No Stars for me :(

[CarlWohlforth]

I sent in some coins that I thought deserved a star. These coins trade at a significant premium because of their eye appeal. But I didn't get any stars. Since I obviously don't know the rules I won't play the game anymore.

 

The blue proof Merc deserves one:

 

 

These 1945-S Mercs consistently trade at a large premium. Perhaps they are over graded already due to the color? I wouldn't have graded this one a 68, but it sure looks great. To me a more accurate grade would be 66*.

 

 

 

[gmarguli]

Read the Is the NGC * Designation Too Arbitrary?

 

 

[CarlWohlforth]

Thanks for the link Greg. It was a good read.

 

I learned that my toning might possibly be a tad too dark or slightly too thick to be accepted by the graders though every dealer who sells these coins knows they have excellent eye appeal and charges a premium for them.

 

I also learned I can ask for a review. Sigh. I guess I will search, there is probably already a thread telling me how to go about that too. I won't expect a change of grade, but will hope for an explanation.

[gmarguli]

Carl, I just sent in 5 coins for review and had good luck - 2 of 5 got the designation. The service is called Designation Review and it costs $10 per coin + S/H. My coins were done in 2 days.

 

According to John Maben, NGC Finalizer, when you send in the coin for review you can make a special request for an explanation as to why it didn't get the designation. He indicated that this is free (as long as it isn't abused by the submitter). Just make a clear note on the submission form as to the fact you want an explanation of why the coin didn’t get the designation.

 

[CarlWohlforth]

So I blew it again!!! I just sent these in under designation review, BUT, I didn't write on the form that I wanted an explanation, D'oh!

 

Hey, I'm not the only one who wants an explanation for my $10. I don't need a personal chat with the CEO, just a mark in a check box: "too dark", "too thick", "luster good but not great". Hmmm, now that I think about it a long show and tell with John Maben would certainly be worth the cost of a fine lunch

 

Aw, I am a little disappointed. Anybody can see that the blue proof Merc is something special. The '45-S Mercs are often for sale, I guess if you gave one a star you would have to give most of them a star.

[jtryka]

Even though you forgot the note, you can send an e-mail/PM to Dena and let her know that you'd like an explanation. I once forgot to put down minimum grades for crossovers, and that's what I did and it worked out fine.

[truthteller]

That is a very, very pretty merc.

 

TRUTH

[Leothelion]

So I blew it again!!! I just sent these in under designation review, BUT, I didn't write on the form that I wanted an explanation, D'oh!

 

Hey, I'm not the only one who wants an explanation for my $10. I don't need a personal chat with the CEO, just a mark in a check box: "too dark", "too thick", "luster good but not great". Hmmm, now that I think about it a long show and tell with John Maben would certainly be worth the cost of a fine lunch

 

Aw, I am a little disappointed. Anybody can see that the blue proof Merc is something special. The '45-S Mercs are often for sale, I guess if you gave one a star you would have to give most of them a star.

 

Carl

Here's a star that might cheer you up. See attachment.

Leo

 

 

 

[CarlWohlforth]

Thanks for the support gang! I was cheered up by that star Leo, thanks! It means a lot to me that Truth likes my dime. Dena has always been super helpful to me. I probably won't write her though because I really have nothing to complain about. I really did not know what would be considered star material. I just looked a few star coins and thought my blue proof was a shoe in. It is not a business matter, that coin and one of the others are part of my personal collection and I think they would be worth just as much, or more, raw.

[Leothelion]

I'm glad your happy. Now let's see if I can make you drool.

 

Leo

[keithdagen]

Two of three on the last * submission:

 

1956 Dime NGC 67*

 

1948-S Nickel NGC 66*

 

Excuse the pics being in PCGS holders. Haven't rescanned them since they crossed.

[CarlWohlforth]

Nice coins Keith! I have a '56 Roosey almost exactly like that one. It is in a MS 67*T holder. It looks like an older holder and has both the * and the T. I guess the mint set toning it not to thick or dark for NGC. I like my Applachian hoard nickel a lot, it too is in a * holder.

 

None of those coins are as neat looking or as hard to find as my blue proof Mercury. Of course that is my opinion and I certainly see a tiny subset of the coins John Maben and the other graders see. Personally this star thing is too arbitrary for me.

[keithdagen]

Over the weekend, I got to see TexasBullionTrader's setup, and he had an entire case of NGC Star coins, in addition to his regular toners. Taking a look at those gave me a little bit better feel for what NGC is looking for on the designation.

[coinman1794]

"Carl

Here's a star that might cheer you up. See attachment.

Leo"

 

Hey, I think we should persuade NGC to use that illustration on the holder for star coins instead of that bland, little, black star * of their's!

 

[coinman1794]

 

None of those coins are as neat looking or as hard to find as my blue proof Mercury. Of course that is my opinion and I certainly see a tiny subset of the coins John Maben and the other graders see. Personally this star thing is too arbitrary for me.

 

I might be wrong, but I though that a proof coin can only recieve the star if it just misses cameo AND it has exceptional eye appeal. Isn't that how it works?

[CarlWohlforth]

I don't know coinman1794. I won't try again until I do know for sure. Anyway I do believe the blue proof Merc has a cameo obverse. It is very hard to find a cameo proof Mercury.

