A Nicer 1938 Proof Nickel 1 1

[FlyingAl]

On 10/7/2022 at 5:12 PM, Lem E said:

I did this little mock up of the 8s from 38-80 for anyone that is interested in seeing a side by side comparison. 

This is great, thank you! The original is the best IMO. 

[FlyingAl]

On 10/8/2022 at 5:23 PM, VKurtB said:

Are you BEGINNING, at least, to see my issues with Roger here, Al? This is vintage Roger. 100% (bizarre) opinion with no connection to reality. Why would I buy books written by a guy like this? For that matter, why would anybody?

I can understand why you have your differences with Roger (whether or not I agree with those reasons). I, for one, don't have any issue with the majority of his opinions. This is one difference. Roger's grading in general is decades behind where the market is, so his opinions on grading will also be decades behind. I won't buy a book Roger writes on grading, but you sure can bet I'll buy a book of his on mint history. 

I am sure that eventually, we will all disagree on something. After all, if you are holding for everyone to think positively of you, you'll be waiting for a very long time indeed. 

[ldhair]

On 10/8/2022 at 6:23 PM, VKurtB said:

Are you BEGINNING, at least, to see my issues with Roger here, Al? This is vintage Roger. 100% (bizarre) opinion with no connection to reality. Why would I buy books written by a guy like this? For that matter, why would anybody?

You seem to have an issue with everyone. Why do you attack people? Why all the hate for others?

[Henri Charriere]

On 10/8/2022 at 7:23 PM, VKurtB said:

Are you BEGINNING, at least, to see my issues with Roger here, Al? This is vintage Roger. 100% (bizarre) opinion with no connection to reality. Why would I buy books written by a guy like this? For that matter, why would anybody?

Shakespeare:  "What hempen homespuns have we swaggering here..." 

🐓:  I am inclined to cut Roger some slack here.  Had he dared to include "strike" "luster" "color" or what is generally referred to as "eye appeal," I would dissent, but he did not. Me thinketh it past time to bury the hatchet.  

Q.A.:  Don't look at me!  

[Just Bob]

On 10/8/2022 at 6:23 PM, VKurtB said:

 100% (bizarre) opinion with no connection to reality.

Actually, it has a very legitimate connection to reality. It is the way ANACS graded before NGC and PCGS came along, and it (in a slightly modified version) is the way NGC currently grades Ancients. I agree that it is not the way that the US coin market currently operates, and it definitely is not an idea that seems to be popular with many collectors or especially dealers, but to say that it has no connection to reality implies, at least in my mind, that it is something Roger invented. 

Here is a question for you, Kurt, to which I would love to get a non-judgemental, non-sarcastic, honest answer - either here on the forum, or elsewhere (like maybe over a plate of ribs at Dreamland barbeque in Tuscaloosa): what is it about a grading scale based on empirical standards that does not appeal to you? It seems to me that a set of standards that remain constant over time, consistently applied, could be nothing but beneficial to the hobby.

[numisport]

On 10/8/2022 at 5:45 PM, RWB said:

Nope.

1) A "star" "asterisk" "flumbot" or other character is not a grade --- just a decoration. 2) "Frost" "fog" "snow" "ice" are not part of a grade - they express nothing about the state of preservation of a coin or medal.

A meaningful grade is a written and numerical description of the deterioration of a coin or medal from the moment it leaves the dies to the present time; nothing else. Other factors of collector interest are all subjective and thus infinitely variable among individuals. "Grade" must be stable over time, while other factors may go in and out of favor with collectors and thus modify the fair market value.

I consider the Star designation a valuable tool that levels the playing field with other TPGs. ATS collectors seem to want the holder as much as the coin; just look at the partisan numbers of collectors that want doilies or rattlers yet consider NGC labeled coins to be worth less when similar coins are compared to PCGS coins. If it weren't for CAC there would be no way for uninformed collectors to determine which PCGS coins were high end for the grade or which ones just barely make the grade [or worse yet ones that fail to meet the grade] and as we know there are a fair number of those.

[Henri Charriere]

Q.A.:  Is it safe to come out yet?

🐓:  Not by a long shot.  The sides are still being drawn.  Maybe later.  

[zadok]

On 10/9/2022 at 12:16 AM, Just Bob said:

Actually, it has a very legitimate connection to reality. It is the way ANACS graded before NGC and PCGS came along, and it (in a slightly modified version) is the way NGC currently grades Ancients. I agree that it is not the way that the US coin market currently operates, and it definitely is not an idea that seems to be popular with many collectors or especially dealers, but to say that it has no connection to reality implies, at least in my mind, that it is something Roger invented. 

