Not going to send any coins to ANACS again...
Charlie Wagner
variance from what grade I assign to a coin, but this really takes the
cake. I normally send coins to PCGS or NGC but I thought I'd try ANACS.
Boy, did I waste my money! They might just as well have put a big sign
on the holder saying "DON'T BUY THIS COIN".
Take a look at this coin and see what you think. I'll attach the
ANACS grade in a follow up note and I would appreciate it if readers
would give their opinion. I graded the coin MS63 and was hoping for at
least that grade from ANACS.
http://www.charliewagner.net/ebay/1924gold.jpg
Thanks, Charlie Wagner (cewagner92)
Charlie Wagner
The ANACS grade read as follows:
UNC DETAILS NET MS60
REV. SCRATCHED-CLEANED
First of all, the "scratch" is so minor that I didn't even notice
it myself. It's a vertical mark in the center of the sun, at the bottom.
See it now? The only "cleaning" that was done was at that point, where
it was very lightly rubbed. The rest of the reverse is untouched.
Technically, they are correct, but the magnitude of the blemish doesn't
warrant that kind of description, which puts the "kiss of death" on it's
sale. Surely they must know that. I'm cracking this coin (and 5 others
similarly graded) and sending them to NGC. Not to put one over on
someone, but to get a fair appraisal of the overall quality of the coin.
I know it's hard to tell from the scans, but I would like another
opinion. If you think ANACS graded properly, so be it.
Regards, Charlie
ZCOOLSR
Ira Stein
Regards, Charlie >><BR><BR>
It's very hard for me to garde a coin from a photo. I usually use a 7X
magnifier after I give it a once ober with the naked eye to get an overall
impression of grade. If you don't see hairlines, it's probably worth submitting
to NGC after it's cracked out. It's a common date, so if the grade is MS62 or
MS63 from NGC, it won't be worth much more than a MS-60, but the notation od
sctached on the holder is not a good thing. If it is bodybagged by NGC, I'd
just sell it raw in this strong gold market and get yourself a nice slabbed
63. In fact, before you throw $30 plus shipping both ways at it, I'd do that
now after cracking it out! I'd sell it to the dealer who has a slabbed one you
want.
Ira Stein
Phil DeMayo
>The ANACS grade read as follows:
>
>UNC DETAILS NET MS60
>REV. SCRATCHED-CLEANED
>
> First of all, the "scratch" is so minor that I didn't even notice
>it myself. It's a vertical mark in the center of the sun, at the bottom.
>See it now? The only "cleaning" that was done was at that point, where
>it was very lightly rubbed. The rest of the reverse is untouched.
>Technically, they are correct, but the magnitude of the blemish doesn't
>warrant that kind of description, which puts the "kiss of death" on it's
>sale. Surely they must know that. I'm cracking this coin (and 5 others
>similarly graded) and sending them to NGC. Not to put one over on
>someone, but to get a fair appraisal of the overall quality of the coin.
> I know it's hard to tell from the scans, but I would like another
>opinion. If you think ANACS graded properly, so be it.
My opinion is irrelevant as I haven't been able to form an opinion based on the
rather small scan you provided.
However, if NGC comes to the same conclusion as ANACS they will return the coin
ungraded in a bodybag, keeping your grading fee. If that happens I'm pretty
sure your opinion of ANACS will change.
++++++++++
Phil DeMayo - always here for my fellow Stooge
When bidding online always sit on your helmet
Just say NO to counterfeits
George Watson
past few months, and I have bought a few over the years that were over
graded, Barber Dimes being the worst.
George Watson
"Charlie Wagner" <cha...@charliewagner.com> wrote in message
news:3E387F67...@charliewagner.com...
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.449 / Virus Database: 251 - Release Date: 1/27/2003
Koinguy
is. Better yet lets crack it out and stick it to another dealer or coin
collector. Why are you out to cheat an unsupected buyer ? The coin has problems
sell it as is. You wanted it graded and you don't like the grade :( . To Bad
!!! Now STICK IT TO SOMEONE ELSE wonder why coin dealers have such a poor
relationship with their retail customers. Shame On You Guys !!
THE DOGS ARE BACK TO STAY !
Bob Flaminio
>> http://www.charliewagner.net/ebay/1924gold.jpg
>
> The ANACS grade read as follows:
>
> UNC DETAILS NET MS60
> REV. SCRATCHED-CLEANED
>
> of the overall quality of the coin. I know it's hard to tell
> from the scans, but I would like another opinion. If you think ANACS
> graded properly, so be it.
The scan is far to small to give an educated opinion, but with all due
respect, I'd trust ANACS on this. They're pretty good at detecting
cleaning. Sorry you got stuck with a loser coin -- but look on the
bright side -- you're making a bundle on bullion :-) ...
-Bob
Sellingcoins
to think that just because a coin is in a NGC or PCGS slab, it's problem
free... total BS.
Bigfoot
bagmarks (scattered toning maybe) or something on the obverse. Quite a bit
of it. To my novice eye I don't see any wear. I'd give the front about an
MS-63 if not for the distracting marks. Rate the front MS-62.
The back is really sharp. Some of the same type marks as on the front, but
less obtrusive. MS-65, maybe? But it looks like there are a couple minor
rimdings at 1-2 oclock on the reverse. I'd give ya a net of MS-64. Averages
out to an MS-63 in my book.
If I screwed this up, hope some of you old timers will set me straight.
"Charlie Wagner" <cha...@charliewagner.com> wrote in message
news:3E387F67...@charliewagner.com...
Deven Atkinson
>and the 33 was graded MS65.....sheesh!
Not by ANACS. If anything this is a example of why ANACS *should* be used.
Honesty on the slab label is a bad thing??? No hiding what is wrong with
the coin in Market Grading Hype.
Deven Atkinson de...@bright.net
--
Penny Lane Numismatic - Categorized Web Links
http://www.bright.net/~deven/pennylane.htm
ANA Member #1197707
Deven Atkinson
[snip]
>
>It's very hard for me to garde a coin from a photo. I usually use a 7X
>magnifier after I give it a once ober with the naked eye to get an overall
>impression of grade. If you don't see hairlines, it's probably worth submitting
>to NGC after it's cracked out. It's a common date, so if the grade is MS62 or
>MS63 from NGC, it won't be worth much more than a MS-60, but the notation od
>sctached on the holder is not a good thing.
This is sad, Ira. A good description of the coin's problems is BAD? What?
You think it is a good Idea not to share this info so that a unscrupulous
seller (not you, Ira) and slip it past a newb for more than it is worth???
I think the ANACS notation is outstanding.
> If it is bodybagged by NGC, I'd
>just sell it raw in this strong gold market and get yourself a nice slabbed
>63. In fact, before you throw $30 plus shipping both ways at it, I'd do that
>now after cracking it out! I'd sell it to the dealer who has a slabbed one you
>want.
>
Deven Atkinson de...@bright.net
Ira Stein
<< This is sad, Ira. A good description of the coin's problems is BAD? What?
You think it is a good Idea not to share this info so that a unscrupulous
seller (not you, Ira) and slip it past a newb for more than it is worth??? >>
<BR><BR>
I didn't see the coin in person, Devan, so I must reserve judgement on whether
the description on the slab is righteous or not, but I HAVE seen many with
minor scratches like the one described in holders graded from AU-58 to MS-62.
Besides, he'd be selling it to a dealer who would inspect it under
magnification to determine that it's genuine and if the mark is bad, he'll see
it and adjust his offer. It still has numismatic value, but a $20 Saint in
AU-58/MS-60 or so is primarily valued for its bullion. Plus, it can be used in
a bezel for jewelry. It will pick up scratches and friction aplenty that way.
I'm not in any way suggesting that it could be foisted off on an unsuspecting
newbie as a wonderful BU specimen. Not all grading services agree with each
other, even the "good" ones! For a coin that's worth not much more than
bullion, why spend an additional grading fee and $18 in shipping & insurance?
That's close to $50. The coin has value whether cleaned/scratched or not.
That's the point I was trying to make.
Ira Stein
Bruce Hickmott
alleged to have written:
Okay, that's a nice looking coin. Without a better scan, I can't say if ANACS
got it right or not. But anacs rarely is wrong when they put cleaned on a slab.
With that scratch, I don't think anybody would give it a 63 though.
Bruce
Deven Atkinson
coin. I think you misunderstood my point.
You said "...but the notation od sctached on the holder is not a good
thing." (sic) This is what is sad to me.
ANACS notes why it net (market) grades a coin and this is not good? If
on another coin's slab they put CAMEO or another positive description that
also impacts the net (market) grade, is this also "not good"? Is it only a
not good notation if it has negative connotations (net grade goes down,
instead of up)?
I think an even better slab label would be something like "MS63 scratched
and cleaned. Net ANACS-60" This gives an acurate description that should
not confuse anyone, and also communicates that ANACS thinks it is only
worth MS60 money. The more accurate the label, the better it is for the
hobby.
PS. name is spelled Deven :)
In article <20030130070319...@mb-fc.aol.com>,
Deven Atkinson de...@bright.net
Ira Stein
<< ANACS notes why it net (market) grades a coin and this is not good? If
on another coin's slab they put CAMEO or another positive description that
also impacts the net (market) grade, is this also "not good"? Is it only a
not good notation if it has negative connotations (net grade goes down,
instead of up)?
I think an even better slab label would be something like "MS63 scratched
and cleaned. Net ANACS-60" This gives an acurate description that should
not confuse anyone, and also communicates that ANACS thinks it is only
worth MS60 money. The more accurate the label, the better it is for the
hobby. >>
<BR><BR>
The word "scratched" on the label or any other negaitve comment is not I got
thinkg for the owner of the coin. Suddenly a coin he formerly liked and in
which he had pride of ownership has become sullied and perhaps no longer worthy
of his stewardship. His opinion of it has changed drastically, but since he may
not want to admit to himself that he shouldn't have bought it in the first
place, he blames the grading company instead.
