Star for Striking Designations?

[physics-fan3.14]

The Star applied to NGC coins can be a little bit confusing to beginners, but it can be a useful tool.

First, it is applied to coins with exceptional eye appeal (which is subjective). If a coin has great toning, the Star will be applied, such as with my EF-45* Bust Half below. Strong, flashy luster will also sometimes earn the Star. 

The Star is also applied to coins which just barely miss the next higher designation. However, as far as I know, that only applies to PL/DMPL and CAM/UCAM. A coin with a great one-sided cameo will get a star, or a coin with a nicely mirrored side but a lustrous other side will get a star. An example of this is my very unusual 64 Kennedy, graded 64* shown below - a coin which just missed PL. 

So my question is, then - why is the Star not applied to coins which almost meet the strike designations, but don't quite? It seems like a similar case to the PL/DMPL. There is a noticeable premium for well struck coins (especially ones which are usually softly struck). For example, take a look at the reverse of my 1953S Franklin below. It is graded 66+, and the bell lines are well above average for the date (but not quite FBL). I paid $600 for it a few years ago; if this coin were FBL it would easily approach $100k. Now, I'm not saying it is anywhere near that level - but Franklin specialists are willing to pay a premium for well struck coins that don't quite meet the FBL criteria. I would assume that Jefferson, Mercury, and SLQ specialists do the same. 

I'm not necessarily saying this strike Star should exist, I'm merely pondering. Any thoughts? 

[LINCOLNMAN]

I think you may be on to something. I've collected Mercury and SLQ specimens that just miss the FB or FH designation, at least those coins where the price difference is significant.  In the case of my SLQ's, they look like FH at first glance. It would be helpful if there were some sort of shorthand to call attention to those coins that fall short, but just. However, to what degree would this be redundant, as strike is figured in to some extent in the grade, or so I'm told (haven't seen a lot of evidence of this myself).

[SkyMan]

For a '53-S that is a Very nicely struck coin! 

[PocketArt]

I think the '53-S is phenomenal for strike quality for year/mint.  

Honestly; I'd much prefer getting rid of the * designation, and going to something a bit more demarcated for coins.  I personally would like to see a 1-10 scale designed for the accounting of wear, strike, surfaces, luster.  Then have a total grade for coin.  Why not?  With so many attributes of a coin going into the grade- it's best to keep them separated, and have the sum of each quality designated with a total grade for all.  

With the fee that is being paid for grading- it's fair to ask, and display all of the coins qualities.    

Just my thoughts, 

Rich        

[physics-fan3.14]

PA - I totally agree with your ideas. Accugrade tried something like that in the past, but their inconsistency led to their demise. 

I believe Rick Snow is trying to get something like that going again, although he isn't getting much support. 

What you are really asking for is a complete retooling of the current TPG scheme. This is a great goal - but very difficult to put into practice (even if it would be much more useful than the much-ballyhooed 100 point scale). 

An incremental change in a Star designation (just like the incremental addition of a +), would be a much, much easier task! 

[World Colonial]

12 hours ago, PocketArt said:

 I personally would like to see a 1-10 scale designed for the accounting of wear, strike, surfaces, luster.  Then have a total grade for coin.  

Rich        

Ancient coins are graded in this manner, without the overall numerical grade.  I find it a much simpler system and one which avoids the numismatic minutia which doesn't really have much of anything to do with collecting.  Ancient coins still have assigned stars.

IMO, the proposal discussed here might temporarily lift the profile of the receiving coins (especially the price) but longer term, a substantial increase would almost certainly dilute its supposed significance.

[Conder101]

ANACS also did something along that line back in their photocertificate days with a 1 - 3 rating for each of the features Strike, Luster, Surfaces, and Eye Appeal, (1 below average, 2 average, and 3 above average) and they gave the obv and rev grades given by each of the four graders.  Gave you a lot more information about how the graders saw the coin.

[coinman1794]

I find the Star too inconsistently applied to justify expansion beyond Eye Appeal and PL surfaces. Frankly, I would rather they said "PL obverse" than "*" on the one-sided PL, DPL, CAM, ULTRA coins.

On ancient coins, the Star is actually used for special qualities, like great silvering or a perfectly centered strike. These aspects set the coin apart from the rest of the heard.

The 5/5 Strike 5/5 Surface grading system does not work on other coin types that are graded numerically. It is not designed to split into 10 MS grades, for instance.

[RWB]

Differences between consecutive numeric designations are already statistical absurdities. Adding a star, asterisk, plus, minus, or some other symbol simply decreases the reliability and accuracy of TPG "grading."

[World Colonial]

1 hour ago, RWB said:

Differences between consecutive numeric designations are already statistical absurdities. Adding a star, asterisk, plus, minus, or some other symbol simply decreases the reliability and accuracy of TPG "grading."

