| Author |
 Replies: 46 / Views: 13,645 |
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3486 Posts |
To my knowledge this bit of info has not appeared yet on the CCF. It concerns the slabbing of coins. Sorry if it is a repeat.
When the practice first began it was done to allow unknowledgeable people to purchase coins as an 'investment.' To be traded sight-unseen as easily as stocks.
Well, that idea died long ago and today we are faced with counterfeits and gradflation and 'prestige.' I admire the Brits and the Aussies for sticking to the old ways. A few of us Yanks do the same. After a year and a half my favorite local coin dealers are those who offer a majority of coins 'raw' and that suits me just fine.
Today, no one buys a slabbed coin without at least some pictures or holding it 'in-hand.'
When the slabs themselves become suspect we are in for a rough go of it. Bottom line: There is no substitute for learning to grade yourself.
Of the seven coins which I bought in slabs six have been removed and put into an album. The seventh, because it is a VERY expensive coin with a pedigree remains in plastic. It was a difficult decision for me.
Of the 20 coins I had slabbed at least 6 have been sold. All rare dates and subject to counterfeiting.
After reading through this topic I realized that I do not even stop to look at slabbed coins anymore. And that suits me.
As for the Sheldon Scale, it was SUPPOSED to be 70 points. However, in practice, the lower grades became 4, 8, 12, 16, 20
and the highest grades given a spread of only one point. To my eyes I do not see that one point difference and who among us is better suited to make a determination?
Lastly, the humor section. My grading scale:
1) Oh you poor baby! You had a rough go of it.
2) Well, a solid 'good' is a solid 'good' and you look good for your age.
3) Hey, hey! Some nice details showing.
4) Wow, you'll fit into my collection nicely.
5) Uh, $4775 for a coin? I bought it and I do NOT regret it. Dealers want to buy it from me.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
2781 Posts |
maybe there is a market for a third party certifier of third party gslabbed coins  I'm kidding of course, but with today's technology there has to be a way to produce a secure slab and stay ahead of the counterfeiters. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United Kingdom
2135 Posts |
I fear that the counterfeiters could put a fake coin into a fake slab and hack into the TPG's website (the one they are faking) and add their fake cert number, possibly even ramp up the value and perhaps add fake auction results. |
|
Pillar of the Community
Australia
541 Posts |
Quote:
maybe there is a market for a third party certifier of third party gslabbed coins
I'm kidding of course, but with today's technology there has to be a way to produce a secure slab and stay ahead of the counterfeiters. Australia's already got a slab slabbing service: http://www.thesandpit.net/templates...isting4.html |
|
Bedrock of the Community
Australia
21788 Posts |
@ matthewvincent: I think your opinion is well balanced.  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3486 Posts |
Thank you sel 69! You made my day.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Australia
762 Posts |
Quote:
As for the Sheldon Scale, it was SUPPOSED to be 70 points. However, in practice, the lower grades became 4, 8, 12, 16, 20
and the highest grades given a spread of only one point. To my eyes I do not see that one point difference and who among us is better suited to make a determination? The highest grades are now given a spread of even less than one point. I've started noticing "+" grades such as this MS66+ http://www.ebay.com/itm/Australia-1...em1c2e690da9Given that the same coin resubmitted to PCGS can often have a variance of one point, I fail to see the value to the collector of these "+" designations. Presumably this is a commercial tactic to get people to resubmit already slabbed coins hoping that they will get the new "+" designation. |
|
Pillar of the Community
Australia
1006 Posts |
Mobofroos I guess they would do that to differentiate between coins better than the grade but not enough for the next grade up so it is only reasonable that they be sold for a premium over the lower grade but less than the next higher. For example in Australia how we have gEF and aUNC and all that to show they are premium examples for the grade and you wouldn't sell a gEF coin for an EF price.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Australia
541 Posts |
Mob of Roos, based on your comment I can tell you don't have a science/engineering/mathematics background. What happens is actually the opposite of what you say - the higher the level of precision in the grading standard, the more consistent in can be. Inconsistencies occur when a coin is on the borderline, the more grades you have, the narrower the borderlines and the less coins fall within them.
|
|
Valued Member
Australia
222 Posts |
For a long time, there has been argument that it isn't right when you can get two coins in, say, MS64 and one be butt ugly in terms of eye appeal and another be drop-dead gorgeous.
To solve this issue, PCGS introduced the "+" grades. A "+" grade is used where a coin might have the technical features of, say, an MS64 but have superior eye appeal to a typical MS64 coin. Unlike NGC, who I believe quantifies eye appeal in the numerical grade for world coins, PCGS does not quantify eye appeal because eye appeal, unlike scratches, strike, or wear, is difficult to measure on a scale. (How do you measure beautiful toning, for example?)
Instead, they stuck with a binary system where a "+" means nice eye appeal and no "+" means average or below average eye appeal. (I have observed that at the extremes, disgustingly bad or fabulously good eye appeal do reduce and raise the grade by a point" but only at the extremes.)
I didn't like the "+" system at first, but after thinking about it, it's a very clever way to maintain objectivity in grading but still qualifying eye appeal.
Edited by Eric
09/22/2013 04:16 am
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 Australia
7096 Posts |
Well stated and well said eric |
|
Pillar of the Community
Australia
762 Posts |
Quote:
Mob of Roos, based on your comment I can tell you don't have a science/engineering/mathematics background. Strangely enough I do have a science/mathematics background. My reasoning is that I have already heard anecdotal evidence that the same coin can be resubmitted and sometimes get a different grading. This would seem to suggest that an 11 point spread for MS coins is already too much. By adding a "+" designation and making it a 20 point spread you arn't going to get any more accurate. It's rather like watching TV on a High Definition TV. It doesn't matter how many extra pixels the TV has got if the broadcast is only in Standard Definition. That would make more sense if, as Eric suggests, the "+" designation is purely eye appeal. But I still think it is marketing tactic purely to get people to resubmit their coins in the hope of getting the "+" designation. Do we really need a certification to tell us that a coin has got eye appeal? honestly  |
|
Pillar of the Community
Australia
541 Posts |
I don't believe + grades are about eye appeal, from what PCGS writes, they just indicate a coin is better than most examples of the grade but not quite the next grade up. The inconsistencies you get with third party grading occur on borderline coins (i.e. coins which are right at the top or bottom of a specific grading).
For any pre-plus grade borderline coin, with the introduction of + gradings, the coin can either become a borderline between the lower grade and the plus grade, it can be exactly the plus grade, or it can be a borderline coin between the plus grade and the higher grading. Therefore with the introduction of plus gradings, there must be less borderline coins and therefore less occurrences of the inconsistencies you describe.
I see your argument however, assumes that the grading itself cannot be accurate and therefore precision in the standard won't help. This is just untrue - just because you can't grade to such precision, don't assume others can't either. At auctions, I grade coins to the 21 point scale and > 90% of the coins come back exactly at the grade I list. If I can manage > 90% accuracy rushing through coins in an auction viewing room with just a strong light, I think it's reasonable to believe that PCGS can manage > 99% accuracy when they have three graders viewing the coins under ideal conditions.
|
|
Valued Member
Australia
222 Posts |
PCGS is pretty emphatic that "+" grades refer to coins that have superior eye appeal for the grade. It says so in their grading standards: http://www.pcgs.com/grades.htmlThe definition for each grade and its corresponding "+" grade is identical, except for the addition of a comment about positive eye appeal. Edited by Eric
09/24/2013 7:18 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Australia
541 Posts |
|
| |
Replies: 46 / Views: 13,645 |
First Page
Previous Page
Posted 09/18/2013 2:32 pm