Low grade Unc gold Saints and Libs generally have scratches, digs, abraisons
and so forth. If the coin has no wear it might well have graded MS-61 or so by
NGC or even PCGS. It may have had the "look" of a MS-63, but the defects
detract from its grade. I prefer the "market grading" of PCGS and NGC. They
will downgrade it unless it's been harshly cleaned or otherwise processed, but
a small scratch will allow it to lower it a point or two but still certify it.
I've seen plenty of coins in PCGS and NGC holders that have small scratches
that don't seem to have been produced by normal handling OR circulation, but
they are still in holders. After all, the future buyer is not blind. As another
poster stated, some folks think that all coins in holders are problem free, but
that's simply not true as you know.
I just prefer the approach NGC and PCGS take rather than ANACS, that's all. I
can SEE a defect. If the coin can be holdered because it it market acceptable,
I think it should be.
Ira Stein
Richard Harvey
scratch. If you then admit that the coin was cleaned at that point (I assume
to reduce or hide the scratch), then I think ANACS did a pretty darn good
job on their grading. I agree with you that this description on the slab is
going to hurt resale value of the coin, but if NGC sees any signs of
cleaning their simply going to eat your grading money and send it back to
you bodybagged, so either way you probably just need to bust it out and sell
it raw. I don't see where ANACS is in the wrong here.
Rich
Deven Atkinson
>
>The word "scratched" on the label or any other negaitve comment is not I got
>thinkg for the owner of the coin. Suddenly a coin he formerly liked and in
>which he had pride of ownership has become sullied and perhaps no longer worthy
>of his stewardship. His opinion of it has changed drastically, but since he may
>not want to admit to himself that he shouldn't have bought it in the first
>place, he blames the grading company instead.
This is getting more common it seems.
>
>Low grade Unc gold Saints and Libs generally have scratches, digs, abraisons
>and so forth. If the coin has no wear it might well have graded MS-61 or so by
>NGC or even PCGS. It may have had the "look" of a MS-63, but the defects
>detract from its grade. I prefer the "market grading" of PCGS and NGC. They
>will downgrade it unless it's been harshly cleaned or otherwise processed, but
>a small scratch will allow it to lower it a point or two but still certify it.
>I've seen plenty of coins in PCGS and NGC holders that have small scratches
>that don't seem to have been produced by normal handling OR circulation, but
>they are still in holders. After all, the future buyer is not blind. As another
>poster stated, some folks think that all coins in holders are problem free, but
>that's simply not true as you know.
Yes, I know. While there are some folks that think all coins in holders
are problem free, there are also others that think all coins in holders
reflect their grade, and not their market value at the undocumented date
that they were slabbed. If I were at a show looking for Saints, and was in
the market for a problem free MS60, PCGS and NGC labels would be of not
help at all. I would still have to look at a range of grades to find a
true MS60.
>
>I just prefer the approach NGC and PCGS take rather than ANACS, that's all. I
>can SEE a defect. If the coin can be holdered because it it market acceptable,
>I think it should be.
>
I agree with your last sentance. I just wish that the slabbers would at a minimum
date the slabs. I would be esthatic if they would separate the technical
grade from the market value. After all, that is what any informed seller
does/should do with the current market grade only slabs.
Bigfoot
"Ira Stein" <ir...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20030130131703...@mb-mv.aol.com...
Reid Goldsborough
>The word "scratched" on the label or any other negaitve comment is not I got
>thinkg for the owner of the coin.
This is commonsensical. The word "SCRATCHED" on the label of a slab is
the kiss of death. The word is often much more obvious than the
scratch itself. Better to keep or sell the con raw, unless it's a
frequently counterfeited high-end coin.
There are scratches and there are scratches. PCGS and NGC will often
slab coins with scratches, older and rarer ones more so than common,
inexpensive ones. Market grading and all that.
One test for a scratch, from what I've been told, is, "Does your eye
go there first?" If it does, bodybag. If not, it may get slabbed.
--
Electronic Coin Collector's Guide
http://www.rg.cointalk.org/guide
Draped Busts
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/reidgold/draped_busts
The Saint
http://www.netaxs.com/~reidgold/saint
Fred A. Murphy
On 30-Jan-2003, ir...@aol.comnospam (Ira Stein) wrote:
> Devan writes:
Who's Devan? Decar dey use after selling a slobbed coin to make their
getaway?
> << This is sad, Ira. A good description of the coin's problems is BAD?
> What?
> You think it is a good Idea not to share this info so that a unscrupulous
> seller (not you, Ira) and slip it past a newb for more than it is worth???
> >>
> I didn't see the coin in person, Devan, so I must reserve judgement on
> whether
> the description on the slab is righteous or not, but I HAVE seen many with
> minor scratches like the one described in holders graded from AU-58 to
> MS-62.
By all means. The slobbing services have been passing off scratched coins
and other junk for so long that there's no point trying to stop them now.
Since he deals mainly in PCGS, I'm assuming that's the holders he saw them
in.
> Besides, he'd be selling it to a dealer who would inspect it under
> magnification to determine that it's genuine and if the mark is bad, he'll
> see it and adjust his offer.
So that makes it all OK. It's OK for it to be overgraded or even fake. You
see, the dealer will be protected because he learned how to grade coins and
tell fakes in the first place, instead of depending on someone else's piece
of plastic. Of course, when the dealer turns around and sells that same
slobbed coin to the slob who depends on the piece of plastic is when the fun
really begins. That's when the scratch should be noted, but of course by
then it's too late.
Let's hope the dealer is smarter than the one who offered $500 for the fake
two-headed quarter.
> I'm not in any way suggesting that it could be foisted off on an
> unsuspecting newbie as a wonderful BU specimen.
Except that's exactly the purpose of having coins slobbed. Some "impartial"
third party has declared a piece of junk to be "mint state", so that the
dealer doesn't have to be embarrassed to sell it.
> For a coin that's worth not much more than
> bullion, why spend an additional grading fee and $18 in shipping &
> insurance?
> That's close to $50. The coin has value whether cleaned/scratched or not.
> That's the point I was trying to make.
Didn't stop them from slobbing a hundred bags of common date Morgans.
--
``Behind every successful organization stands one person who knows the
secret
of how to keep the managers away from anything truly important.''
Fred A. Murphy
On 30-Jan-2003, ir...@aol.comnospam (Ira Stein) wrote:
> Low grade Unc gold Saints and Libs generally have scratches, digs,
> abraisons and so forth. If the coin has no wear it might well have graded
> MS-61 or
> so by NGC or even PCGS. It may have had the "look" of a MS-63, but the
> defects
> detract from its grade. I prefer the "market grading" of PCGS and NGC.
> They will downgrade it unless it's been harshly cleaned or otherwise
> processed,
> but a small scratch will allow it to lower it a point or two but still
> certify
> it.
ANACS will still certify it, and grade it correctly, too. Why should people
get grading that doesn't warn them when a coin is scratched?
> I've seen plenty of coins in PCGS and NGC holders that have small
> scratches that don't seem to have been produced by normal handling OR
> circulation,
> but they are still in holders. After all, the future buyer is not blind.
And that's precisely why he doesn't need NGC or PCGS grading his coins for
him.
> I just prefer the approach NGC and PCGS take rather than ANACS, that's
> all. I
> can SEE a defect. If the coin can be holdered because it it market
> acceptable, I think it should be.
WTF does "market acceptable" mean? "Capable of being foisted off on a
rookie if put in a slab". I've got a flash for you. *Every* coin is
"market acceptable", including the 90% of the coins that the slobbing
services never get their hands on. There is a market that accepts them, and
assigns a value.
Fred A. Murphy
On 30-Jan-2003, bru...@lexisnexis.com (Bruce Hickmott) wrote:
> With that scratch, I don't think anybody would give it a 63 though.
Scratch? What scratch? You mean that one that runs across at least 1/8 of
the diameter of the coin, over an area that should be perfectly smooth, that
I can see at two feet away from my monitor, without my glasses? *That*
scratch?
By all means, let's not mark that on the holder, maybe someone will not
notice it. Crack it out and send it to PCGS for a second opinion.
Bwaaaaahahahaha!
Fred A. Murphy
On 30-Jan-2003, Reid Goldsborough <reid...@netaxs.com> wrote:
> This is commonsensical. The word "SCRATCHED" on the label of a slab is
> the kiss of death. The word is often much more obvious than the
> scratch itself. Better to keep or sell the con raw, unless it's a
> frequently counterfeited high-end coin.
Which is what should have been done with a bullion coin in the first place.
> There are scratches and there are scratches. PCGS and NGC will often
> slab coins with scratches, older and rarer ones more so than common,
> inexpensive ones. Market grading and all that.
Market grading = the kid's parents are rich and he's only driving a little
drunk.
> One test for a scratch, from what I've been told, is, "Does your eye
> go there first?" If it does, bodybag. If not, it may get slabbed.
Well, I must admit, my eye went there second after the rim dings. Save the
pix and open it in Irfanview, sharpen it at 30, and now that you see the
image properly, it looks like a big pencil mark. Not to mention the scuffs
up above the date.
BobbyShaw
>rookie if put in a slab". I've got a flash for you. *Every* coin is
>"market acceptable", including the 90% of the coins that the slobbing
>services never get their hands on. There is a market that accepts them, and
>assigns a value.
>
Yep! There is even a market for the likes of this:
http://www.mindspring.com/~robe294/1857cent.jpg
I bought this about 2 years ago for $4.00. It will never be slabbed, but I
love it anyways! :-) I have given it a nice retirement home, free from any
more "bites".
Robert Shaw
(my oldest coin)
--
Does olive oil really help with corroded coins? Check out my experiment at:
http://www.mindspring.com/~robe294/oliveoilexperiment.html
Ira Stein
Ira wrote:
> I didn't see the coin in person, Devan, so I must reserve judgement on
> whether
> the description on the slab is righteous or not, but I HAVE seen many with
> minor scratches like the one described in holders graded from AU-58 to
> MS-62.
Fredd responds:
<< By all means. The slobbing services have been passing off scratched coins
and other junk for so long that there's no point trying to stop them now.
