To what degree does finest extant affect grading?

[DonHeath]

Supposing for example that every 41-S Walker known was soft strike, and grading evolved to accept the weakness of strike, what would be the ripple effect for previously holdered coins if one were found fully struck in high-grade?

[EVillageProwler]

Funny you should mention this specific coin... I once searched an entire show for a specimen that graded at least ChMS. The main requirement was that this coin be well struck. It didn't need to be fully struck. Well struck was sufficient.

 

After a couple of hours and looking at a large number of '41-S specimens, I finally picked one that was priced pretty strong. I negotiated the price down as much as possible and then bought it.

 

It is sitting in a Dansco album with the rest of my UNC short set Walkers. (The full set is complete, but just not all UNC.)

 

EVP

 

[Hoot]

I think that the way that other coins from a year/mint are graded has a biasing effect on the way that coin is graded. Of course, I could be full of it, but I believe that NGC and PCGS undergrade 1937-S buffalo nickels, and perhaps some others. Why? I've seen a lot of these coins and I can think of two in MS66 holders that were dead-on 67s. Perhaps only the ever-so-slightest lack of detail in the Indian's hair knot, but at least as much detail as the 67s I've seen. But for some reason, for that issue the grading companies are stingy on the 67 grade. Beats me why. Once the rarity of grade is established for a given coin, I think it sticks as a point of bias in grading. Just my opinion.

 

Hoot

[Wihlborg]

Hoot,

 

I agree with you. I do think the grading companies are harder on certain dates in all series, usually the rare dates.

 

John

 

[nwcs]

Don, this is one reason why they probably wouldn't adjust the standard for such coins. It would cause quite a stir without much gain. But if it did change so that a non existent partial hand can get into a 65, then you'd see a massive population shift and resubmissions and complaints from people who sold 64 coins that would now be called 65. Would probably have a repercussion on the grading service, too.

[jtryka]

This is an excellent question, but I think things really get wierd when there is only one coin extant! Take the 33 Saint, PCGS was proud to proclaim it an MS-65, but since there is only one, who would complain if they graded it 64 or 68? After all, most Saint collectors would be happy with one in AG! Would this coin get the same treatment as a common 1922 which of which NGC and PCGS combined have only graded 3 higher (all MS-66 by PCGS)? NGC has graded 28,878 coins of this date with only 243 in 65 and none higher. Or even better, compare it with the 1923, somewhat less common than the 22, but of the 15,576 that NGC has graded there are only 56 in MS-65 and none higher! Now the 22 and 23 are notorious for their poor strike, and that's well established by the thousands examined by graders and collectors over the years. How can you make any meaningful judgements about a coin like the 33 where less than a dozen ever left the mint? No one really knows if they were all fully struck, or if they were all weakly struck (with dents in Miss Liberty's midsection). Extremely high grades and extreme rarity are where grading takes a turn from the technical to the political in my opinion.