Guess the Grade just for fun! 1 1

[Insider]

15 minutes ago, kbbpll said:

I can't add much to this other than that I looked at a bunch of 1893 $5 between MS60-MS63 on Heritage last night and it seems all over the map to me. MS63 coins much worse than MS61, MS60 better than MS62, etc etc. ANACS seemed stricter than NGC or PCGS. Prices all over the place. I wouldn't want to be a grader, particularly not gold. (Mostly because I'd get fired after the first hour). On the obverse comparison I posted, I really see them about the same. (You're fired!) The gash across the cheek on the OP coin I see more as a rub and not too deep, while the other coin's gash looks deep. There's more chatter in the lower right field, but less above the hair and around the date. The left field on the OP coin has that one big gash, but otherwise they look about the same to me. (You're fired! Again! How many times do we have to fire you?)

A singular problem is all the coins you looked at were graded independently over a period of time.  The problem you point out would not be as acute IF A COIN'S VALUE (over a long period of time with changing market conditions) did not affect the assigned grade.   Additionally, it can be demonstrated that if I take a number of circulated coins (try this at your coin club) of the same type - $5 in this thread, and lay them on a table, most YN's can put them in order by their condition with very little disagreement.  The TPGS do not have that benefit as many variables are involved.  

I've QC'ed a coin that was obviously miss graded enough to make me wonder what the ignorant, blind, puke-rookie-grader was drinking!  When I went into the computer to correct the grade I saw that I was the first dummy on the box and led my fellow graders astray!      

[VKurtB]

9 minutes ago, Insider said:

A singular problem is all the coins you looked at were graded independently over a period of time.  The problem you point out would not be as acute IF A COIN'S VALUE (over a long period of time with changing market conditions) did not affect the assigned grade.   Additionally, it can be demonstrated that if I take a number of circulated coins (try this at your coin club) of the same type - $5 in this thread, and lay them on a table, most YN's can put them in order by their condition with very little disagreement.  The TPGS do not have that benefit as many variables are involved.  

I've QC'ed a coin that was obviously miss graded enough to make me wonder what the ignorant, blind, puke-rookie-grader was drinking!  When I went into the computer to correct the grade I saw that I was the first dummy on the box and led my fellow graders astray!      

How do you ‘splain this? (Says the guy who got the MS 62 correct, for the OP’s coin, but without the star.) By the way, the guy who most taught me about modern grading is Brian Silliman.

Edited August 17, 2020 by VKurtB

[RWB]

Keep working at it....try a different perspective or orientation. Pull off the duct tape and take a breath....

:)

[MAULEMALL]

7 hours ago, Insider said:

Fair enough.  I admit to having a very low tolerance for numismatic nonsense that cannot be defended. 

 Case in point.. 😂

 

[VKurtB]

The “other” fact that this thread reminded me of is the utter folly of trying to guess grades via photographs. Coins are three dimensional objects that need to be seen and judged in all three dimensions, along with proper light. I don’t know why I continue to get suckered into talking about coin grades from photos. It’s not real.

[Henri Charriere]

[I was tempted to bring up chop marks on Mint state Trade Dollars but I see you're all doing very well without me.  All the best!]

[VKurtB]

12 hours ago, Quintus Arrius said:

[I was tempted to bring up chop marks on Mint state Trade Dollars but I see you're all doing very well without me.  All the best!]

Why? There is nothing about any sort of counter stamp that precludes an MS range grade. A counter stamp is not wear. 

[Insider]

12 hours ago, VKurtB said:

The “other” fact that this thread reminded me of is the utter folly of trying to guess grades via photographs. Coins are three dimensional objects that need to be seen and judged in all three dimensions, along with proper light. I don’t know why I continue to get suckered into talking about coin grades from photos. It’s not real.

I disagree in part.  Much can be learned from decent images.  Images are used in grading seminars to introduce students to what they will see/look for on actual coins.  Besides, GTG discussions are just fun & helpful exercises.   

12 hours ago, Quintus Arrius said:

[I was tempted to bring up chop marks on Mint state Trade Dollars but I see you're all doing very well without me.  All the best!]

Chop Marks damage coins, often both sides at once.  At one time these damaged coins were dirt cheap. Chopped coins are historical and the chops served an interesting  purpose.  Over time these coins have become more popular,  Thus, many of the TPGS started to straight grade them while adding "Chop marked" to the label.   