Here is a question for you, Kurt, to which I would love to get a non-judgemental, non-sarcastic, honest answer - either here on the forum, or elsewhere (like maybe over a plate of ribs at Dreamland barbeque in Tuscaloosa): what is it about a grading scale based on empirical standards that does not appeal to you? It seems to me that a set of standards that remain constant over time, consistently applied, could be nothing but beneficial to the hobby.

...its very simple...collectors do not n never will collect coins empirically....

[RWB]

RE: "First, grading comes down to valuing a coin. It is valuation in the simplest sense."

This is a totally false viewpoint, and I've very disappointed to see it embraced by someone with so much potential.

The only valuation determination of a coin is between buyer and seller, and that is widely variable. This is easily confirmed by looking at coins of identical "grade" in auction results.

Second, the moment someone adds subjective criteria to the "grade" of a coin, the grade begins to float and is no longer a reliable indicator of the state of preservation of a coin.

TPG and other "grading" schemes are unreliable if opinion and potentially objective measurements are mixed.

Third, the entire base of TPG authentication and grading is independence from the money-forces of numismatics. If a TPG ever becomes a "valuator" of coins rather then an objective "evaluator," the whole pile of assumptions and grades falls apart. Coin collecting becomes just a self-serving pile of needy, greedy people conniving to rip the entrails from collector's wallets.

[RWB]

On 10/9/2022 at 12:16 AM, Just Bob said:

It seems to me that a set of standards that remain constant over time, consistently applied, could be nothing but beneficial to the hobby.

This is what the TPGs were supposed to do. Leave opinion factors to the free market which is also where values are determined. Mixing the two corrupts.

[FlyingAl]

On 10/9/2022 at 10:28 AM, RWB said:

RE: "First, grading comes down to valuing a coin. It is valuation in the simplest sense."

This is a totally false viewpoint, and I've very disappointed to see it embraced by someone with so much potential.

The only valuation determination of a coin is between buyer and seller, and that is widely variable. This is easily confirmed by looking at coins of identical "grade" in auction results.

Second, the moment someone adds subjective criteria to the "grade" of a coin, the grade begins to float and is no longer a reliable indicator of the state of preservation of a coin.

TPG and other "grading" schemes are unreliable if opinion and potentially objective measurements are mixed.

Third, the entire base of TPG authentication and grading is independence from the money-forces of numismatics. If a TPG ever becomes a "valuator" of coins rather then an objective "evaluator," the whole pile of assumptions and grades falls apart. Coin collecting becomes just a self-serving pile of needy, greedy people conniving to rip the entrails from collector's wallets.

Roger, you are correct that the true value of a coin must be decided by buyer and seller. However, you cannot deny that the grade assigned by a TPG sets the baseline for what the coin will sell for. Look at all of the examples of the exact same coin in a different TPG grade that sell for wildly different prices - and all that changed was the number on the label. The value changed based on the grade assigned, did it not?

Several TPG graders have openly admitted that the grading services grade based upon the market valuation of a coin in certain instances. For example, a coin that would grade 65 today was previously graded 64 a decade ago because the market value of a 64 then is what the market value of a 65 is today. Like it or not, that's how it goes. 

Inherently, using your system will end up valuing a coin as well. No matter what, a collector will always pay more for a MS65 example over a VG10. By stating the surface preservation as a number, you've just placed the coin into a price category where a collector will likely buy it for. Is that category fixed? No. But does that price range exist? Absolutely. The grade sets the baseline. 

Why do I embrace this view? It's how I survive in the hobby. There's no way I could have any collection anywhere near what I have today if there wasn't this value change based on a TPG grade. It's why crackouts work. It's why cherrypicking works. It's how I finance my collection, because the system favors those who have the knowledge and experience to play the game. 

Do I collect this way - absolutely not! I almost never take grade into consideration when buying a coin for my 1936-42 proofs collection. Grade is the last element on my list of attributes I want in a coin. I do this because I know how the system works. I make the system work for me, not against me.

[zadok]

On 10/9/2022 at 12:28 PM, RWB said:

RE: "First, grading comes down to valuing a coin. It is valuation in the simplest sense."

This is a totally false viewpoint, and I've very disappointed to see it embraced by someone with so much potential.

The only valuation determination of a coin is between buyer and seller, and that is widely variable. This is easily confirmed by looking at coins of identical "grade" in auction results.

Second, the moment someone adds subjective criteria to the "grade" of a coin, the grade begins to float and is no longer a reliable indicator of the state of preservation of a coin.

TPG and other "grading" schemes are unreliable if opinion and potentially objective measurements are mixed.

Third, the entire base of TPG authentication and grading is independence from the money-forces of numismatics. If a TPG ever becomes a "valuator" of coins rather then an objective "evaluator," the whole pile of assumptions and grades falls apart. Coin collecting becomes just a self-serving pile of needy, greedy people conniving to rip the entrails from collector's wallets.