[MikeKing]

That's a very very nice coin. It looks like the toning is thin enough to allow full luster to come through, and my guess is that someone didn't digest their breakfast right that day, when they were grading your coin. By the way, looking at the reverse made me feel like I was back in NYC.

 

I had ,in hand, two PF Cameo Washington Quarters. One was PF 68, the other PF 68*. I got rid of the 68* and kept the 68, it was a much nicer coin. The frost wasn't completely confluent on the one with the * designation, and I couldn't see any hairlines on either. What was that all about?

 

 

[coinman1794]

I don't know coinman1794. I won't try again until I do know for sure. Anyway I do believe the blue proof Merc has a cameo obverse. It is very hard to find a cameo proof Mercury.

 

Ok, I went back to the NGC Post "Understanding and Recognizing a Star." Toned proof coins do not have to have any cameo contrast; they follow the same standard as MS coins. It is only the white proofs that are required to have cameo contrast that either just misses full cameo, is full cameo on just the obverse, or is a full cameo coin and has deep cam on just the obverse.

 

With that said, I have no idea why your 1942 10C didn't make it. How about the 1945-S MS68. Is the obverse as nice as the reverse? If not, that may be why it didn't make it. Do you have a scan you can show us?

[CarlWohlforth]

I have the other sides of those coins.

 

Here is the reverse of the blue proof 1942:

 

 

Here is the obverse of the '45-S:

 

[Tradedollarnut]

I have to admit that I don't care for the blue proof. The toned coin is awesome, but maybe NGC felt that 68 was already valuing the coin high enough?

[gmarguli]

Carl, if I had to take a guess I would say that the MS coin is too dark on the obverse and the proof has some dark spots on the reverse.

 

Seriously, send them back and ask for an explanation. It might be something small you are missing and it will save you a lot of grief.

[keithdagen]

I really like the dime, and am not sure why it didn't star out. Looks really cool regardless.

[CarlWohlforth]

If NGC will give me an explanation for free I will send the coins back. It would be educational. I guess Greg might have spotted the issue or maybe TDN was sitting in as a guest grader

 

Seriously there are people in addition to TDN who don't like it. Most who study the coin love it. If the star is a matter of taste then it can be as arbitrary as the tastes of the graders.

 

I do think the '45-S MS dime has too many nicks for a 68. I always guessed it got a bump in grade for the neat color. To me it would be more accurate to grade it 66*.

 

I wonder if NGC really did boost grades in the past for coins with extra eye appeal? That would really be confusing for me

[gmarguli]

I do think the '45-S MS dime has too many nicks for a 68. I always guessed it got a bump in grade for the neat color. To me it would be more accurate to grade it 66*.

 

I wonder if NGC really did boost grades in the past for coins with extra eye appeal? That would really be confusing for me

 

 

At the last Long Beach show I got to study two fresh PCGS MS68 Mercs. The first thing that hit me was that they had obvious ticks/marks in the focus areas. These were coins I'd have called MS66 and weak at that grade.

 

Overall, I think gradeflation has hit. Too many top pop explosions or new top pops being made recently.

[coinman1794]

"I wonder if NGC really did boost grades in the past for coins with extra eye appeal? That would really be confusing for me."

 

I'm sure NGC probably did. I know PCGS did/does. PCGS has a grading room slogan that David Hall was quoted for saying that goes something like, "Eye appeal gives a little and forgives a lot!"

 

As for your coins, form the scans, I am not fond of the 1942, but I may have a totally different opinion in person. From here, the color combination looks unattractive.

 

As for the 1945-S, I think that is one of the nicest I have seen. Usually one side has nice color and one doesn't on this date, but that one looks great on both sides! I don't know why it didn't make it! I guess it could be that the toning is too dark/thick, as some have mentioned, but I don't actually see any evidence of that.

[Elcontador]

I agree w Greg re grade inflation. Coins with nice color are being bumped up, even though IMO their surfaces and / or strike don't merit the upgrade. It's interesting seeing this on a modern coin like a Merc., as I have been seeing this on Seated Dimes and Quarters.

[Leothelion]

Once someone invents an infalliable grading system, something we can all understand and live with, then your guess is going to be about as good as mine as to why today's grading systems grade the way they do. Why the masses buy into this hype is to turn a buck at the expence of the truely ignorant. Here's my idea of a perfect grading system and I'm specifically centering on MS60 to MS70 coins.

 

Rule #1 No coin can merit a grade higher then a MS64 unless it is fully struck.

 

This one and only rule needs to be concrete and a basic understanding with all grading services. Once this rule is broken, then whatever kind of coins that exist

in any grading services slabs in moot, bunk, a big waste of time to figure out or think about. Personally, there are only 3 purposes for a grading service; to turn a buck, authenticating and framing a coin. What has taken me years to assemble, there's no way someone will be able to tell me what a coins grades in 10 seconds or less. The high MS numbers will only help get you in that ballpark area to locate a decent coin but not every slabed coin will turn out to be a collectable coin, not even half. For myself, it's about a 10-15% chance that I'll find something in a slab that I can add to my collection And if that's true, then that's the accuracy of these grading services. 2-3 might be a little higher but it ain't by much

The market provides what the custumer wants, it's not the other way around, that's the allusion.

I once wrote a letter to the editor of one of the numismatics papers asking why NGC graded everything MS67 because there was a time ( middle 90's) when the teletrade auction catalogs were choke full of MS67 coins. I remember taking the time to count them on one side of a page.

 

Regards, Leo