[Insider]

On 8/17/2020 at 11:19 AM, RWB said:

Let’s look at this a little more closely.

 

For example, “uncirculated” refers to a coin/medal, etc. which shows no evidence of circulation or handling by people. If it is exactly as it came from the dies, we call it “MS-70” or “Unc-70” for convenience

Roger, The first thing to hit my eyes was this statement above.  I hope you wrote it this way for simplicity so consider this a clarification.  "Uncirculated" (Mint State is better) is a coin as made with no evidence of circulation or handling.  BUT...We DO NOT CALL IT MS-70 unless it is perfect.   Additionally, while a technically graded & flatly struck coin can be considered to be "perfect as it left the dies" (MS-70) the commercial market does not.    

To be continued...

[MAULEMALL]

Well this ought to warm your cockles😆 https://www.ngccoin.com/news/article/8464/colorized-basketball-coins/

[Just Bob]

A couple of posts have mentioned something that I have an issue with: I can't see how anyone can think "market grading" is a good thing. Assigning a grade to a coin that is based on its perceived market value, rather than its technical merit, is, in my opinion, very detrimental to the hobby. It blurs, or completely erases, the "fixed point" that was mentioned earlier, which is a requirement for standardization in grading.

A coin's condition should determine its value, not the other way around. If this means that a nice looking AU58 sells for more than an ugly MS61, so what? The issue has been around long enough for the coin community to adapt to it and value each coin according to its merits, regardless of whether or not the numbers match the price. A circulated coin can never be uncirculated, and should never be graded as such.

[VKurtB]

1 hour ago, Just Bob said:

A couple of posts have mentioned something that I have an issue with: I can't see how anyone can think "market grading" is a good thing. Assigning a grade to a coin that is based on its perceived market value, rather than its technical merit, is, in my opinion, very detrimental to the hobby. It blurs, or completely erases, the "fixed point" that was mentioned earlier, which is a requirement for standardization in grading.

A coin's condition should determine its value, not the other way around. If this means that a nice looking AU58 sells for more than an ugly MS61, so what? The issue has been around long enough for the coin community to adapt to it and value each coin according to its merits, regardless of whether or not the numbers match the price. A circulated coin can never be uncirculated, and should never be graded as such.

I might agree if everything about the coin could be “better” about the 58 of which you speak, including but not limited to pricing and registry points. But counter to what you imply, a 61 uncirculated coin can never become a 58 either. A 61 that picks up some wear instantly becomes an AU 50. They are on fundamentally different scales on the coin analog of the H–R diagram. To be truly indicative of what is going on, we’d need to have AU grades above 58/59, and MS below 60, just as proofs can go all the way down.

Edited August 19, 2020 by VKurtB

[Just Bob]

1 hour ago, VKurtB said:

 But counter to what you imply, a 61 uncirculated coin can never become a 58 either. A 61 that picks up some wear instantly becomes an AU 50.

If this is being applied in the real world, I can't say that I approve of it, either. A circulated coin should be graded on loss of detail from wear, not on how many contact marks it has, or their severity. Obviously, strike has to be taken into consideration for individual issues or coins, as well as other factors, such as die wear, die adjustment, or anything else that can masquerade as wear, but abrasions and other circulation marks should not affect the grade. They should be mentioned in any description, and should be taken into consideration when assigning a value, but should not affect the numerical grade.

[Henri Charriere]

9 hours ago, Just Bob said:

A couple of posts have mentioned something that I have an issue with: I can't see how anyone can think "market grading" is a good thing. Assigning a grade to a coin that is based on its perceived market value, rather than its technical merit, is, in my opinion, very detrimental to the hobby. It blurs, or completely erases, the "fixed point" that was mentioned earlier, which is a requirement for standardization in grading.

A coin's condition should determine its value, not the other way around. If this means that a nice looking AU58 sells for more than an ugly MS61, so what? The issue has been around long enough for the coin community to adapt to it and value each coin according to its merits, regardless of whether or not the numbers match the price. A circulated coin can never be uncirculated, and should never be graded as such.

Fair market value grading?  I agree.