...to quote...total "bologna"...laughable....

[RWB]

I prefer truth to sticking one's head in the sand.

[Henri Charriere]

On 10/8/2022 at 7:34 PM, VKurtB said:

.... Then just for grins check out the star on the 1958. 

... will concede '58 star is larger...

[Henri Charriere]

On 10/9/2022 at 12:28 PM, RWB said:

....Coin collecting becomes just a self-serving pile of needy, greedy people conniving to rip the entrails from collector's wallets.

Thank you, Roger, for elucidating, in a nutshell, precisely why I had become disenchanted enough with the hobby to step out of it back in the 1960's.  Someday, perhaps, coming to a theater near you, a highly-acclaimed Horror flick, entitled:  "Rise of the INVESTORS!"  

[Henri Charriere]

On 10/9/2022 at 1:27 PM, FlyingAl said:

.... because the system favors those who have the knowledge and experience to play the game....

Actually---and I may be wrong!---a certified simpleton with money, absent knowledge and experience, will do just fine.          

[Just Bob]

On 10/9/2022 at 9:32 AM, zadok said:

...its very simple...collectors do not n never will collect coins empirically....

I'm sorry, but I do not understand what you mean by this statement. Maybe I am using the term "empirical " wrong.  I am using it to refer to an observation or statement based on evidence that is verifiable through experiment or documentation. Are you saying that collectors do not require verifiable standards or evidence to back up the grade of their coins, or am I totally misunderstanding? 

[VKurtB]

On 10/8/2022 at 11:16 PM, Just Bob said:

Actually, it has a very legitimate connection to reality. It is the way ANACS graded before NGC and PCGS came along, and it (in a slightly modified version) is the way NGC currently grades Ancients. I agree that it is not the way that the US coin market currently operates, and it definitely is not an idea that seems to be popular with many collectors or especially dealers, but to say that it has no connection to reality implies, at least in my mind, that it is something Roger invented. 

Here is a question for you, Kurt, to which I would love to get a non-judgemental, non-sarcastic, honest answer - either here on the forum, or elsewhere (like maybe over a plate of ribs at Dreamland barbeque in Tuscaloosa): what is it about a grading scale based on empirical standards that does not appeal to you? It seems to me that a set of standards that remain constant over time, consistently applied, could be nothing but beneficial to the hobby.

Simple. It would, and in Roger’s mind does, preclude improvement over time. That early ANACS (ANA) style grading disappeared for very valid reasons. Grading did not JUST get different, it got incredibly BETTER. 

Edited October 10, 2022 by VKurtB

[VKurtB]

On 10/8/2022 at 7:50 PM, ldhair said:

You seem to have an issue with everyone. Why do you attack people? Why all the hate for others?

I have no respect for paleo guys who refuse to evolve in the hobby. 

[VKurtB]

On 10/9/2022 at 11:28 AM, RWB said:

Coin collecting becomes just a self-serving pile of needy, greedy people conniving to rip the entrails from collector's wallets.

My only objection to this line is this:

”Coin collecting has long become just a …”

It is a fait accompli. It serves no valid purpose to lament or ignore that fact. Being forewarned is forearmed. Trust no one, ever. If you go into coins either ignorant or apathetic about that, that’s on you. 

[VKurtB]

On 10/9/2022 at 6:32 PM, Just Bob said:

I'm sorry, but I do not understand what you mean by this statement. Maybe I am using the term "empirical " wrong.  I am using it to refer to an observation or statement based on evidence that is verifiable through experiment or documentation. Are you saying that collectors do not require verifiable standards or evidence to back up the grade of their coins, or am I totally misunderstanding? 

Collectors can DESIRE any set of circumstances they want, perhaps Roger more than most, even though he no longer collects, given the hours turned into years he has poured into this field. But what neither HE, nor YOU, nor Al, nor Numisport, nor anyone else gets to do is pretend what you desire actually EXISTS. IT DOES NOT. 

[zadok]

On 10/9/2022 at 7:32 PM, Just Bob said:

I'm sorry, but I do not understand what you mean by this statement. Maybe I am using the term "empirical " wrong.  I am using it to refer to an observation or statement based on evidence that is verifiable through experiment or documentation. Are you saying that collectors do not require verifiable standards or evidence to back up the grade of their coins, or am I totally misunderstanding? 

...yep thats pretty much it...collectors neither need nor require verifiable standards to back up anything...collectors were successfully collecting coins well before any grading standards were implemented...

[VKurtB]

On 10/9/2022 at 11:28 AM, RWB said:

RE: "First, grading comes down to valuing a coin. It is valuation in the simplest sense."