Since he deals mainly in PCGS, I'm assuming that's the holders he saw them
in. >>
<BR><BR>
You mean, Fredd, any coin with a scratch is junk? News to me.
Ira wrote:
<< > Besides, he'd be selling it to a dealer who would inspect it under
> magnification to determine that it's genuine and if the mark is bad, he'll
> see it and adjust his offer. >><BR><BR>
Fredd reponds:
<< So that makes it all OK. It's OK for it to be overgraded or even fake. You
see, the dealer will be protected because he learned how to grade coins and
tell fakes in the first place, instead of depending on someone else's piece
of plastic. Of course, when the dealer turns around and sells that same
slobbed coin to the slob who depends on the piece of plastic is when the fun
really begins. That's when the scratch should be noted, but of course by
then it's too late. >><BR><BR>
Where did I say that? I never said it's okay for a fake to be passed off as
genuine because it's in a slab. As for overgrading, YOU believe all coins in
slabs are overgraded because they're "market graded," a concept you won't
accept.
Oh, for the good old days, Fredd. No one mispresented the grades of coins then
and everyone got a fair shake. Right?
Ira Stein
Koinguy
ACG case once again .. This tread can be used to help ACG case ..Thanks and
Keep the tread going .. Keep sending the positive info ...
DOGS ARE SILENT NOW
Winde Walker
>
> Yep! There is even a market for the likes of this:
>
> http://www.mindspring.com/~robe294/1857cent.jpg
>
> I bought this about 2 years ago for $4.00. It will never be slabbed, but I
> love it anyways! :-) I have given it a nice retirement home, free from any
> more "bites".
>
> Robert Shaw
> (my oldest coin)
> --
> Does olive oil really help with corroded coins? Check out my experiment at:
> http://www.mindspring.com/~robe294/oliveoilexperiment.html
Holy Cow!! what the heck happened to that poor eagle??? If you ever
decide to evict it, I know a good home for it hehe.
--
Winde Walker
ICQ 125272334
I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken.
BobbyShaw
>> Yep! There is even a market for the likes of this:
>>
>> http://www.mindspring.com/~robe294/1857cent.jpg
>>
>> I bought this about 2 years ago for $4.00. It will never be slabbed, but I
>> love it anyways! :-) I have given it a nice retirement home, free from any
>> more "bites".
>>
>> Robert Shaw
>> (my oldest coin)
>> --
>
>decide to evict it, I know a good home for it hehe.
>
>--
I have no idea, and am actually curious myself. There is no other rim damage.
I would suspect that if someone hit it with something in that spot with some
type or hammer or took hard enough for that damage, it would leave a flat spot
on the other side of the rim. It is obviously post-mint damage, as you can see
the letters and the rim design are present, but warped because of the hits.
Could this have been a very good shooter with a gun (maybe just a pellet
rifle)? Balance the coin on its rim and take a shot...
Robert Shaw
Ira Stein
<< You don't need to see the coin, Ira. The poster admits the coin is
scratched and was "very lightly rubbed" in one of the most obvious
places on the entire coin.
It seems to me that ANACS did exactly what they should do and there is
nothing sad about it. A poor job of coin examination is not
sufficient reason to bitch about a grading service doing its job.
I do think that the net grade was harsh. Anytime you see a net grade
you think about problem coins. It should have come back as a legit
AU58.
>><BR><BR>
That would have been market grading, and that grade would have been fairer than
what they did do. Still, I would have to see the coin before I can have a solid
opinion.
Ira Stein
Ira Stein
<< Market Grading? How does a Mint State coin suffer "rubbing" wear and
still remain an uncirculated coin?
>><BR><BR>
Market grading at AU-58 would be telling the market that the coin was worth
AU-58 money. In the case of this particular coin, a 1924 Saint, the difference
in price between AU-58 and MS-62 might be $10 to $15, particularly at the
present pricing of gold. The coin here is PRIMARILY a bullion piece with some
modicum of numismatic value.
Ira Stein
Bigfoot
wonder what could've caused that mark? Couldn't have been a hammer, unless
it was the claw end.
Nice coin..I like that it still has feather detail and a nice rim (except
for the bite).
"BobbyShaw" <bobb...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030130180329...@mb-fc.aol.com...
Bigfoot
now as a collector piece I'd happily pay bullion for it, and you'd be
helping out a new collector who'd be grateful!
"Charlie Wagner" <cha...@charliewagner.com> wrote in message
news:3E387F67...@charliewagner.com...
Charlie Wagner
what happens to the price of gold. It was once $800 an ounce and it may
be again if this economy continues it's course. Of course, the war may
also have an effect if the oil supply is affected.
Charlie
Eric Tillery
> I usually don't complain about grading, even if there is some
>variance from what grade I assign to a coin, but this really takes the
>cake. I normally send coins to PCGS or NGC but I thought I'd try ANACS.
>Boy, did I waste my money! They might just as well have put a big sign
>on the holder saying "DON'T BUY THIS COIN".
> Take a look at this coin and see what you think. I'll attach the
>ANACS grade in a follow up note and I would appreciate it if readers
>would give their opinion. I graded the coin MS63 and was hoping for at
>least that grade from ANACS.
>http://www.charliewagner.net/ebay/1924gold.jpg
>
>Thanks, Charlie Wagner (cewagner92)
Charlie, it is very difficult to judge gold coins from scans. However, ANACS is
really conservative on these. Their detection of problem coins is second to
none, and I suspect you will get a bodybag back from NGC.
--
A Close look at Accugrade:
My Morgan Collection
http://www.k6az.com/morgan_collection.htm
How to tell the difference between Old and New PCI Holders
Bigfoot
"Charlie Wagner" <cha...@charliewagner.com> wrote in message
news:3E39D8C...@charliewagner.com...
Ira Stein
<< Ira, you aren't catching my drift. THE COIN HAS WEAR. Any wear
causes it to be less than mint state. AU58 in this case would not be
market grading because it actually is worn.
>><BR><BR>
There's rub caused by circulation and friction or rub caused by other
means...album slides, for example. Countless Barber coins with slide marks (rub
or friction) on cheek are in slabs as uncirculated (usually MS-61-3). Why?
Because they are worth uncirculated money. Ditto for Bust Halves. In fact, PCGS
in their Grading & Counterfeit Guide actually states that slight friction on
the high points of bust halves will not necessarily disqualify from
certification as some level of unciculated (MS-63 max, I believe). That's
market grading in action, like it or not.
You may remember some months ago I discussed an NGC MS-63 No stars dime that
when cracked out and sent to PCGS came back an AU-58. I saw no friction on the
high points on that coin, and I'm no babe in the woods with respect to grading.
Yet, the graders and finalizer at PCGS saw something in that coin that prompted
the AU-58 grade. Perhaps some light scuffing in the field or a diminuation of
lustre. The coin sold for about $1150, which while well under MS-63 money, was
well above AU-50 price. AU-58s often sell for just above MS-60 $$$, and many
should, as they have more eye appeal than the vast majority of MS-60 coins of
teh same date and/or type. I've sold two AU-58 1922 no D 1c coins for more than
MS-60 prices as those few coins extant have a better "look" than the typical
stained and lacklustre MS-60 of that date.
To summarize, a coin CAN be graded AU-58 in the market grading arena because a
problem or two not related to circualtion keeps it out of the BU category. As
Q. David Bowers wrote, "An AU-58 should be characterized as a MS-63 with rub."
Ira Stein
JAM
Ira, you maintain that the market grading of a coin is a method of fixing the value of a coin, regardless of the quality of manufacture and state of preservation of the coin.
value=grade
I have always been under the impression that the grading of a coin, market, technical or otherwise, are methods of describing the quality of manufacture and state of preservation of a coin.
grade=value
JAM
Ira Stein
<< Let me see if I've got this right.
Ira, you maintain that the market grading of a coin is a method of fixing the
value of a coin, regardless of the quality of manufacture and state of
preservation of the coin.
value=grade
I have always been under the impression that the grading of a coin, market,
technical or otherwise, are methods of describing the quality of manufacture
and state of preservation of a coin.
grade=value >><BR><BR>
Not so, but I never said or implied, as you just wrote,
"market grading of a coin is a method of fixing the value of a coin, regardless
of the quality of manufacture and state of preservation of the coin." You are a
bit confused about this aspect.
The major grading companies grade a coin close to the ANA published standards,
but superior eye appeal might well garner a higher market grade than the coin's
"technical" grade and some blemishes that affect marketability, notwithstanding
the technical grade and surface quality, might well lower the "market grade."
Not always an easy concept to undertsand, especially for folks that don't buy
and/or see LOTS of certified coins up close & personal!
Ira Stein
Alan & Erin Williams
>
> Let me see if I've got this right.
>
> Ira, you maintain that the market grading of a coin is a method of fixing the value of a coin, regardless of the quality of manufacture and state of preservation of the coin.
>
> value=grade
>
> I have always been under the impression that the grading of a coin, market, technical or otherwise, are methods of describing the quality of manufacture and state of preservation of a coin.
>
> grade=value
>
> JAM
>
Money money money money money. It seems to dazzle us into losing sight
of reality sometimes.
In *my* perfect world, grade=condition.
value=demand
I don;t know of any way to inspect a coin and know the demand.
Alan
'and never the Shania shall meet'
Ira Stein
<< In *my* perfect world, grade=condition.
value=demand
I don;t know of any way to inspect a coin and know the demand.
>><BR><BR>
I'm sure you don't, Allan. The grading companies wouldn't know either if it
were not for the group of dealer consultants they pay to advise them of the
market conditions with respect to certain coins and series.
You can be darn sure that 3c silvers (not maligning them, just being realistic
with respect to the"market") will get graded just about as close to a
"technical" grade as you can imagine, whereas DMPL CC Morgan Dollars will
receive a large component of "eye-appeal" factor in the final grade given by
the major grading companies.
I don't happen to believe "market grading" is a bad thing. I believe eye-appeal
SHOULD affect the value, hence the market grade preference chosen by the major
grading companies.