[kbbpll]

13 hours ago, Just Bob said:

Assigning a grade to a coin that is based on its perceived market value, rather than its technical merit, is, in my opinion, very detrimental to the hobby.

Wasn't the Sheldon scale originally based on a value computation? Something like a MS60 large cent is worth 10x a G6, but I can't remember where I read that and can't find a reference. Maybe I'm remembering wrong, or what I read was just wrong.

[Just Bob]

10 minutes ago, kbbpll said:

Wasn't the Sheldon scale originally based on a value computation? Something like a MS60 large cent is worth 10x a G6, but I can't remember where I read that and can't find a reference. Maybe I'm remembering wrong, or what I read was just wrong.

It is my understanding that Dr. Sheldon devised his scale to assign a value to large cents, based on their state of preservation. His theory, as you stated, was that if a "basal state" coin was worth "X," then a Vf30 was worth 30 times "X," an MS 60 was worth 60 times "X," etc. And, as we all know, it has been accepted and adapted by the coin community to include all coins. But, he was not assigning a grade based on the value of the coin. He was assigning a value, based on the grade. This is as it should be.

[VKurtB]

8 minutes ago, Just Bob said:

It is my understanding that Dr. Sheldon devised his scale to assign a value to large cents, based on their state of preservation. His theory, as you stated, was that if a "basal state" coin was worth "X," then a Vf30 was worth 30 times "X," an MS 60 was worth 60 times "X," etc. And, as we all know, it has been accepted and adapted by the coin community to include all coins. But, he was not assigning a grade based on the value of the coin. He was assigning a value, based on the grade. This is as it should be.

Surely supply and demand have a large role, no? Market grading is based on the completely sensible idea that the higher graded coin, of the same type, date, and mintmark, should always be worth more in the market than a lower graded coin. That's so intuitively correct that I can scarcely imagine anyone disputing it. And yes, I have seen "lowball" sets. More lunacy, in my opinion.

Edited August 19, 2020 by VKurtB

[Insider]

13 hours ago, Just Bob said:

A couple of posts have mentioned something that I have an issue with: I can't see how anyone can think "market grading" is a good thing. Assigning a grade to a coin that is based on its perceived market value, rather than its technical merit, is, in my opinion, very detrimental to the hobby. It blurs, or completely erases, the "fixed point" that was mentioned earlier, which is a requirement for standardization in grading.

A coin's condition should determine its value, not the other way around. If this means that a nice looking AU58 sells for more than an ugly MS61, so what? The issue has been around long enough for the coin community to adapt to it and value each coin according to its merits, regardless of whether or not the numbers match the price. A circulated coin can never be uncirculated, and should never be graded as such.

Unfortunately, long ago a group of influential, knowledgeable coin DEALERS were not happy with the strict grading standards being followed by NON DEALERS at the two major TPGS (ANACS & INSAB).  Coins were being graded by their condition and dealers were expected to value them.  There were fewer MS grades.  The dealers set up PCGS to reflect the "real world" grading they preferred.  A large number of coin dealers joined on and the rest is history.  At first, their grading was not as strict but it was acceptable.  After a while, it went to hell.  In many cases the "new" commercial grade assigned had no relationship to the coin's actual condition.  Eventually, many of the old XF/AU rare coins became MS!  The dealers covered their butts by saying that coin grading "evolved" as they learned more.  

Bottom line.  Shoulda, woulda, coulda has no effect on anything.  The "wolves" run the business and things are not too bad.  We all need to get used to it and quit complaining as nothing is going to change.   Keep your personal standards but you better learn the TPGS system.   

[VKurtB]

4 minutes ago, Insider said:

The "wolves" run the business and things are not too bad.

Just to be certain I don't misinterpret you, the "wolves" are who?

[Henri Charriere]

13 minutes ago, VKurtB said:

Just to be certain I don't misinterpret you, the "wolves" are who?

Oh, for Chris'sake, VKurtB! You really want him to spell it out for you on a public forum?  This is something that must be deduced in the overall context of the comment. You may draw the inference as you see fit. Buttonholing or pillorying is not acceptable.

[VKurtB]

10 minutes ago, Quintus Arrius said:

Oh, for Chris'sake, VKurtB! You really want him to spell it out for you on a public forum?  This is something that must be deduced in the overall context of the comment. You may draw the inference as you see fit. Buttonholing or pillorying is not acceptable.