I agree with your sentiments which was part of the intent of my last post.  I don't think the grading system NGC uses for ancients should be added to the assignment of numerical grades but if any change is to be made, as a replacement.  This is essentially what existed before the Sheldon scale was widely applied to more than predominantly early US copper.

Expanding the use of the "*" designation I can see accomplishing three things:

First, increasing grading fees for TPG

Second, diluting the designation while simultaneously fooling more collectors into believe it is somehow significant.

Three, inflating the value of more coins to provide predominantly a one-time windfall to the current owner while pricing even more coins out of reach of more collectors.

Below is a link to a Byzantine silver miliarision graded MS* 5/5 5/5.  Its the best one I have seen but only marginally by my standards though definitively.  Does the * designation really add anything that isn't already evident without it?  Not in my opinion because anyone who has looked for this coin will know it is quite scarce and this is at least one of the best in existence.

http://atlasnumismatics.com/1038383/

Of the three coins included in the OP, I can see the * maybe making some sense for the Capped Bust half.  For the other two, they are so common that assigning the * is splitting hairs.

In some of the series I collect, the Ancient methodology would make more sense than the 70 point Sheldon scale.  One reason for this is that I have seen many "details" coins which I consider easily better than any number of numerically graded coins and within  numerically graded coins, inconsistencies between the quality of lower graded coins which are easily better than their higher graded counterparts.  In buying these coins, other than the price, I ignore the numerical grade altogether.

[Insider]

Gee Jason, why don't you call NGC and ask to speak with a finalizer - wait that won't work.  Why don't you copy your OP into an email and send it to NGC.  In it, ask politely if they could forward your email to someone qualified to give you NGC's policy on your question and why they don't take your suggestion.  Perhaps it is just a case of too much subjectivity already with stars.

[LINCOLNMAN]

Off the subject, the Byzantine coin posted above is really a beautiful coin. One wonders how a coin like that could have been preserved for 1200 or so years. Spectacular piece of history. I'm tempted to compare price/value to some modern coins, but don't want to raise a ruckus that I'm sure has been raised ad infinitum.

Back on point, the "ancient" approach to grading seems appropriate for early US coins, colonial in particular. A pipe dream, I know. The 70 point grading scale seems somehow a bad fit for older coins, including those that it was originally intended for.

 

[RWB]

Beautiful Miliaresion.

 

The whole TPG "grading" thing has so badly distorted value that I doubt coin collecting will ever return to general popularity, or a pleasurable hobby.

[World Colonial]

On ‎5‎/‎26‎/‎2017 at 3:46 PM, LINCOLNMAN said:

Back on point, the "ancient" approach to grading seems appropriate for early US coins, colonial in particular. A pipe dream, I know. The 70 point grading scale seems somehow a bad fit for older coins, including those that it was originally intended for.

 

Agree.

The biggest problem I have with TPG grading is really only with one of my series, Spanish colonial pillar coinage which is practically all I do and intend to buy going forward.  I see many "blast white" coins in straight graded holders including MS grades versus others that either wind up in "details" holders or which presumably have a minor rub but with much better strikes in (lower) AU grades.  I recently sold an untoned MS-63 2R which I believe most collectors would agree with me is inferior to the MS-61 I kept.  I don't normally care for the MS-61 grade but this coin has a great strike, nice color and the surfaces I think are better than the grade.  It has numerous "pinpricks" near one of the pillars which I presume accounts for the grade.

Financially, its a problem because many of the coins are bought by non-US collectors who don't like plastic and are sold ungraded.  I have tired of guessing what grades these coins are going to receive and have on occasion overpaid.  I have also bought a few that are now in "details" holders that I will crack out if I ever sell them.  I think it would make more sense to assign "details' coins designated with "(excessive) surface hairlines" which seems to be the most common reason with a surface of 2/5   These coins were obviously less desired in the past but I don't believe ever deemed not "market acceptable".

[World Colonial]

On ‎5‎/‎26‎/‎2017 at 10:29 PM, RWB said:

The whole TPG "grading" thing has so badly distorted value that I doubt coin collecting will ever return to general popularity, or a pleasurable hobby.

Agree though don't see the TPG as having caused it.  I see it as a consequence of the financialization of collecting which has created a nonsensical price structure from what I can see for any coinage which has any noticeable US buyer interest.  Outside the US, predominantly US buying has also inflated the price level and made their local coinage a lot less affordable and the better coinage unaffordable to local collectors.

As for pleasurable, the higher price level has increased the supply somewhat for what I buy but overall, I see it as a negative because I can buy less for my budget.

[coinman1794]

I like that Byzantine coin very much, and see why it got the Star. In addition to attractive pastel color, it is struck and centered better than many coins of the 18th century, yet it is from the 800s. Clearly a superior specimen.

[rrantique]