Now some of the small grading companies simply can't afford market consultants
and they apparently overcompensate by overgrading as their approach to capture
some of the slabbing fees. This is my personal opinion as a coin/currency
dealer, of course, although some see something more ominous operating, and,
they may be right. I just don't know.
Ira Stein
Alan & Erin Williams
>
> Alan Williams writes:
>
> << In *my* perfect world, grade=condition.
>
> value=demand
>
> I don;t know of any way to inspect a coin and know the demand.
> >><BR><BR>
>
> I'm sure you don't, Allan. The grading companies wouldn't know either if it
> were not for the group of dealer consultants they pay to advise them of the
> market conditions with respect to certain coins and series.
>
> You can be darn sure that 3c silvers (not maligning them, just being realistic
> with respect to the"market") will get graded just about as close to a
> "technical" grade as you can imagine, whereas DMPL CC Morgan Dollars will
> receive a large component of "eye-appeal" factor in the final grade given by
> the major grading companies.
>
> I don't happen to believe "market grading" is a bad thing. I believe eye-appeal
> SHOULD affect the value, hence the market grade preference chosen by the major
> grading companies.
>
Ira, I'm sure that you understand my point and that of others as well.
Certainly eye-appeal should influence the value. Value can be noted by
writing a number over there in the corner on that thing called a 'price
tag'. Grade should reflect condition. Put that number on the holder,
MS-64 or whatever.
> Now some of the small grading companies simply can't afford market consultants
> and they apparently overcompensate by overgrading as their approach to capture
> some of the slabbing fees. This is my personal opinion as a coin/currency
> dealer, of course, although some see something more ominous operating, and,
> they may be right. I just don't know.
If the point of submission is to find out 'what its worth on the open
market' then send the coin for an appraisal. If the question is 'what
is the coin's condition', then you should not need a market consultant,
army of field reporters, copy of Trends or anything similar. All you
need then is a competent, experienced grader.
YMMV, naturally.
Alan
Reid Goldsborough
wrote:
>If I were at a show looking for Saints, and was in
>the market for a problem free MS60, PCGS and NGC labels would be of not
>help at all. I would still have to look at a range of grades to find a
>true MS60.
Wait! You're saying slabs of Saints aren't of any help at all, in this
case. Alan Williams said before that you should never buy gold coins
that aren't slabbed because of all the counterfeits out there, because
a dealer told him this, and no dealer has ever lied to him. Who's
right???
Neither of you. Above, you talk about "problem free MS60" Saints. No
such animal. All MS60 Saints have problems -- awful, sometimes
horrible bag marks. They're ugly coins. Doesn't mean they don't get
Deven Atkinson
>Byron Reed writes:
>
><< Ira, you aren't catching my drift. THE COIN HAS WEAR. Any wear
>causes it to be less than mint state. AU58 in this case would not be
>market grading because it actually is worn.
>
> >><BR><BR>
>
>There's rub caused by circulation and friction or rub caused by other
>means...album slides, for example. Countless Barber coins with slide marks (rub
>or friction) on cheek are in slabs as uncirculated (usually MS-61-3). Why?
>Because they are worth uncirculated money.
I wasn't going to continue commenting on this thread, but I just can't be
quiet. Especially since I, and others, look to Ira as class act--someone
with an exceptional eye for value, especially early small cents.
First, I agree that Ira's assesment is correct for market grading. This is
an obvious explanation of the side effects of gradeflation. The market $$$
will shift, and market grades go along with the shift to some extent. A
circulated coin is worth uncirculated money so it is graded as
uncirculated. Some don't see a problem with this. I do. As Fredd has oft
said, this is as silly as saying that octane 89 gas is now octane 90
because the market shifted. It is a good thing gas is not market graded or
we would never know what kind of gas is going into the tank. Because of
market grading we no longer have a "standard" for grading. Each slabbing
company has their own "standards" which have changed (gradeflated) over
time and thus are not really "standard" in any definition of the word. I
see in coin magazine ads where dealers are having to specify the slabber,
and some like David Lawrence Rare Coins, are motivated to add information
about color and eye appeal to provide information as to why they are
selling an NGC coin for more than a PCGS coin of the same date/mint
mark/market grade. (cite: CW 2/3/03, pg17, 4th column top, 1924D quarter
dollars, the PCGS coin is not as white as the NCG apparently thus allowing
it to overtake the stronger money that PCGS commands.)
Why not just give the thing its real uncirculated grade and then give it a
market value, like AU58 - PCGS61 and list the attributes (good and bad)??
An AU58 coin worth 61 money in PCGS's opinion because of its eye appeal or
extra sharp strike or whatever..
Is it no wonder that new collectors get confused and ripped off? Is it no
wonder people still get ripped off and that coin collecting and dealers in
particular get a bad reputation as a result? Is it no wonder that ACG
can't be singled out for fraud because they do the *same* thing as NGC and
PCGS, just more flagrantly. Heck, you need a slab guide to properly
interpret price guides nowadays. (is it an old or new slab, what color
label, was that before whatzhisface left PCGS and joined NCG, etc...)
> Ditto for Bust Halves. In fact, PCGS
>in their Grading & Counterfeit Guide actually states that slight friction on
>the high points of bust halves will not necessarily disqualify from
>certification as some level of unciculated (MS-63 max, I believe). That's
>market grading in action, like it or not.
>
>You may remember some months ago I discussed an NGC MS-63 No stars dime that
>when cracked out and sent to PCGS came back an AU-58. I saw no friction on the
>high points on that coin, and I'm no babe in the woods with respect to grading.
>Yet, the graders and finalizer at PCGS saw something in that coin that prompted
>the AU-58 grade. Perhaps some light scuffing in the field or a diminuation of
>lustre. The coin sold for about $1150, which while well under MS-63 money, was
>well above AU-50 price. AU-58s often sell for just above MS-60 $$$, and many
>should, as they have more eye appeal than the vast majority of MS-60 coins of
>teh same date and/or type. I've sold two AU-58 1922 no D 1c coins for more than
>MS-60 prices as those few coins extant have a better "look" than the typical
>stained and lacklustre MS-60 of that date.
>
Even assuming the AU-50 above is a typo (you meant 58?), can't you see the
justifications you have twisted yourself into, Ira? Market Grade 58s often
sell for just above market grade 60 $$$. (Yes I paraphrased and added the
term market grade because all slabbed coins are market graded) Isn't the
market grade supose to include eye appeal and other attributes?
I do see the truth in Ira's words. Yet, how can this be true if the market
grade equates to value? A 58 equals a 60? Old slab vs new slab? PCGS vs
ICG? Gradeflation waiting to happen? Fraud?
Call it what you will, but it is *not* good for the hobby.
>To summarize, a coin CAN be graded AU-58 in the market grading arena because a
>problem or two not related to circualtion keeps it out of the BU category. As
>Q. David Bowers wrote, "An AU-58 should be characterized as a MS-63 with rub."
>
He also said, "Many if not most buyers new to the market are buying the
holder, not the coin, a situation amazing to me, but absolutely wonderful
for the bottom line profits of the certification services." (cite: CW
2/3/03 pg 22) I agree with him 100%. Mr. Bowers has not been a cheerleader
for slabs and market grading. Maybe this is why Collectors Universe ousted
him from his presidency at Bowers and Merena.
Deven Atkinson de...@bright.net
--
Penny Lane Numismatic - Categorized Web Links
http://www.bright.net/~deven/pennylane.htm
ANA Member #1197707
Ron Dayton
An excellent post and right on the mark.
Ron
"Deven Atkinson" <de...@bright.net> wrote in message
news:roA_9.7836$37.8...@cletus.bright.net...
Barry K
need to change its name to PCAS. It's not a Grading service, it's an
Appraisal service.
Ira, you are saying the grade they apply is to value the coin at its
market value. The problems with that are:
a) the market value changes with time. Oops, I forgot. The grades
change with time, too
b) this approach seems bass ackwards to me - shouldn't the grade
determine value, not the other way around?
b) Applying a "grade" to the market value of the coin is like a
derivative. It's a function of price which is a function of grade.
Barry
--
Note - Remove the X from my e-mail address for direct replies
Ira Stein
<< Ira, you are saying the grade they apply is to value the coin at its
market value. The problems with that are:
a) the market value changes with time. Oops, I forgot. The grades
change with time, too
b) this approach seems bass ackwards to me - shouldn't the grade
determine value, not the other way around?
b) Applying a "grade" to the market value of the coin is like a
derivative. It's a function of price which is a function of grade. >><BR><BR>
The grades "approximate" the ANA grading guidelines and photos. However, that
said, a point up or down can be subtracted or added depending upon the coin's
appearance. I don't think its a bad thing. The top 4 grading comapnies ALL
market grade, perhaps ANACS a bit less than the others.
Let's say you had two MS-64 Walkers, both 1941-S, both graded in 1988 when
market grading was not used. In terms of surface and marks, both are quite
similar. One, however, has never been dipped but is frosty white with blazing
lustre, and perhaps the strike is a hair better than the other one. That one
stands out, yet if the coins are scrutinized closely, they are extremely
similar in all OTHER repects. While you might say one is the same grade as the
other and might be worth a few dollars more because of somewhat superior
lustre, the grading services are likely to place a premium on the one with
better eye appeal and grade it MS-65. Bad thing? I don't happen to think so.
Since they all do it, what are your choices? The public and dealers seem to
like it. If it ain't broke, why fix it?
Ira Stein
JAM
"Market Grading is about creating markets, and not about grading"
Deven Atkinson
--
Koinguy
Better then MS 60 yet its an AU,
Undergraded, Overgraded, PCI, ANACS, PCGS, NGC, Re grade to another company,
Crack Out,
Simple question :
Is the coin a AU or a Unc ?
DOG PLAY
Bruce Remick
I would rather see a price range for a technical MS64 coin than a grade
range for a $250 coin. With eleven degrees of MS'ness for ABCD grading
service to work with, there has to be one of them that describes a given
MS coin state of preservation accurately enough, mark & blemish-wise.