So then you tell me, are they the dealers or the TPGS? And if it is either or both of these, who would be the better alternative? You've admitted on this board that you have purchased many, if not all, of your Coq Marianne sight unseen. You just wanted the highest number. Did you want just "nick picking" (my own pun), or overall quality to be the basis of those numbers?

Edited August 19, 2020 by VKurtB

[Just Bob]

31 minutes ago, VKurtB said:

Surely supply and demand have a large role, no? Market grading is based on the completely sensible idea that the higher graded coin, of the same type, date, and mintmark, should always be worth more in the market than a lower graded coin. That's so intuitively correct that I can scarcely imagine anyone disputing it. And yes, I have seen "lowball" sets. More lunacy, in my opinion.

If you are referring to the price, then, yes, absolutely. In addition, things like precious metal content, desirability, scarcity, and availability of buyer funds will influence the price.

That last one may seem a bit unusual to some, so let me explain: If I bid against buyer X, but he/she can afford to pay more than I can, the coin sells at his/her price, and gets recorded in the database of prices realized. Had I been able to bid more, the price realized would have been higher. This higher price could possibly have an effect on future prices realized, since these are often used to determine how much a buyer is willing to pay for a coin.

Clear as mud?

 

Back to the subject at hand:

I disagree that market grading is a sensible idea, and that a higher graded coin should always bring more than a lower graded coin. The price/value should be based on the individual coin, and the factors cited above, not on a number that has been assigned by another party, and that is likely to change with the whims of the powers that be.

On a slightly different but very related note: We all know of coins that have been regraded over and over, and have gone up two or three points in grade. Is such a coin worth more each time the grade goes up, even though the coin is still the same? The market says, "yes," and I have to accept that. But, I don't have to agree with it or like it.

[VKurtB]

8 minutes ago, Just Bob said:

If you are referring to the price, then, yes, absolutely. In addition, things like precious metal content, desirability, scarcity, and availability of buyer funds will influence the price.

That last one may seem a bit unusual to some, so let me explain: If I bid against buyer X, but he/she can afford to pay more than I can, the coin sells at his/her price, and gets recorded in the database of prices realized. Had I been able to bid more, the price realized would have been higher. This higher price could possibly have an effect on future prices realized, since these are often used to determine how much a buyer is willing to pay for a coin.

Clear as mud?

 

Back to the subject at hand:

I disagree that market grading is a sensible idea, and that a higher graded coin should always bring more than a lower graded coin. The price/value should be based on the individual coin, and the factors cited above, not on a number that has been assigned by another party, and that is likely to change with the whims of the powers that be.

On a slightly different but very related note: We all know of coins that have been regraded over and over, and have gone up two or three points in grade. Is such a coin worth more each time the grade goes up, even though the coin is still the same? The market says, "yes," and I have to accept that. But, I don't have to agree with it or like it.

My answer is a less troubled "yes". There is one famous (infamous?) Ike dollar I've read about. INCREDIBLE upgrading over time, from to finest known.

 

Bob, I've never liked technical grading (nick picking), and I never will. I am a 100% market grading fan.

Edited August 19, 2020 by VKurtB

[kbbpll]

1 hour ago, Just Bob said:

It is my understanding that Dr. Sheldon devised his scale to assign a value to large cents, based on their state of preservation. His theory, as you stated, was that if a "basal state" coin was worth "X," then a Vf30 was worth 30 times "X," an MS 60 was worth 60 times "X," etc. And, as we all know, it has been accepted and adapted by the coin community to include all coins. But, he was not assigning a grade based on the value of the coin. He was assigning a value, based on the grade. This is as it should be.

Thanks. It seems like a dog chasing its tail to me.

[VKurtB]

2 minutes ago, kbbpll said:

Thanks. It seems like a dog chasing its tail to me.

At its very best, the original Sheldon system was describing a snapshot in time. Imagine how he would feel about 1 or 2 points raising a coin's value by THOUSANDS. What coin in MS range trades for only 5x a Fine-12 specimen? Wow. That  was way before condition-centric collecting was a thing. And it has only accelerated. Mundane graded coins bring nothing compared with prime quality pieces.

