dandelion a rose does not make it a rose....only a dandelion with inflated ambitions.

 

It's an AU. It's OK to be wrong RWB.

[RWB]

The "wrong" is the label and grade inflation. The coin is what it is and has not changed.

[BillJones]

If you put a coin under and strong light and swirl it around, and get cartwheel luster coming back at you that is virtually unbroken, that is a strong indicator that the piece is an AU. Even in the "good old days" an EF-45 was only expected to have mint luster in the protected areas around the letters and the stars.

 

The coin that RWB thinks is only an EF, has full luster with only the slightest impairment on both sides. My photographic skills are not good enough to show that, but if you were to see the coin in person it would be evident.

 

Now if a coin that has virtually full mint luster can't qualify as an AU, we have different definitions of term.

 

Many years ago the late Herb Silberman, who was one of the founders of EAC told me that any mark on a coin disqualified it from Mint State. In response I asked him if that was true then there could be only one Mint State grade, MS-70. He didn't have a good answer for that, but even Sheldon stated than an MS-60 could have some small microscopic injury.

 

Incidentally I have never been impressed with Sheldon's write-up for the grades in his 70 point system. As even some EAC people have admitted, too much time as been spent on interpreting it. The only way to teach grading is though words AND pictures PLUS hands on experience.

 

[RWB]

Ahhh...so it might be the photos --- which is certainly a possibility. A real AU coin can be tough to grade because the surface changes are very small. My entire premise regarding the OP coin might be in error. If so, as said before, the coin is the coin (even if it is a magical 1804 dollar).

[BillJones]

Here are pictures of the 1835 half eagle shot at an angle. If you get EF-45 graded coins that look like this and sell them to me for fat EF-45 wholesale money (10% over Gray Sheet Bid), I'll buy them all because I'll be able to turn them over for a nice profit.

 

 

This coin is in a green label PCGS holder which means that it was graded 20+ years ago.

 

 

[RWB]

From the photo, it looks more like a real AU - but the lighting is very different.... Still it's a nice coin.

 

Some of the misunderstanding might be that assumed "value" is being confused with condition.