Then once a technical grade is determined by ABCD, the price may be
adjusted up or down by the owner according to the beauty or ugliness of
that particular coin.
With market grading, I assume you're suggesting that ABCD might label a
MS65 Walker with rainbow toning as an MS66, because folks have been
paying premiums lately for toned silver coins, while my otherwise equal
Walker with lustre but no toning would only rate a MS65?
I guess I'll never understand or agree with the market grading concept.
Fortunately, I don't play the slab game very often with MS coins unless
I can first see the coin in person. I do find all this discussion
enlightening though.
Bruce
Reid Goldsborough
>Since they all do it, what are your choices? The public and dealers seem to
>like it. If it ain't broke, why fix it?
Agreed. Market grading works. It's a game, but so is everything else.
Reid Goldsborough
wrote:
>Ira, you are saying the grade they apply is to value the coin at its
>market value. The problems with that are:
>a) the market value changes with time. Oops, I forgot. The grades
>change with time, too
>b) this approach seems bass ackwards to me - shouldn't the grade
>determine value, not the other way around?
>b) Applying a "grade" to the market value of the coin is like a
>derivative. It's a function of price which is a function of grade.
For the sake of historical accuracy, I feel obliged to point out that
you have two item b's above and NO item c. Thank you very much.
Barry K
<reid...@netaxs.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 31 Jan 2003 20:13:32 GMT, w2...@mindspring.com (Barry K)
>wrote:
>
>>Ira, you are saying the grade they apply is to value the coin at its
>>market value. The problems with that are:
>>a) the market value changes with time. Oops, I forgot. The grades
>>change with time, too
>>b) this approach seems bass ackwards to me - shouldn't the grade
>>determine value, not the other way around?
>>b) Applying a "grade" to the market value of the coin is like a
>>derivative. It's a function of price which is a function of grade.
>
>For the sake of historical accuracy, I feel obliged to point out that
>you have two item b's above and NO item c. Thank you very much.
>
>--
>
The second "b" precedes an old parenthesis, and therefore can be
assumed to be a "c" under current alphabet standards. Your welcome.
Ed Hendricks
If it ain't broke, why fix it?
>
>
>
> Ira Stein
--
That's what everyone said about the "old" grading system before the term
"market grading" was invented (and for that matter before "independent"
grading services and 1-70 scales).
Ed Hendricks
ANA# R178621
eBay: edh.
Aram H. Haroutunian
It appears to be there when you are bidding against another floor
bidder who wants the coin more than you do. But that can be an
illusion. He might just be as crazy as you think he is. I believe
they described John J. Pittman this way. :-) Aram.
Fred A. Murphy
On 30-Jan-2003, ir...@aol.comnospam (Ira Stein) wrote:
> << By all means. The slobbing services have been passing off scratched
> coins
> and other junk for so long that there's no point trying to stop them now.
> Since he deals mainly in PCGS, I'm assuming that's the holders he saw them
> in. >>
>
>
> You mean, Fredd, any coin with a scratch is junk? News to me.
It is if you don't acknowledge the scratch and try to pass the coin off as
undamaged. Junk Unc, junk AU, whatever.
> Where did I say that? I never said it's okay for a fake to be passed off
> as genuine because it's in a slab.
You said, and I quote:
> > Besides, he'd be selling it to a dealer who would inspect it under
> > magnification to determine that it's genuine and if the mark is bad,
Thus excusing the fact that it's misgraded, because the dealer could protect
himself with knowledge. Using that identical logic and the rest of the same
sentence, the coin could also be fake, and it would be OK, too, since the
dealer could protect himself with knowledge.
Slobbing companies provide two "services", grading and authentication. This
presents three scenarios:
You can excuse the grading, but insist that the authentication be accurate,
as you have done here. To me, this makes no sense. If the grading isn't
accurate, then it doesn't belong on the holder.
You can insist that both grading and authentication be accurate, which is my
position. If a coin cannot be accurately graded, then *don't* grade it.
You admit that the purpose of the slab is to help sell the coin, and that
neither the accuracy of the grade or authenticity matters. This is the
bottom-feeders' philosophy.
You have excused the misgrade because it will sell to a dealer who doesn't
believe in the grade anyway. If he has to depend on his own knowledge to
determine the grade, and you say he also knows how to determine if it's
fake, then *none* of the slobbing work was needed.
> As for overgrading, YOU believe all coins in
> slabs are overgraded because they're "market graded," a concept you won't
> accept.
I don't accept it because there's no such thing, as has been repeatedly
pointed out. A market grade is only valid at the instant it's put on the
slab, and immediately turns into a misgrade as the market changes. Whether
it is an undergrade or an overgrade is immaterial, it is a *wrong* grade.
> Oh, for the good old days, Fredd. No one mispresented the grades of coins
> then and everyone got a fair shake. Right?
I would be the last to claim that. In the old days, Dealer Joe Crook
misrepresented the grades on his coins, and word got around not to deal with
Dealer Joe Crook. Now the misrepresentation is being done by the very
people who are being paid to be the arbiters. You can excuse, if not
approve, the misgrade of the individual dealer, but when it it being
practiced by the very people who are supposed to be protecting us, then it's
inexcusable.
What's worse, now Joe Crook can play the crackout game until he gets his
coins sufficiently overgraded, or go directly to having the bottom feeders
overgrade them on the first pass. Now you have the same crook passing off
the same overgraded coins, except they have been given official sanction.
I don't see how this is good for the hobby. We've gone from having a
crooked dealer in a hobby to having a crooked dealer backed by a crooked
infrastructure in the hobby itself.
--
The hot sun spilled through the open blinds like tapioca pudding through a
two year old.
Fred A. Murphy
On 30-Jan-2003, ir...@aol.comnospam (Ira Stein) wrote:
> << You don't need to see the coin, Ira. The poster admits the coin is
> scratched and was "very lightly rubbed" in one of the most obvious
> places on the entire coin.
>
> It seems to me that ANACS did exactly what they should do and there is
> nothing sad about it. A poor job of coin examination is not
> sufficient reason to bitch about a grading service doing its job.
>
> I do think that the net grade was harsh. Anytime you see a net grade
> you think about problem coins. It should have come back as a legit
> AU58.
>
> >><BR><BR>
>
> That would have been market grading, and that grade would have been fairer
> than what they did do. Still, I would have to see the coin before I can
> have a
> solid opinion.
A lightly rubbed coin with perhaps a light scratch *is* an AU58. An
unrubbed coin with a scratch is a MS whatever with damage.
There is no market grading involved.
If the coin would otherwise be MS65 and has a light scratch, it is a MS65,
light scratch. Calling it MS62 is market grading, because now you're saying
a MS65 coin with a light scratch should sell at the same price as an
unimpaired, but not as nicely struck, M62.
If you're going to use terms like "market grading", at least understand what
they mean.
Ira Stein
<< A lightly rubbed coin with perhaps a light scratch *is* an AU58. An
unrubbed coin with a scratch is a MS whatever with damage.
There is no market grading involved.
If the coin would otherwise be MS65 and has a light scratch, it is a MS65,
light scratch. Calling it MS62 is market grading, because now you're saying
a MS65 coin with a light scratch should sell at the same price as an
unimpaired, but not as nicely struck, M62.
If you're going to use terms like "market grading", at least understand what
they mean. >><BR><BR>
I DO understand what "market grading" means at least with repect to how the
major grading companies invoke those practices. It is YOU, Fredd, who simply
don't understand, I'm afraid.
Ira Stein
Fred A. Murphy
On 31-Jan-2003, ir...@aol.comnospam (Ira Stein) wrote:
> << Ira, you aren't catching my drift. THE COIN HAS WEAR. Any wear
> causes it to be less than mint state. AU58 in this case would not be
> market grading because it actually is worn.
> There's rub caused by circulation and friction or rub caused by other
> means...album slides, for example.
Wear is wear. It doesn't matter if it's from mishandling by a non-collector
who rubbed the face, or mishandling by a collector who rubbed it with an
album slide or slid it around in a cabinet. It's still wear.
> Countless Barber coins with slide marks (rub
> or friction) on cheek are in slabs as uncirculated (usually MS-61-3). Why?
Because they're improperly graded. They are AU58 or AU59 coins.
> Because they are worth uncirculated money.
A glass of tap water is worth $100 to a man in the desert. Does that mean
it should be called chemically pure water? Grade them properly and price
them however you want. Why is this concept so difficult to understand?
> Ditto for Bust Halves. In fact, PCGS
> in their Grading & Counterfeit Guide actually states that slight friction
> on
> the high points of bust halves will not necessarily disqualify from
> certification as some level of unciculated (MS-63 max, I believe). That's
> market grading in action, like it or not.
That's putting a grade on a coin to reflect what the slobber thinks it
should sell for. That's pricing the coin, not grading it, so why not call
it market pricing instead of misleading people by calling it market grading?
> You may remember some months ago I discussed an NGC MS-63 No stars dime
> that when cracked out and sent to PCGS came back an AU-58. I saw no
> friction on
> the high points on that coin, and I'm no babe in the woods with respect to
> grading.
> Yet, the graders and finalizer at PCGS saw something in that coin that
> prompted the AU-58 grade.
So someone misgraded the coin, or more accurately, mis-market-graded the
coin. The coin is either new or used, it can't be both. If the experts
can't come within 5 points of each other, why are people paying them to make
decisions where a single point can mean tens of thousands of dollars?
Fred A. Murphy
On 31-Jan-2003, Alan & Erin Williams <will...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> In *my* perfect world, grade=condition.
>
> value=demand
>
> I don;t know of any way to inspect a coin and know the demand.
There's nothing "perfect world" about that. It's reality. It's how
everything *but* coins are graded.
Market grading is another term for pricing. Even if there was a magical way
to determine demand for a coin by examining it, that would not necessarily
be true the next day or ten years later.
Fred A. Murphy
On 31-Jan-2003, ir...@aol.comnospam (Ira Stein) wrote:
All of this is solved by *accurate* grading and allowing the market to make
its own determinations of value.
