Star Rating Consideration 1 1

[VKurtB]

On 5/8/2023 at 5:10 PM, World Colonial said:

I'm still waiting for @, #, $, %. ^. &, and - (minus).  I could add a few more too.  It's on my keyboard.

C’mon mannnnnn. It’s market grading. The ‘$’ is implied. 

[Henri Charriere]

On 5/8/2023 at 6:10 PM, World Colonial said:

I'm still waiting for @, #, $, %. ^. &, and - (minus).  I could add a few more too.  It's on my keyboard.

If memory serves, another TPGS "requires" gold coin slabs bear a "gold shield" for which it charges an additional $5.00 fee.  [This hobby can use a little buzz. I believe the ampersand ( & ) and octothorpe ( # ) are spoken for. What I would love to see is some in-your-face audacity like the introduction of exponents, and the ultimate -- which, technically, is possible --- a coin graded MS-70*.]  🤣

[Henri Charriere]

On 5/7/2023 at 7:04 AM, Jason Abshier said:

....Pretty difficult to determine because when you look up for example a MS65 + coin on PCGS cert database they only show it under MS65 and not MS65+  …. 😒 

You're in luck!  I have taken some time out from my busy schedule to personally investigate this for you. 🤣  I checked the columns in my area of interest and found that in the MS certifications, e.g., MS-65, that grade cross-referenced with the year indicates the total number of certifications.  The plus ➕️ sign directly under the grade indicates the number of plusses granted that year.  In effect, it appears to be a space-saving measure. Where you would have two or more columns, you just have one.  To my knowledge, there as here, World coins are not eligible for star rating consideration. 

[Jason Abshier]

On 5/8/2023 at 10:17 PM, Henri Charriere said:

World coins are not eligible for star rating consideration. 

I believe I’ve seen a few world coins get the star rating already … very few compared to US coins though 

[GoldFinger1969]

On 5/7/2023 at 4:11 PM, Coinbuf said:

And there is yet a third component to the CAC green bean, initially the point of the green bean was for JA to bean those coins he felt met the criteria of coins he wanted to make a market in so that when those coins came to auction he could easily identify them.   Often I read or hear someone say they don't understand why this or that coin got a bean as it is of inferior quality in their eyes.   I get that, but it is just possible that some coins are given a bean simply because JA would like to be a buyer of that coin, here I'm thinking of some of the more rare and seldom seen coins.   

And the reason for the Gold Beans ?  A coin he'd like to buy and is sure that it should upgrade AT LEAST 1 grade higher ?

Anybody know what percentage of CAC beans are gold vs. green ?

[Coinbuf]

On 5/8/2023 at 8:19 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

And the reason for the Gold Beans ?  A coin he'd like to buy and is sure that it should upgrade AT LEAST 1 grade higher ?

Anybody know what percentage of CAC beans are gold vs. green ?

From what I have read JA gives a gold to a coin he feels is at least 1 1/2 grades higher than the current grade.   As to percentage that is rather meaningless in an overall sense because the percentage changes, sometimes greatly, by the type of coin and the grade.   It is much easier to be awarded a gold bean on a low MS coin vs say a coin currently graded as MS67.   And in general copper and gold coins seem to get less beans as a percentage than say merc dimes, the last time I checked there were under 10 gold beans awarded in Lincoln cents, and most of those were on MS65 graded coins.   Some of that could be selection bias, who would want to send in MS65 Lincolns (sans key dates) the risk reward was not worth it in the past.

[bstrauss3]

That's not how it's generally reported.

 

A gold bean means the coin is solid (A or B coin) at the NEXT grade level.

 

CAC ignores + and *.

[GoldFinger1969]

JA has a reputation of being "tough" on gold coins, like Saints.  Aside from being larger coins that show more defects, gold is a soft metal.  A smaller, harder Jefferson Nickel is more easily able to resist bagmarks and/or friction than softer, larger coins.

I don't know if I have ever seen if JA himself or someone who is in the know says that with regard to the above, JA will grade "on a curve."

Edited May 9, 2023 by GoldFinger1969

[Coinbuf]

On 5/9/2023 at 9:09 AM, bstrauss3 said:

That's not how it's generally reported.

 

A gold bean means the coin is solid (A or B coin) at the NEXT grade level.

 

CAC ignores + and *.

Agree to disagree, I have listened to JA speak on this in interviews and the 1 1/2 grade disparity is what he has said.   And that makes total sense if you think about it, how many times have you seen a coin with a green bean get upgraded and then get a green bean again.   That shows that he still likes it at one grade higher than the previous lower grade but did not feel it was worthy of a gold (i.e. 1 1/2 grades under graded) at the previous grade.  I also think that if anyone is being honest there would be far more gold beans awarded if it only needed to be solid at the next grade up.

