1894 IHC Grade Vs TPG

Can you please cite a source for that info?
Can you show where PCGS/NGC openly admits that a coin with a rub can be graded MS and is not AU at best?

A screen shot from PCGS' website stating that an MS-60 coin will show no wear.

Beauty is in the eyes of the holder....er....

Where's Earle42's CAC sticker parody when we need it?

HERE IT IS!




Thanks Earle!

That hasn't been the case with grading for many years.

It's pristine coins otherwise with traces in certain spots, not coins with lots of wear like you guys seem to be interpreting it.




Nope I'm not, but their mistakes are extremely rare and they buy them back quick. I'm saying PCGS CAC grading overrules forum grading and its silly too take a look at a picture and say yep they got it wrong.

There is a huge difference between not liking a grade or a coin and them being actually wrong.




There's no mistake there either. NGC saw the cheek marks and CAC did as well and they both thought it was acceptable for a VF 30. Had it been showing fresh metal or been an AU or higher yes it would have likely details graded, but being an old mark in a mid grade they found it to be okay.




The way coins have been graded for the last 20 years or so. It doesn't mean you can have a ton of rub but traces of it or a minimal amount on a spot or two haven't precluded MS grades for quite some time.




I'm not making up anything. Don't believe me, go ask Insider. Or ask TDN on CU.

The scale has evolved, it isn't a hard line in the sand anymore and hasn't been for some time for coins that are otherwise pristine and just have trace rub on a couple spots.




Because the pristine coin with trace rub on a couple spots is superior to the MS 61 Morgan that looks like it got in a fight with a weed wacker.

It was always a fatal flaw in the scale to have two separate systems stacked on top of each other with a hard line in the sand where inferior coins would be graded higher. I like that the line has been dissolving, others won't.

I'm just saying how it is and how grading has evolved over the years. Just like 40 years ago they graded differently then people 100 years ago and 50 years from now their grading will be different than ours today.

Doesn't a CAC sticker mean superior eye appeal or solid for the grade? Just because THEY thought it was doesn't mean it actually is, that coin should have gotten a details grade, just because NGC and CAC thought it shouldn't have, doesn't mean they're right.




Could have fooled me as almost every numismatist I've met would say otherwise, including PCGS' own grading standard.




This with, however when tpgs are grading differently/against there own standards say, then it starts to be more them being wrong.

I am full on willing to agree that this coin maybe better than the photos show, however if what appears to be wear IS actually wear, then this coin is overgraded by about 5 grade points.

SilverDollar pretty much said it better than I did, I respect TPGs, but when they start calling circulated coins uncirculated, and then act like we're wrong for arguing that, thats where I start losing respect (in a reputation aspect, obviously I still have basic human respect for them as people).

I was thinking ms64bn, but it is tough to tell whether the dark cheek is due to toning or rub. I thought toning, but it could go either way without examining in hand.