Ira Stein
<< > > Besides, he'd be selling it to a dealer who would inspect it under
> > magnification to determine that it's genuine and if the mark is bad,
Thus excusing the fact that it's misgraded, because the dealer could protect
himself with knowledge. Using that identical logic and the rest of the same
sentence, the coin could also be fake, and it would be OK, too, since the
dealer could protect himself with knowledge.
>><BR><BR>
Ira:
<< > > Besides, he'd be selling it to a dealer who would inspect it under
> > magnification to determine that it's genuine and if the mark is bad, <snip>
Fredd:
Thus excusing the fact that it's misgraded, because the dealer could protect
himself with knowledge. Using that identical logic and the rest of the same
sentence, the coin could also be fake, and it would be OK, too, since the
dealer could protect himself with knowledge.
>><BR><BR>
Fredd:
<< You admit that the purpose of the slab is to help sell the coin, and that
neither the accuracy of the grade or authenticity matters. This is the
bottom-feeders' philosophy. >><BR><BR>
You are hopelessly confused, Fredd. I suggested that the owner of this coin, a
1924 Saint, crack it out & sell it RAW to a dealer or trade it in one one he
likes in a slab! Somehow you've twisted this thread to proclaim that I condone
the sale of counterfeits and misgraded coins because they happen to be in
slabs! Again, part and parcel of your anti-"slobbing" crusade.
I'm not "admitting" that the PURPOSE of a slab is to help sell a coin. That's
it DOES help sell a coin is not open to conjecture, in my opinion. I don't
condone using ANY 3rd tier slabbing company, even if they occasionally get it
right, which, although uncommon, could happen.
Twisting words to fit your theories is your avocation, Fredd, not mine, and I'm
tired of this pointless diatribe. Coins in the major companies' slabs have been
GOOD for coin collecting in general, and I was in the market in pre-slab days
as were YOU, Fredd. Unconscionable profits were made by dealers & auction
houses then who misgraded coins with impunity and regularity.
Ira Stein
Fred A. Murphy
On 31-Jan-2003, Alan & Erin Williams <will...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Ira, I'm sure that you understand my point and that of others as well.
> Certainly eye-appeal should influence the value. Value can be noted by
> writing a number over there in the corner on that thing called a 'price
> tag'. Grade should reflect condition. Put that number on the holder,
> MS-64 or whatever.
> If the point of submission is to find out 'what its worth on the open
> market' then send the coin for an appraisal. If the question is 'what
> is the coin's condition', then you should not need a market consultant,
> army of field reporters, copy of Trends or anything similar. All you
> need then is a competent, experienced grader.
Why is it that a collector, the person who supposedly benefits from market
grading, understands that it's a scam, but that a dealer can't seem to grasp
this concept?
The whole problem with market grading is fairly summarized in your comments.
We should be sending a coin to the experts and have them grade it.
For some unknown reason, the "grading" services see themselves as
appraisers, and in the process, have concealed a step in the appraisal
process, that of assigning a grade. Then they do an appraisal, and instead
of providing a price as a result of that appraisal, determine a price, then
convert that back into something they call a market grade, which is neither
a grade *nor* a price.
grade = grade
grade + market evaluation = price = appraisal
grade + market evaluation = price = appraisal / price chart = market grade
All you have to do is look at the top equation, which is what was asked, and
compare it to the bottom one, which is what is done, to see where the
problem lies.
Chrysta Wilson
says...
> On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 01:28:39 GMT, Charlie Wagner <cha...@charliewagner.com> wrote:
>
> > I usually don't complain about grading, even if there is some
> >variance from what grade I assign to a coin, but this really takes the
> >cake. I normally send coins to PCGS or NGC but I thought I'd try ANACS.
> >Boy, did I waste my money! They might just as well have put a big sign
> >on the holder saying "DON'T BUY THIS COIN".
> > Take a look at this coin and see what you think. I'll attach the
> >ANACS grade in a follow up note and I would appreciate it if readers
> >would give their opinion. I graded the coin MS63 and was hoping for at
> >least that grade from ANACS.
> >http://www.charliewagner.net/ebay/1924gold.jpg
> >
> >Thanks, Charlie Wagner (cewagner92)
>
> Charlie, it is very difficult to judge gold coins from scans. However, ANACS is
> really conservative on these. Their detection of problem coins is second to
> none, and I suspect you will get a bodybag back from NGC.
> --
And Charlie, if it makes you feel any better, I did it the other way
around. I sent a beloved $2.50 Indian to PCGS, who bagged it for
cleaning. Indignant, I asked here what to do. Some thought I should
resubmit, others said to try NGC. I sent it to ANACS, who noted it
cleaned on the holder and net graded it. I could have saved the money I
sent to PCGS and just done this in the first place.
Chrysta
>
Fred A. Murphy
On 1-Feb-2003, ir...@aol.comnospam (Ira Stein) wrote:
> I DO understand what "market grading" means at least with repect to how
> the major grading companies invoke those practices. It is YOU, Fredd, who
> simply don't understand, I'm afraid.
Then I guess neither you nor the grading services understand the concept.
As has been pointed out by someone else, a coin with wear is AU or lower.
Calling a scratched coin a lower grade does nothing for either the person
looking for a lower grade unimpaired coin or looking for the scratched coin
of higher grade.
Eric Tillery
>Twisting words to fit your theories is your avocation, Fredd, not mine, and I'm
>tired of this pointless diatribe. Coins in the major companies' slabs have been
>GOOD for coin collecting in general, and I was in the market in pre-slab days
>as were YOU, Fredd. Unconscionable profits were made by dealers & auction
>houses then who misgraded coins with impunity and regularity.
But Ira, this is the whole point of Fred's sour grapes. So many people remember
"the good ol' days" and will not touch a raw coin online or via mail order. You
don't really think Fred carries on this anti-slab crusade just because of principal
do you? No! The new market has hit him where it hurts. Anything Fred says
regarding the reputable grading companies must be taken with a huge dose
of salt.
Flame away Fred.
--
A Close look at Accugrade:
My Morgan Collection
http://www.k6az.com/morgan_collection.htm
How to tell the difference between Old and New PCI Holders
Charlie Wagner
I'm just becoming aware of these kids of differences between
grading services. For example, I don't think I would send any cents to
PCGS because I know they are much stricter. On the other hand, I have an
olympic gold coin graded MS69 by PCGS that has unpleasant toning and a
big fingerprint on the obverse. Once you get to know these little
quirks, you can select the grading service that best suits your needs.
Why I could even resubmit my gold coins to ACG or PCI and who knows what
grade I would get. ;-)
Charlie
Ira Stein
Ira wrote:
<< >Twisting words to fit your theories is your avocation, Fredd, not mine, and
I'm
>tired of this pointless diatribe. Coins in the major companies' slabs have
been
>GOOD for coin collecting in general, and I was in the market in pre-slab days
>as were YOU, Fredd. Unconscionable profits were made by dealers & auction
>houses then who misgraded coins with impunity and regularity. >><BR><BR>
Eric responded:
<< But Ira, this is the whole point of Fred's sour grapes. So many people
remember
"the good ol' days" and will not touch a raw coin online or via mail order. You
don't really think Fred carries on this anti-slab crusade just because of
principal
do you? No! The new market has hit him where it hurts. Anything Fred says
regarding the reputable grading companies must be taken with a huge dose
of salt.
Flame away Fred.
-- >><BR><BR>
Courageous of you to sum in up so succinctly, Eric, but you were NEVER short on
courage, as regulars here on RCC know full well. Get ready to duck now!
Ira Stein
Fred A. Murphy
On 31-Jan-2003, ir...@aol.comnospam (Ira Stein) wrote:
> The grades "approximate" the ANA grading guidelines and photos. However,
> that said, a point up or down can be subtracted or added depending upon
> the
> coin's appearance. I don't think its a bad thing. The top 4 grading
> companies ALL
> market grade, perhaps ANACS a bit less than the others.
If your car needs 92 octane gas, how would you feel about "approximately" 92
octane gas that caused a few thousand dollars worth of engine damage?
It may not be a "bad thing", but it's also "not" grading, no matter what
it's called.
> While you might say one is the same grade as the
> other and might be worth a few dollars more because of somewhat superior
> lustre, the grading services are likely to place a premium on the one with
> better eye appeal and grade it MS-65. Bad thing? I don't happen to think
> so.
Of course you don't think so. If you did, you'd have to admit you're being
a hypocrite in supporting and cheerleading for the slobbing services.
Of course it's a bad thing. You are telling people that they are getting a
MS65 coin and delivering a nice looking MS64. A few years ago people won a
big lawsuit against GM for delivering cars that said Cadillac on them, but
had Chevy engines in them.
Seems to me that if you buy something in a slab from a Professional Coin
GRADING Service that the number on the slab should be that coin's grade, not
what grade it would have been if its market value was reflected in its
condition. Or maybe what the Numismatic GUARANTEE Corporation is
guaranteeing is that you'll get at least a nice MS64 coin for your MS 65
money?
> Since they all do it, what are your choices?
If all the other kids wanted to jump off the roof, should you do it too?
Didn't your folks beat this stupid thinking out of you about half a century
ago?
> The public and dealers seem to like it. If it ain't broke, why fix it?
Before the slobbing services, the same thing could be said about individual
dealers overgrading. Since they all did it, and the public and dealers
seemed to like it, why did we "fix" it with slobbing services?
Well, because it *was* broke, no matter what it seemed like. And market
grading is broke too, so we need to fix it.
Jim
>Of course it's a bad thing. You are telling people that they are getting a
MS65 coin and delivering a nice looking MS64.<
And in this ongoing dichotomy, the slabbers continue to slam the raw coiners by
comparing them all to Satanic demons who prey on the unknowing.
But yet the presumed purity of slabbing, whereby a number should equal actual
condition should equal current value, continues to be shrouded in smoke and
mirrors of their own doing.
Where is their own hypocrisy getting lost?
Always here for my fellow syngraphist or oenophile.
