Certifying misnomers and placing them in high grade slabs?

[Leothelion]

Cladking,

You have touched on a subject (in the FS Jefferson thread) that I had this morning while at work. The question that came to mind was how the grading companies have certified and placed weakly struck coins (misnomers) in higher grades slabs when these kind of coins carry no more detail then a F-15 coin. Since I mainly collect the Jefferson nickel, this is the coin I'll relate to. If the hair of Jefferson and the windows of the Monticello building lack detail and the letters are mushy, obviously the dies are very worn to VF and less detail but yet there are many coins that make it into MS64 and higher grade slabs. So what's my question?

If the dies have worn to the point where most detail would be lacking on a coin then how are these misnomers ending up in higher graded slabs? Or something to the that effect, shouldn't all higher graded coins MS60 and up show all the original detail the coin was initially minted in?

 

Leo

 

 

[EVillageProwler]

Leo,

 

In theory, loss of detail from an insufficient minting process is not the same as loss of detail from wear, and the graders need to know how to properly address that.

 

In practice, this is oftentimes tough to discern with coins that are obviously circulated. But, I'll bet that no experienced and competent grader will have a hard time discerning the grade of a coin that is MS but looks F12 (from strike!).

 

EVP

 

[cladking]

Many of the early clad Washingtons were poorly struck from poorly made and highly worn dies. Many showed less detail than a well struck specimen worn to VG. While the grading system works for the majority of coins like Barber dimes it is wholly inadequate to describe the condition of coins like many of the buffalo nickels and most of the early clads. People have different tastes; some would prefer a well struck coin in VF to a very unattractive unc.

 

So long as we insist on using only a single grade for a coin this situation will exist. Most collectors are more concerned with being able to easily look up a coins value in a guide than with having a grade which tells what a coins condition is.

 

Jeffersons also have many poorly struck coins but in their case it's just that the bar is held so high. The steps are the last thing to strike up and are often absent even from the hubs. This coupled with a tendency for the better coins to be marked up as much as (if not more) than the other nickels makes the really nice specimens extremely tough.

 

 

[Leothelion]

Leo,

 

In theory, loss of detail from an insufficient minting process is not the same as loss of detail from wear, and the graders need to know how to properly address that. EVP

 

Hi EVP

The dies suffer loss of detail from wear which can be seen in the coins. It would have been nice if the grading companies had factored this flaw into every coin they have ever graded. But as cladking pointed out, doing so would have greatly reduced the number of available certified coins for the coin market.

 

Wouldn't it be great if there was a company/someone that could take a second look at all the certified coins and place them into their rightful MS grades to weed out all overgraded coins and in turn, create a new coin market! I could go on and on about this but too many have turned a blind eye to this problem because it would definitely mess up their inventories, collections and financial livelyhoods.

 

Leo

[cladking]

 

Hi EVP

The dies suffer loss of detail from wear which can be seen in the coins. It would have been nice if the grading companies had factored this flaw into every coin they have ever graded. But as cladking pointed out, doing so would have greatly reduced the number of available certified coins for the coin market.

 

Wouldn't it be great if there was a company/someone that could take a second look at all the certified coins and place them into their rightful MS grades to weed out all overgraded coins and in turn, create a new coin market! I could go on and on about this but too many have turned a blind eye to this problem because it would definitely mess up their inventories, collections and financial livelyhoods.

 

 

 

Changing to a condition based grading system would not necessarily change the market prices of coins. It would likely cause a change in perception and hence market values over time, though. Even beginners would have to look at the various attributes of a coin's condition and hence would have opinions on their relative importance sooner.

 

Some series and grades would be relatively unaffected. There is less variability in the condition of 09-S vdb cents than there is in 24-D nickels.

 

Really poor uncs could be graded as MS-40 until a better system is defined.

[EVillageProwler]

The dies suffer loss of detail from wear which can be seen in the coins.

 

Hmmm... I wasn't thinking of this, else I would have written more.

 

There is a difference between loss of detail at the die level and at the coin level. A coin struck from worn dies will still have luster on the high points -- albiet not as high as intended! The luster has to be there because of the metal flow. That is why I think most graders should be able to tell between UNC and CIRC for these poorly struck up issues.

 

The comment about grading to a details-oriented system is an interesting one, and about which I have some thoughts:

 

1. Do we penalize for weak strike, reward for strong strike, or just stay neutral?

2. Strike can be a sub-component of eye appeal, which is a component of grade. But, how much weight do we place on strike?

3. Every grade is in practice a net grade anyway. Is the current system really that off?

4. I am already conditioned to expect 3rd-party grading to be subjective and to evolve over time.

 

This is a very thought-provocative thread. Thanks. I'll have to give this more thought...

 

EVP

 

[GDJMSP]

Leo -

 

You and I have somewhat discussed this issue about the strike quality of Jeffersons before - and as you know I quite agree. All too often coins are seemingly graded above what the details would imply they deserve. But as you ask - where is the cutoff point ?

 

Based on how I would interpret most grading standards a coin does not need to meet the fully struck requirement below MS68. Others might say MS67. But I think it is pretty much accepted that a weakly struck coin cannot exceed a grade of MS64. Personally - I find even that a bit high.

 

To my way of thinking strike does and needs to play an important part in grading. I do not think it is given the attention or level of importance it deserves. But yet it is almost universally acknowledged that in some cases a AU55 or 58 can be a much nicer looking coin than one graded MS63 or 64 even. I would attribute that to quality if strike in most cases. Of course attractive toning can play a part as well when it comes to eye appeal.

 

I have seen many examples of coins in both NGC & PCGS ( and all the others ) holders that carry the grade of MS67 & MS68 that are no where near fully struck. In my eyes - they should be very, very close to deserve a 67 and definitely be to deserve a 68.

[jom]

To me it all comes down to EYE APPEAL. If the strike is so bad that it effects the eye appeal then it isn't worth it for me to buy it. This is also a part of the reason I avoid sharp premiums of strike designation coins. I can find nicely struck peices that do NOT have such designations that are just as nice as many that have them AND are significantly cheaper.

 

The grading of such weakly stuck MS peices is a consequence of our present grading standards. People complain when a coin is downgraded for such attributes (weak strike) and people complain that coins are upgraded for certain attributes such as toning, or that a coin is actually AU but is put in a 62 holder because it is nice. It is all a part of the MARKET grading system that is used now.

 

I also believe all these discussions are interesting but it is given FAR too much attention. The grade used to be just a general description for a coin when you couldn't actually SEE the coin in person. It was a sort of communication language between buy and seller. Now, it seems, it is the "know all, be all" of coin collecting. People seem to place more attention to the GRADE of a coin than to the actual COIN itself. This is an unfortunate situation nowadays but hopefully with more forums like this we might be able to over come this.

 

jom