| Author |
 Replies: 46 / Views: 6,376 |
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1505 Posts |
Interesting, I just bought one and called it a 62 due to the poor eye appeal.   |
|
Moderator
 Canada
10464 Posts |
Quote:
I'm wondering how many on this forum would have given this better than an MS-62/63, by the pictures alone I don't think it really matters what opinions are formed, from pictures alone. Having the coin in hand is really important in this case... "Discovery follows discovery, each both raising and answering questions, each ending a long search, and each providing the new instruments for a new search." -- J. Robert OppenheimerContent of this post is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses...0/deed.en_USMy eBay store
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1049 Posts |
In my opinion these coins are not worthy of a numerical grade, by doing such it puts revenue into the hands of the sellers that sell them to the ones who buy the grade and not the coin. If this is what numismatics is becoming, then the fork on the road has been aligned with what a true collector collects. Here we are all wanting to keep coin collecting strong suited, by doing such the ones whom decide the grade of our coins are in fact doing an in-justice to collecting. As shown above, this coin and others like it should be either sent back with no grade or simply a details grade with the reason why! End of my rant that honestly I think is justified. Cheers and I truly hope the ways of collecting are not seen as this being the premise to what's going to be held for the future coins submitted as the mint's cut back to be sure that their (and 3rd party graders) year end is profitable.
This is the edit,
I got to thinking that if anyone is ok with this kind of grading then perhaps you are also part of the problem by not standing up to it.
Edited by M_d_in_guy
01/16/2016 11:55 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1049 Posts |
SPP
The surfaces are actually quite clean, and remember, ICCS does "technical grading" - eye appeal is not a factor. What you are seeing is extremely poor burnishing on the planchet. I have a couple loon dollar blank planchets and they are of horrible quality - what you are seeing represents former gouges and marks that were on the planchet prior to the strike.
So regardless of it was there before the strike or happened after the strike, why would this coin receive an evaluation in a numerical means. It's not worthy of such, only worthy of details at most. For ICCS to do this is really not the best move numismatically for us as collectors or the ones that we want to invite into helping keep it a strong hobby for the future. ?
|
|
Moderator
Canada
10464 Posts |
Quote:
For ICCS to do this is really not the best move numismatically for us as collectors or the ones that we want to invite into helping keep it a strong hobby for the future. ? You must remember that ICCS is a business first.. sometime, decisions made by ICCS may appear altruistic with respect to some purists in this hobby - my own opinion is that they are somewhere in the middle of the road. Some things they do, I don't like (like net grading or ignoring eye appeal) while other things, I applaud their initiative (like no longer grading "no chrome" 5-cent coins, due to some recent attempts of electrochemically removing the chrome...) However, I digress. There are some years, with loon dollars, where these ghost pockmarketed planchets plague the entire mintage - you will have trouble finding one without it (2004 business strikes come to mind). Not grading these, even in mint state condition, would be like deciding to not grade Edward VII weak strike 5c coins... There has to be a balance somewhere, and that is where I truly like PCGS with mint state coins, because I do think there is a place for eye appeal in grades. "Discovery follows discovery, each both raising and answering questions, each ending a long search, and each providing the new instruments for a new search." -- J. Robert OppenheimerContent of this post is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses...0/deed.en_USMy eBay store
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Australia
7096 Posts |
I have sent a few Canadian coins I have bought in ICCS flips to PCGS as a "Cross Over" and they have come back without a drama or a lower grade.
This one however wouldn't cross IMHO.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1505 Posts |
Is this why NGC calls some loonies "Uncirculated" with no numerical grade attached?
|
|
Valued Member
 Canada
135 Posts |
Honestly I paid a premium for this coin from ebay. The pictures were not clear enough to make a "buy the coin, not the holder" decision. But seeing an ICCS MS-66 label at least reassured me somewhat that I wasn't going to get a disappointing "appeal" coin. I know in retrospect, its easy to say that you shouldn't buy a coin without seeing the pictures clearly...and that's a fair enough comment. Live and learn I guess. |
|
Moderator
Canada
10464 Posts |
Don't look at it that way... ALL the 2003 New Effigy coins that I have seen, look like this. You just have one with technically superior surfaces...
"Discovery follows discovery, each both raising and answering questions, each ending a long search, and each providing the new instruments for a new search." -- J. Robert OppenheimerContent of this post is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses...0/deed.en_USMy eBay store
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1049 Posts |
ty SPP for more clarity on this, I guess it was the fact of zero eye appeal that really made me uncomfortable with a grade on this. I guess as you mention in a simple way, sometimes there has to be exceptions made. In such a case it is then upon the need of a coin for a series that one has to at times accept what's available.
Well with a weakly struck coin the main objective is still at play in the visual of showing what was intended to be minted on the coin VS burnishing on a coin that is not intended to be part of the visual. So in a fair way I don't think these two could be associated in the same comparison.
I understand that the mint can mess up at times and give to circulation a poor product. That alone should not make the decision of weather a badly marked coin should receive a higher grade than due, based on poor quality raw materials being used or accepted as such or ordered and ok'd as such. IMO.
Edited by M_d_in_guy
01/18/2016 6:17 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Australia
7096 Posts |
I'm with m d in guy on this.
Any coin should be graded for what it is regardless that the Mint failed to produce a quality coin in any particular year.
If a coin is a MS63 then it should be graded as such and the bar should not be lowered and it be given a grade of MS66 just because a particular mintage was produced badly.
The whole idea behind this third party grading is that a collector can expect a coin in any given grade to live up to that grade.
If they start lowering the bar for certain mintages then that expectation cannot be guaranteed.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
618 Posts |
UGLY ugly ugly----the grade for ugly is MS60---nothing higher. How can a mint gouged planchet be given a MS70?
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1700 Posts |
Grade correlates with value of coin, and eye appeal correlates with value as well. Grade should reflect eye appeal, especially at MS 65 or above, in my opinion.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
955 Posts |
About 20years ago I picked up a coin value book because I had accumulated a bunch of silver coins from a pizza joint I worked at.(Did that to pay for golf,another story)."Gem BU 1969 large date Canadian dime sold at New York auction realized $250,000.00". BOOM! Hooked,instant coin collector.
Spp-Ottawa I think hit the nail on head here . ICCS is a business that has to consider all factors when doing what they do. Yes,the fields look awful on this Loonie,some very minor niks & dings.(HECK maybe even mint errors I think).
But,the strike is clean,crisp. The coin shows no WEAR(at least that I can see).MS 66 is a circulated coin grade is it not?
Eye appeal will always be important to all collectors,but definitely should not be the only aspect taken by Grading companies, nor am I implying that anyone in this thread is saying such.
1969 Large date Dime? Its value is less now. This Loonie could quite possibly play out to an enigma,that being because of sheer volume of the same grades and the possibility of MS 64/65 being a more pretty coin.Collectors will almost always be attracted to a "Prettier" coin.That is what I myself look for.MS circulated coins.Having said that,Thank you "upc" for example you posted.One will always learn new things.
If ever 'Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" works,It works in this case.
Edited by Canacoins
01/23/2016 11:37 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Australia
7096 Posts |
Quote:
MS 66 is a circulated coin grade is it not? You Think  |
| |
Replies: 46 / Views: 6,376 |
First Page
Posted 01/16/2016 12:48 am