--=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=--
Eric Tillery
>Courageous of you to sum in up so succinctly, Eric, but you were NEVER short on
>courage, as regulars here on RCC know full well. Get ready to duck now!
I just call them as I see them. And I remember how things were in the 70s.
Winde Walker
>
> If the coin would otherwise be MS65 and has a light scratch, it is a MS65,
> light scratch. Calling it MS62 is market grading, because now you're saying
> a MS65 coin with a light scratch should sell at the same price as an
> unimpaired, but not as nicely struck, M62.
>
numbers? or do you contend that the numbers reflect the initial strike
of the coin, and all the bag marks and incidental damages from then on
are listed. As in MS63 with 23 bag marks and one grand canyon on obverse
and 7 bag marks and a rub on reverse?
> If you're going to use terms like "market grading", at least understand what
> they mean.
>
Which is why I am asking the question ;)
--
Winde Walker
ICQ 125272334
I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken.
Winde Walker
> On 31-Jan-2003, Alan & Erin Williams <will...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>>In *my* perfect world, grade=condition.
>>
>>value=demand
>>
>>I don;t know of any way to inspect a coin and know the demand.
>
>
> There's nothing "perfect world" about that. It's reality. It's how
> everything *but* coins are graded.
>
> Market grading is another term for pricing. Even if there was a magical way
> to determine demand for a coin by examining it, that would not necessarily
> be true the next day or ten years later.
>
value to it? not a dollar amount, but a value, ie. an MS63 is more
valuable than an AU58?
Personally I have a problem with how narrow the band is between single
points of the MS scale. but then I am not a good grader yet.
Fred A. Murphy
On 1-Feb-2003, Winde Walker <wind...@comcast.net> wrote:
> But Fred, don't you 'grade' a coin for the sole purpose of assigning a
> value to it? not a dollar amount, but a value, ie. an MS63 is more
> valuable than an AU58?
No, and no. If I grade a coin, it is to provide information to someone who
cannot see it so that they have an idea what it looks like. Grades are a
shorthand description of the condition of a coin.
Ed. Stoebenau
<wind...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Fred A. Murphy wrote:
>> On 31-Jan-2003, Alan & Erin Williams <will...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In *my* perfect world, grade=condition.
>>>
>>>value=demand
>>>
>>>I don;t know of any way to inspect a coin and know the demand.
>>
>>
>> There's nothing "perfect world" about that. It's reality. It's how
>> everything *but* coins are graded.
>>
>> Market grading is another term for pricing. Even if there was a magical way
>> to determine demand for a coin by examining it, that would not necessarily
>> be true the next day or ten years later.
>>
>But Fred, don't you 'grade' a coin for the sole purpose of assigning a
>value to it? not a dollar amount, but a value, ie. an MS63 is more
>valuable than an AU58?
I would say no. First we collectors do grade the coins in our
collections, though not to assign a value on them, as we usually
will not be selling for a while. Second, even when looking for
coins to buy, we might reject a coin based on its grade even
without considering the price (especially, in regards to this,
more the "too low grades" rather than "too high").
>Personally I have a problem with how narrow the band is between single
>points of the MS scale. but then I am not a good grader yet.
The resubmission game should suggest that even the major grading
services cannot differentiate between single grade levels at an
extremely accurate rate.
--
Ed. Stoebenau
a #143
Deven Atkinson
>On 01 Feb 2003 18:51:36 GMT, ir...@aol.comnospam (Ira Stein) wrote:
>
>>Twisting words to fit your theories is your avocation, Fredd, not mine, and
> I'm
>>tired of this pointless diatribe. Coins in the major companies' slabs have
> been
>>GOOD for coin collecting in general, and I was in the market in pre-slab days
>>as were YOU, Fredd. Unconscionable profits were made by dealers & auction
>>houses then who misgraded coins with impunity and regularity.
>
>But Ira, this is the whole point of Fred's sour grapes. So many people remember
>"the good ol' days" and will not touch a raw coin online or via mail order. You
>don't really think Fred carries on this anti-slab crusade just because of
> principal
>do you? No! The new market has hit him where it hurts. Anything Fred says
>regarding the reputable grading companies must be taken with a huge dose
>of salt.
>
>Flame away Fred.
Explain away why I am on a anti-"market grading" crusade, Eric.
Deven Atkinson de...@bright.net
--
Penny Lane Numismatic - Categorized Web Links
http://www.bright.net/~deven/pennylane.htm
ANA Member #1197707
Deven Atkinson
Very well said. It is also why we will never see dates on a slab. If we,
the consumers, had that date, then we could look at price guides for that
date and re-"market grade" the thing ourselves without having to re-submit
the coin. This is already being done by those that know how to tell
grading companies older slabs from newer ones. This is how those who play
the slab game, cherry-pick slabs to be cracked.
Eric Tillery
>Explain away why I am on a anti-"market grading" crusade, Eric.
My post was in relation to Fred's anti-slobbing stance. Where do you fit in here?
Perhaps if you want me to debate your position, you should explain it.
Deven Atkinson
comment "not good" about the word "scratched" being on the label that
started this current discussion about the market grading aspect of
slabbing. See Google. Read my posts to this thread and you will see where
I fit in.
Fred is not anti-slabbing. He is all for authentication. He is
anti-"market grading". You attacked him for his views because he is a
dealer, which lead you to insinuate that he has alterior motives for not
wanting market graded slabs. Fred and I hold very similar views on this
topic. I am not a dealer. So, what is my motivation? What is my alterior
motive? Do that Google search.
It is amazing that when some people can not refute a position adequately,
they resort to personal attacks. At least Ira remains silent. I respect
him for that. I also envy him for his ability to find outstanding small
cents, market graded or not.
In article <fmct3voljbcakju3l...@4ax.com>, k6...@netzero.com
wrote:
Deven Atkinson de...@bright.net
Frank Provasek
> I think an even better slab label would be something like "MS63 scratched
> and cleaned. Net ANACS-60" This gives an acurate description that should
> not confuse anyone, and also communicates that ANACS thinks it is only
> worth MS60 money. The more accurate the label, the better it is for the
> hobby.
>
But an MS63 coin cannot be scratched and cleaned.
Bruce Remick
And when it comes to the worth of an "impaired" MS63 coin, why should a
grading service be the one to say what value (i.e. MS60) it will have.
Their job should be to interpret the grade and describe the impairment,
not provide a suggested retail price.
Bruce
Fred A. Murphy
On 1-Feb-2003, ir...@aol.comnospam (Ira Stein) wrote:
> You are hopelessly confused, Fredd. I suggested that the owner of this
> coin, a
> 1924 Saint, crack it out & sell it RAW to a dealer or trade it in one one
> he
> likes in a slab! Somehow you've twisted this thread to proclaim that I
> condone
> the sale of counterfeits and misgraded coins because they happen to be in
> slabs! Again, part and parcel of your anti-"slobbing" crusade.
You're suggesting someone crack a coin out and sell it raw, and *I'm* on an
anti-slobbing crusade?
> Coins in the major companies' slabs have been
> GOOD for coin collecting in general, and I was in the market in pre-slab
> days as were YOU, Fredd. Unconscionable profits were made by dealers &
> auction
> houses then who misgraded coins with impunity and regularity.
Show me a common date $70,000 Lincoln cent in pre-slab days. Talk about
unconscionable.
Fred A. Murphy
On 1-Feb-2003, Eric Tillery <k6...@netzero.com> wrote:
> Anything Fred says
> regarding the reputable grading companies must be taken with a huge dose
> of salt.
>
> Flame away Fred.
There's no point in flaming you, you've already decided that no one but you
is correct, even when other people tell you you're wrong.
Fred A. Murphy
On 1-Feb-2003, Eric Tillery <k6...@netzero.com> wrote:
> I just call them as I see them. And I remember how things were in the 70s.
So do I, and I see the same people who were selling sliders back then are
still discussed on this group today.
Fred A. Murphy
On 1-Feb-2003, Winde Walker <wind...@comcast.net> wrote:
> but isn't it just such scratches that determines mint state grading
> numbers? or do you contend that the numbers reflect the initial strike
> of the coin, and all the bag marks and incidental damages from then on
> are listed. As in MS63 with 23 bag marks and one grand canyon on obverse
> and 7 bag marks and a rub on reverse?
> Which is why I am asking the question ;)
If there is such a thing as a technical grade of the coin, that does not
change. If a coin differs from that technical grade, either because of
damage or exceptional surfaces, toning, strike, or whatever, that should be
noted as a separate part of the grade.
The only way to have a grading system is to define each and every grade, and
note variations. If the definition of MS65 allows for five nicks under .1
mm, then a coin with 10 such nicks is a lower grade, and should fit into a
definition used for that lower grade. In your example, if 23 bag marks and
one grand canyon define a MS63, then no further detail is necessary. If a
maximum of 10 bag marks are allowed then the coin isn't a MS63, period.
The other part is that pesky "rub" AKA "wear". If the only way we can grade
a coin as MS is if it shows no evidence of circulation, then no coin can be
MS with *any* wear or rub. There's no such thing as MS65 with cabinet
friction, there's only high grade AU.
If you want to take the contrary position, the logical extension is that an
Indian cent in Good condition is MS65, with enough rub to remove all the
letters of liberty. Wear is wear.
The other part of the problem with market grading is that it is a value
appraisal, not a grade. It says that a shack in a nice neighborhood is the
same as a mansion in a slum. This is of no value to the buyer of a mansion
who doesn't want to live in a slum, or to the person who wants to live in a
nice neighborhood, but doesn't want cardboard for a roof. Tell me that the
house is a 0-100, then tell me what the neighborhood is like, and you've
provided me with information, not just a price.
Just the same as with house buyers, there are many collectors who would
rather have a beautiful AU coin than an ugly MS64. Calling an MS64 coin
AU58 because that's the price range it would fall in, or calling an AU59 an
MS64 does no service to either the person looking for a nice AU or a
strictly MS64 coin.
