Understanding Uncirculated coin grading is tough.... 1 1

[Zebo]

On August 27, 2020 at 2:25 PM, Insider said:

1. "PCGS boasts about how they qualify for beans more than any other TPG."  IS THIS TRUE?  Do They?

i believe that they do, but I also believe many (many) more PCGS holdered coins are submitted than NGC or the other TPGs

2, CAC is a popular and successful company.  Do you agree that establishing a CAC only registry might just be a good business decision?  That might be similar to a TPGS printing several different label designs for the same date silver eagle coin.  Collectors will want one of each.  Good business decision.  

I believe it is a good business decision - registries are a powerful draw and many like the competition.

3. Do you believe that CAC evaluates coins differently from each service? 

No

4. I have heard that the same exact coin will usually bring more money  graded (from top to bottom):

PCGS CAC

NGC CAC

PCGS

NGC

Other TPGS

Have you seen this?

i have read it, but haven't really seen it to any great degree.

My answers above.

[RWB]

Interesting how the core issues are so easily side stepped....

[Henri Charriere]

1 hour ago, VKurtB said:

You're close, QA. I believe all 5 are graded as proofs, not Specimens, and the numbers go as low as 50, I believe, for the specimen that the ANA drags around to every convention. Unless I'm mistaken, the quality order is (just from pure recollection):

1) the Eliasberg

2) the Smithsonian

3) the Hawaii 5-0 specimen

4) the "lost" one that showed up in Baltimore

5) the ANA specimen

 

Correct me if that's not right, please.

The last time I offered to assist someone with an inquiry, jokingly implying I had a direct line to Ms. Google's niece, my comment was promptly taken down and I decided any moderator who was unaware no such person and family exists was undeserving of my attention.

In any event, the Google entry for the 1913 V-nickel -- last updated 4 months ago, provides a detailed chronological summary for all five describing each as a "specimen," briefly, as follows:

ELIASBERG SPECIMEN - best preserved, NGC/PCGS, et al. PF-66, sold to an unnamed CA collector for $5 million.

OLSEN SPECIMEN - most famous (Hawaii Five-O/King Farouk) PF-64, sold by Heritage for $3.7 million to an undisclosed buyer.

NORWEB SPECIMEN - donated to the Smithsonian in 1978.

WALTON SPECIMEN - the "lost" coin; donated to ANA museum.

McDERMOTT SPECIMEN. - sold at auction for $46K in 1967; donated to the ANA money museum in 1989.

References and extensive footnotes are provided. It seems to me your memory is phenomenal. (Too bad you didn't tell me I would have to sell a car I don't own to afford Prevagen which retails here for over fifty dollars.)

[physics-fan3.14]

8 hours ago, Insider said:

 Smaller coins are graded differently than larger coins.  Do you know why?  

 

I think there is a perception that smaller coins are graded more harshly than larger coins. But, I think this is a misconception. 

Think about a 1mm mark on the cheek of a coin. If the coin is a 17.9 mm dime, that's a significant mark compared to the size of the coin. Compare that to a 38 mm dollar.... the same size and placement of mark looks much less significant. 

It isn't that the grading standard is different - its that the size of the coin makes the same size mark appear relatively more significant on smaller coins. 

[VKurtB]

1 hour ago, Quintus Arrius said:

The last time I offered to assist someone with an inquiry, jokingly implying I had a direct line to Ms. Google's niece, my comment was promptly taken down and I decided any moderator who was unaware no such person and family exists was undeserving of my attention.

In any event, the Google entry for the 1913 V-nickel -- last updated 4 months ago, provides a detailed chronological summary for all five describing each as a "specimen," briefly, as follows:

ELIASBERG SPECIMEN - best preserved, NGC/PCGS, et al. PF-66, sold to an unnamed CA collector for $5 million.

OLSEN SPECIMEN - most famous (Hawaii Five-O/King Farouk) PF-64, sold by Heritage for $3.7 million to an undisclosed buyer.

NORWEB SPECIMEN - donated to the Smithsonian in 1978.

WALTON SPECIMEN - the "lost" coin; donated to ANA museum.

McDERMOTT SPECIMEN. - sold at auction for $46K in 1967; donated to the ANA money museum in 1989.

References and extensive footnotes are provided. It seems to me your memory is phenomenal. (Too bad you didn't tell me I would have to sell a car I don't own to afford Prevagen which retails here for over fifty dollars.)

I had no idea that the ANA owned both the Walton and the McDermott. I only knew that they had the McDermott which had been carried for a considerable time as a “pocket piece”. Holy samolies! I had no idea Prevagen was that dear. I may need to reopen my retirement budget spreadsheet again.

[Henri Charriere]

17 minutes ago, VKurtB said:

Holy samolies! I had no idea Prevagen was that dear. 

So dear, that when I was directed to the aisle where they were stocked, an empty shelf now festooned with their "discounted" price, a nearby store clerk dryly remarked, "Sorry they were all stolen." Security in New York City pharmacies is non-existent because its cost outweighs shrinkage.

[VKurtB]

45 minutes ago, Quintus Arrius said:

So dear, that when I was directed to the aisle where they were stocked, an empty shelf now festooned with their "discounted" price, a nearby store clerk dryly remarked, "Sorry they were all stolen." Security in New York City pharmacies is non-existent because its cost outweighs shrinkage.

Sounds like a key reason to stay the heck out of New York City to me.

[Insider]

14 hours ago, physics-fan3.14 said:

I think there is a perception that smaller coins are graded more harshly than larger coins. But, I think this is a misconception. 

Think about a 1mm mark on the cheek of a coin. If the coin is a 17.9 mm dime, that's a significant mark compared to the size of the coin. Compare that to a 38 mm dollar.... the same size and placement of mark looks much less significant. 

It isn't that the grading standard is different - its that the size of the coin makes the same size mark appear relatively more significant on smaller coins. 

I disagree with your opinion but agree with your example which is only one of the reasons they get slammed.  Two others:  Smaller coins are harder to see than larger coins.  The amount of friction on a small coin that makes it a "technical" AU would be virtually ignored on a larger piece.  Both of these factors allow them to be graded higher than they "technically" deserve.  Biggest offender IMHO: TPGS Type 2 gold dollar.  An even harder coin to grade correctly is the Three Cent silver.   Both are among our smallest coins.

[RWB]

Coins are pieces of intentionally deformed metal. Their surfaces are modified by several kinds of damage. Damage is assessed in relation to overall dimensions: proportionality.

No coin design is inherently "more difficult to grade" than another. People impose that on themselves by conflating empirical data with opinion and emotion.

[Henri Charriere]

There is no telling whose toes I am going to step on with this fleeting thought, but as someone old enough to remember when doctors still made house calls, it seems to me somewhere along the way authentication / grading / certification have all become weaponized.

[Conder101]

On 9/5/2020 at 10:29 AM, MarkFeld said:

With respect to such coins, it appears that the main motive on the part of the grading companies is to get them into their holders, and keep them out of the competition’s holders.

Which is why the King of Siam set spent some time bouncing back and forth between PCGS and NGC holders and going up one point each time they swapped.

The 1913 V Nickels used to all be considered to be business strikes, today they are all slabbed as proofs.  The 1894 S dimes are the same way.  All used to be business strikes (and are listed in the mint records as such) then became proofs, and are currently transitioning into Specimens.