[Henri Charriere]

1 hour ago, VKurtB said:

So then you tell me, are they the dealers or the TPGS? And if it is either or both of these, who would be the better alternative? You've admitted on this board that you have purchased many, if not all, of your Coq Marianne sight unseen. You just wanted the highest number. Did you want just "nick picking" (my own pun), or overall quality to be the basis of those numbers?

(Whatever happened to, I don't want anything more to do with Quintus Arrius?) Alright then, imprimus, I most certainly will not dissect Insider's comment here. (Bad enough he had me effectively barred from another thread by laying down a gauntlet with a "bet" stipulation.) Secondly, re roosters, I was laser-focused on locating the finest available coins, sight unseen, which necessarily meant an assemblage that relied solely on my implicit trust of a TPGS' international offices. Fortunately, my faith was rewarded. (If there was any semblance of "wolfery," that honor must go to the "detective" who tracked down owners of high-grade specimens, made them an offer they could not refuse, relayed that to me, and the rest, as they say, is history. Public offerings at that level are so sparce, I have not been able to upgrade since late last year and with gold's meteoric rise, it is doubtful I'll ever be able to.)

Edited August 19, 2020 by Quintus Arrius
Correct misspelling

[Just Bob]

1 hour ago, Insider said:

 In many cases the "new" commercial grade assigned had no relationship to the coin's actual condition.  Eventually, many of the old XF/AU rare coins became MS!  The dealers covered their butts by saying that coin grading "evolved" as they learned more. 

Again, I fail to see how anyone can claim that this is good for the hobby.

This is just as deceptive as the Legend dealer who allegedly lobbied PCGS to remove most of their Truview photos, so that her potential customers would not be able to see how certain coins had increased in grade over time. She argued that this transparency was ruining the hobby. Not that "gradeflation" was ruining the hobby, but that the public's knowledge of the practice was ruining the hobby. How wrong is that?!

[VKurtB]

39 minutes ago, Just Bob said:

Again, I fail to see how anyone can claim that this is good for the hobby.

This is just as deceptive as the Legend dealer who allegedly lobbied PCGS to remove most of their Truview photos, so that her potential customers would not be able to see how certain coins had increased in grade over time. She argued that this transparency was ruining the hobby. Not that "gradeflation" was ruining the hobby, but that the public's knowledge of the practice was ruining the hobby. How wrong is that?!

Well, that's Laura being Laura, and a whole year of conversations all its own.  Laura isn't Sicilian, but she thinks like a Sicilian. "One day I will come to you for a favor, and you must do this favor for me..."

Edited August 19, 2020 by VKurtB

[Henri Charriere]

On 8/15/2020 at 8:23 PM, RWB said:

Uncirculated (60), damaged.

Sorry, but no sane person is going to pay the value of s MS-62 for that coin; and I specifically reject the "grade" as false. At least it's genuine.

I withheld comment due to reservations of my own. I have a gold Venezuelan coin graded at AU-58 with nice eye appeal and a complete lack of surface pyrotechnics and ditto a French gold rooster, which graded at MS-64, both virtually indistinguishable despite the gulf in grade spread. VKurtB says gold tends to be graded generously.  Bag marks are expected but I didn't appreciate this until I laid eyes on an MS-67 with original mint luster and no discernible defects. The only possible way I could practice grading is to have a detailed photo array of coin type examples in front of me of obverses and reverses at the pinnacle of the good doctor's scale.

[Insider]

2 hours ago, Just Bob said:

Again, I fail to see how anyone can claim that this is good for the hobby.

This is just as deceptive as the Legend dealer who allegedly lobbied PCGS to remove most of their Truview photos, so that her potential customers would not be able to see how certain coins had increased in grade over time. She argued that this transparency was ruining the hobby. Not that "gradeflation" was ruining the hobby, but that the public's knowledge of the practice was ruining the hobby. How wrong is that?!

Who is the anyone you refer to?  It's not me.  Read my post again.   The ONLY good things I can see that have come from the "Commercial" TPGS are these:

1. Slabs

2. A bunch of innovators got rich - it's the American Way.

3. The coin market is a safer place for those who use the major TPGS.

4. Coins in amazing condition have come out of the woodwork. 

5. Slabs allow anyone to be a coin dealer.

6. Slabs help folks to learn how to grade.

Can anyone else thing of additional good things?

7.