Fred A. Murphy
On 1-Feb-2003, Charlie Wagner <cha...@charliewagner.com> wrote:
> On the other hand, I have an
> olympic gold coin graded MS69 by PCGS that has unpleasant toning and a
> big fingerprint on the obverse
And since PCGS gives an "almost perfect" MS69 rating to something that shows
the most obvious possible sign of circulation (Handling), it should give you
a pretty good idea how accurate the rest of their grading is.
Chris
99.99% of coin collectors aren't buying this rediculous "high-end" stuff, so
it doesn't effect the hobby that badly. Authentication and accurate grading is
good for the average collector. The wacky slabbing stuff just gives the super
rich something to do with their money. It's not like they're being robbed at
gunpoint. They want those coins! It hardly effects me at all.
Chris M (as opposed to Chris S, the other Chris)
Eric Tillery
>I have explained my position. In this thread. It was my response to Ira's
>comment "not good" about the word "scratched" being on the label that
>started this current discussion about the market grading aspect of
>slabbing. See Google. Read my posts to this thread and you will see where
>I fit in.
I don't pay much attention to some posts, especially where I am not involved.
If you are going to debate a topic with me, it would be a good idea to at least
summarize your posistion. I am not going to waste an endless amount of time
when you could state your posistion in a few lines.
>
>Fred is not anti-slabbing. He is all for authentication. He is
>anti-"market grading". You attacked him for his views because he is a
>dealer, which lead you to insinuate that he has alterior motives for not
>wanting market graded slabs. Fred and I hold very similar views on this
>topic. I am not a dealer. So, what is my motivation? What is my alterior
>motive?
No, Fred wants to be able to buy at his grade, and sell at his grade, just like
a lot of dealers did before the slab. What is your motivation? I don't know,
perhaps you have listened to Fred so much you are convinced that what he
says is the gospel.
>It is amazing that when some people can not refute a position adequately,
>they resort to personal attacks. At least Ira remains silent. I respect
>him for that. I also envy him for his ability to find outstanding small
>cents, market graded or not.
Listen, I can refute your position 24 hours a day. Is market grading occuring in
coppers? Perhaps, but I do not specialize in coppers. My specialty is Morgan
Dollars, and I can tell you for a fact that there is little market grading involved
in that series. To be a copper guy, then apply the way coppers are graded
to all series is ridiculous. Unless you want to come back and tell me you
specialize in every US series. I was around the hobby in the 70s, and I am
around now. And I can tell you quality wise, without even paying attention
to the grade on the slab, I have been able to get much better Morgans than
I used to in the days of phone bids and mail order.
Winde Walker
> On 1-Feb-2003, Winde Walker <wind...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>>but isn't it just such scratches that determines mint state grading
>>numbers? or do you contend that the numbers reflect the initial strike
>>of the coin, and all the bag marks and incidental damages from then on
>>are listed. As in MS63 with 23 bag marks and one grand canyon on obverse
>>and 7 bag marks and a rub on reverse?
>
>
>>Which is why I am asking the question ;)
>
>
> If there is such a thing as a technical grade of the coin, that does not
> change. If a coin differs from that technical grade, either because of
>
> AU58 because that's the price range it would fall in, or calling an AU59 an
> MS64 does no service to either the person looking for a nice AU or a
> strictly MS64 coin.
>
billion to go.
Ira Stein
<< You're suggesting someone crack a coin out and sell it raw, and *I'm* on an
anti-slobbing crusade?
>><BR><BR>
That 1924 was a bullion coin and not in high grade,. It doesn;'t need a slab to
help market it.
<< Show me a common date $70,000 Lincoln cent in pre-slab days. Talk about
unconscionable. >><BR><BR>
You are referring to the PCGS Proof-70 1967 cameo proof Lincoln cent that just
sold for $39000 (including the vig) at auction, I assume. It was not the
auction company that set the price, Fredd. It was nutty bidders who fought with
each other for the highest graded of that date.
Personally, I think they were nuts. The coin had a green verdigris speck on it.
I'd have called it a MS-67 with that speck, which probably developed in the
holder due to improper storage, and pegged its value at $25, and ONLY because a
a cameo is unusual for that date in proof!
Ira Stein
Morgan Coin
>
><< You're suggesting someone crack a coin out and sell it raw, and *I'm* on
>an
>anti-slobbing crusade?
> >>
>
>tohelp market it.
Hmmm... I prefer my gold certified, and in the holder it would be worth more to
me than in a 2x2... but that is just me. I prefer authenticated gold, even
common dates. Yes, I know that it takes a counterfeiter a lot more gold to make
a Saint than a 2 1/2 Dollar gold, but they all have the possibility of being
counterfeit.
<< Show me a common date $70,000 Lincoln cent in pre-slab
>days. Talk aboutunconscionable. >>
>
>You are referring to the PCGS Proof-70 1967 cameo proof Lincoln cent that
>justsold for $39000 (including the vig) at auction, I assume. It was not
>theauction company that set the price, Fredd. It was nutty bidders who fought
>witheach other for the highest graded of that date.
Do you think they would have gone nuts over a cameo in a 2x2 or was it the 70
from PCGS they were fighting for?
Personally, I think they
>were nuts. The coin had a green verdigris speck on it.I'd have called it a
>MS-67 with that speck, which probably developed in theholder due to improper
>storage, and pegged its value at $25, and ONLY because aa cameo is unusual
>for that date in proof!Ira Stein
>
Was this a US Lincoln cent? I was under the impression that only SMS were
struck that year. Also, the bidders were chasing a slab number, not the coin.
The coin had a problem. I should think a proof 1967 Lincoln cent would be
rare... cameo or not. $25 to $30,000 is a big spread... I am glad it wasn't my
money buying that verdigreed green monster. ;)
-Sam
Samuel Morgan ANA LM # 5046
For ANA Governor, 2003
Deven Atkinson
While there may only be a small relative number of folks that are dropping
money down this hype hole, the media and price guides are involved. Newer
folks reading about the hobby will think that the best place to be is in
this silly "high-end" stuff. Price guides are changing format to support
this silly craze. Trends now has a "moderns" section that ignores the
values some coins below MS63. You can no longer use Trends to find the
guide price for a circulated example. For modern keys and varieties this
is a big loss. Where should the average collector go to look up the
current value of, say an XF 1955 DDO Lincoln cent?
The registry hype, created by the market grading system, is a bane to the
hobby.
Ira Stein
<< Was this a US Lincoln cent? I was under the impression that only SMS were
struck that year. Also, the bidders were chasing a slab number, not the coin.
The coin had a problem. I should think a proof 1967 Lincoln cent would be
rare... cameo or not. $25 to $30,000 is a big spread. >><BR><BR>
I misspoke, Sam, it was NOT a 1967 proof. Now I can't remember the date, maybe
1970? It was a common date it was was supposedly UN-common condition. I'm
positive the fact that it was in a PCGS slab graded Proof 70 had EVERYTHING to
do with the stratospheric price! That, and the competitive nature of the final
2 bidders, of course!
Ira Stein
Alan & Erin Williams
Because we often find ourselves on 'opposite sides of the room' in
discussions about market grading and the practices of third-party
graders, I jump in here with both feet to agree with you. ;-)
$39,000 can do a lot of constructive things, but buying a Lincoln Proof
less than 40 years old with verdigris on it is so low as to be off the list.
I hope the seller treats the money better than the buyer did!
Alan
'finest known of me'
Deven Atkinson
Ira, You have just described why I am so against market grading. I agree
with your analysis of the situation. I must defer to your assesment of the
coin, because I have not seen it. Any system that not only *allows* this
kind of thing to happen, but *actively supports* it is dangerous to the
hobby. Market grading calls the coin PR-70 and Ira calls the coin 67. My
long term money is on your appraisal, Ira. My point, and I think Fred's
also, is that in the pre-"market grading" days, sellers/dealers would have
sold the coin for around $25. Now with the hype of registry sets and the
fraud that is market grading, we have the coin selling for $39000.
This is an extreme case. When the gap is only a few hundred dollars
between reality and hype, it is even worse. This is the area that the
super rich people are getting into thinking it is a good idea. These are
the people that are getting burned.
Think about it. If I can not convince you that market grading is bad, when
you know and acknowledge bad market grading like this 70-67 and other
common modern junk and bullion you have discussed, how am I going to
convince a novice that sees those big $$$ signs? How many market grade
registry set hype believers will take your word that the coin should be at
best a 67??
Market grading is bad for the hobby. One of these deep pocket, super high
end, registry set idiots is bound to sue PCGS or NGC eventually when their
coin value tanks because a higher "market grade" coin was slabbed. Watch
the market grade slab market collapse then.
Alan & Erin Williams
Why do I think that an Open Bar in the room *had* to be involved?
Alan
'Mycroft who?'
Anthony Carlisle
<ir...@aol.comnospam> wrote:
> You are referring to the PCGS Proof-70 1967 cameo proof Lincoln cent that just
> sold for $39000 (including the vig) at auction, I assume. It was not the
> auction company that set the price, Fredd. It was nutty bidders who fought
> with
> each other for the highest graded of that date.
>
> Personally, I think they were nuts. The coin had a green verdigris speck on
> it.
> I'd have called it a MS-67 with that speck, which probably developed in the
> holder due to improper storage, and pegged its value at $25, and ONLY because
> a
> a cameo is unusual for that date in proof!
I'm confused. (Not an unusual state, I assure you.) If it was a PCGS
Proof-70, why would the downgrade be MS-67? Why not PR-67?
--
Antho
Anthony Carlisle * ANA #R192251 * APS #194515 * The opinions posted here are
mine alone, and do not necessarily reflect those of any sane person.
Winde Walker
Ira Stein
<< I'm confused. (Not an unusual state, I assure you.) If it was a PCGS
Proof-70, why would the downgrade be MS-67? Why not PR-67? >><BR><BR>
My mistake, Anthony. Meant to say Pf-67. So you don't need to be so confused.
Ira Stein
Bruce Hickmott
written:
Ah, but the important thing is that magic 70 on the label. That's what those
folks really collect, slab labels.
Bruce (I'l sell 'em just the labels from any slab I buy)