This is a totally false viewpoint, and I've very disappointed to see it embraced by someone with so much potential.

In a past ANA spring show, the one in Orlando when FUN had opted for Tampa that January, I decided to go early and take the ANA’s formal course on grading, given by Brian Silliman. He dutifully led us through a PowerPoint on “technical grading”, which is VERY close to what Roger is proposing here. The entire course ran 16 hours, 2 days of 8 hours each. Technical grading was finished after 90 minutes. Done. Never mentioned again. The remaining time, 14 hours plus, was on market grading, or “what is really happening out there”. The first words out of Brian Silliman’s mouth were, and I quote, “in market grading, we are not so much assigning a grade as we are assigning a value to the coin.”

Lament that all you like, but that’s the real world, not just for me, but for Roger and Larry and Bob and Al too. I like my baseball without Designated Hitters and creepy runners starting the 10th inning on second base, too. But the game has moved on  

And in market grading of MS coins, the degree or lack of preservation is only ONE OF FOUR factors to be included. 

Edited October 10, 2022 by VKurtB

[Just Bob]

On 10/9/2022 at 7:41 PM, VKurtB said:

Collectors can DESIRE any set of circumstances they want, perhaps Roger more than most, even though he no longer collects, given the hours turned into years he has poured into this field. But what neither HE, nor YOU, nor Al, nor Numisport, nor anyone else gets to do is pretend what you desire actually EXISTS. IT DOES NOT. 

Oh, believe me, I completely understand that the market is totally different than it was years ago, and I take that into consideration when viewing, buying, or even participating in "Guess-the-grade" threads. We have pretty much gone from assigning a "grade" to assigning a "value."(edit: I wrote that line before I read your quote of Brian Silliman above. Apparently, I understand exactly the current form of grading )  It certainly isn't my ideal, I think that much is obvious, but I am smart enough to know that I have to accept the current state, if I want to participate in today's market.

Edited October 10, 2022 by Just Bob

[Just Bob]

On 10/9/2022 at 8:28 PM, zadok said:

...yep thats pretty much it...collectors neither need nor require verifiable standards to back up anything...collectors were successfully collecting coins well before any grading standards were implemented...

Thank you for the clarification. 

[VKurtB]

On 10/9/2022 at 8:28 PM, zadok said:

...yep thats pretty much it...collectors neither need nor require verifiable standards to back up anything...collectors were successfully collecting coins well before any grading standards were implemented...

Hmm. I hadn’t thought about that, but it’s true. For me, “early” is the 1964 Red Book grade verbal descriptions, but there’s an “early” waaaaay farther back than that. Yes, the ANA does publish a book of official grading standards for U.S. coins. In fact, they’re on the 7th edition. And most of the pages are taken up with technical grading standards. But the book ALSO basically tells you that is just prologue. It describes market grading and ADOPTS it. 

[VKurtB]

Writing in academically honest language, I might say that I liked baseball better without DH’s and extra innings runners starting on second base, (and don’t EVEN get me started on the NBA.)

Writing in Roger’s style, I would say those things are not in baseball and what they do now isn’t baseball. 
 

That’s the point. If he can cavalierly do these things he does here taking liberties with factual, if concerning, truth, why would I trust what he writes in a book?

[FlyingAl]

On 10/9/2022 at 7:41 PM, VKurtB said:

In a past ANA spring show, the one in Orlando when FUN had opted for Tampa that January, I decided to go early and take the ANA’s formal course on grading, given by Brian Silliman. He dutifully led us through a PowerPoint on “technical grading”, which is VERY close to what Roger is proposing here. The entire course ran 16 hours, 2 days of 8 hours each. Technical grading was finished after 90 minutes. Done. Never mentioned again. The remaining time, 14 hours plus, was on market grading, or “what is really happening out there”. The first words out of Brian Silliman’s mouth were, and I quote, “in market grading, we are not so much assigning a grade as we are assigning a value to the coin.”

Lament that all you like, but that’s the real world, not just for me, but for Roger and Larry and Bob and Al too. I like my baseball without Designated Hitters and creepy runners starting the 10th inning on second base, too. But the game has moved on  

And in market grading of MS coins, the degree or lack of preservation is only ONE OF FOUR factors to be included. 

Thank you Kurt. I was trying to communicate this the best way I could. This is exactly what I was saying - like it or not its here to stay.

[Henri Charriere]

On 10/9/2022 at 9:28 PM, zadok said:

...collectors were successfully collecting coins well before any grading standards were implemented...

...true, but back then, pre-red book, collectors collected on their own terms, unencumbered by terminological inexactitudes, and experienced something that appears to be in short supply today: the sheer joy of coin collecting as a hobby...