[EarlyUS.com]

On 5/6/2023 at 6:59 PM, Henri Charriere said:

Not all U.S. coin series qualify for such consideration, but the ones that do must be in Mint State or Proof condition.

My first thought is to point out that this may be out-of-date information, as there are coins that are circulated which have received a "star" designation.  PMG also has a "star" designation for currency, unbeknownst to many collectors out there.

[Henri Charriere]

My sole source of information for this topic, which I did not expect to generate as much interest as it already has, was "Understanding and Recognizing a Star," which was posted by NGC on 5/1/2002 with the advisory, stay tuned for updates. Members have reported seeing circulated and World coins bearing the star ( * ) designation. The list published was set forth in 13 bullet points. Here's my take:

(No Cents are eligible: Lincoln Heads, Indians, Large, Half Cents, etc.)

(No pre-Jefferson Nickels:  Buffalo Heads, Liberty Heads, Shields, etc.)

(No pre-Roosevelt dimes: Mercury Heads, Barbers, etc.)

(No pre-Washington quarters: Liberty Standing, Barbers, etc.)

(No pre-Franklin Halves.) Proof Franklins are eligible in addition to MS examples. The one displayed in this post is a splendid example.

Only Morgan, Peace, Eisenhower and Sacagaweas: (no SBA's)

Only U.S. proof coins from 1936 to 1978 are eligible!

Only Silver Commemoratives from 1892 to 1954 are eligible.

No gold coins, U.S. or World, are eligible.

***

Obviously, if exceptions have since been made, series expanded and new categories added, NGC may wish to consider revising this indispensable resource.

[GoldFinger1969]

On 5/9/2023 at 7:05 PM, Henri Charriere said:

No gold coins, U.S. or World, are eligible. ***  Obviously, if exceptions have since been made, series expanded and new categories added, NGC may wish to consider revising this indispensable resource.

I think I have seen some Saints or other gold coins with stars -- no ?

You wonder why they would have not included one of the most popular series. 

Edited May 10, 2023 by GoldFinger1969

[Henri Charriere]

On 5/9/2023 at 9:30 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

I think I have seen some Saints or other gold coins with stars -- no ?

You wonder why they would have not included one of the most popular series. 

I believe @Sandon has a good grasp of the matter at hand. Another member,  @physics-fan3.14 illustrates with breath-taking toning a starred Franklin Pf the A.N.A. excludes from official grading consideration and, of course @RWB as always, is a stickler for consistency and replicative standards no matter how pleasing to the eye they may appear to be.  My feeling, having read and re-read pertinent parts of the article is it appears a certain type of toning on gold is awesome when it occurs because it does so with such infrequency.  I am a straight grade guy myself but if an MS-70* shows up announced, I will adopt Fraulein, no questions asked. 

[zadok]

On 5/8/2023 at 10:27 PM, Jason Abshier said:

I believe I’ve seen a few world coins get the star rating already … very few compared to US coins though 

...yes, i have several world coins with the star designation in my collection....

[Louie Atienza]

Personally, I like the star designation for the simple fact that it is independent of the numerical grade of the coin.  And maybe it should be utilized a little more.  The other TPG does not have such mechanism, and I fell like I see more than a few coins from them with a "plus" grade that seemingly was awarded simply for "extravagant" toning.  I've always imagined the coin without toning first, and see if that coincides with the numerical grade.  In fact when I see such coins that look to have a toning grade "bump" I start to think of the possibility of the toning being suspect.  With the crazy price spreads for some toned versus non toned coins of the same grade, one should always be cautious and use judgment...

[bsshog40]

This is my only ☆ coin.

[Henri Charriere]

On 5/26/2023 at 10:51 PM, Louie Atienza said:

Personally, I like the star designation for the simple fact that it is independent of the numerical grade of the coin.  And maybe it should be utilized a little more. 

 

The other TPG does not have such mechanism, and I fell like I see more than a few coins from them with a "plus" grade that seemingly was awarded simply for "extravagant" toning....

The member who purportedly speaks ex cathedra for the edification of members (and lurkers) here has gone on record as stating that any and all alchemical symbols should have no place in the absence of formal, objective grading. I agree. However, maybe we should simply dispense with all pretension and, in the interim, call a grade an opinion--and all else, including star-like qualities, merely an "of interest" qualifying second opinion.  🤣

[numisport]

I own quite a few Star coins. However I prefer my Star coin to have superior eye appeal. Not just ALMOST the next grade or ALMOST Ultra Cameo as these are nothing more than value add ons at best.