| Author |
 Replies: 27 / Views: 4,435 |
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
683 Posts |
Quote:
This is exactly what scares me about coins with such high grades. So much more money for something seemingly so subjective. Pretty much the same reason I stick to Canadian/personal grading standards, and not "market" grading standards. Best advice I can give is look the coin over for Yourself and see if the grade makes sense. The coin that this thread is about, looks about Ms-65 but probably got an extra 2.5 points because of the "eye appealing" toning (personally I find this toning a little on the "ugly" side.) Which is why I personally dislike market grading, because it assumes that everyone finds the same things eye appealing (which IMO shouldn't even affect the grade). For example, imaging paying "Top pop" money for a coin that is technically an Ms-66 but got an Ms-68 grade because of subjective "eye appeal". Though I can't say market grading is dumb as it appears to be what most collectors (at least US collectors) want, but I think its gone quite a bit over the top in a lot of cases, and I think people looking for technical high grade coin should be aware of this. |
|
Bedrock of the Community
13014 Posts |
Quote:
Obviously an MS-67 isn't a perfect coin, but the dings I'm talking about are the ones that are visible without even zooming in the photo.
These marks, in My opinion and experience would knock any coin out of both the Ms-67 grade and Ms-66 grade. The picture itself is already significantly zoomed. It's a grade that is splitting hairs from one to another. Two professional companies agreed with it, that carries more weight than a digital photo. Those dings are also almost certainly exaggerated by digital photos which do that on marks. |
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
683 Posts |
Quote:
The picture itself is already significantly zoomed. It's a grade that is splitting hairs from one to another. Two professional companies agreed with it, that carries more weight than a digital photo.
Those dings are also almost certainly exaggerated by digital photos which do that on marks. I should have mention that I am using a mobile phone, so assuming this coin is roughly the size a regular half dollar the photos for Me are on scale with the coin itself and I'm only using about 5x zoom when I zoom in. You maybe right that the nicks and dings are less eye catching in hand, however that doesn't mean they aren't there. From My experience Ms-67 is quite a specific grade (as are Ms-68/69) and this coin just does not meet the level of Ms-67 to Me, even Ms-66 seemed generous. |
|
Bedrock of the Community
13014 Posts |
Quote:
You maybe right that the nicks and dings are less eye catching in hand, however that doesn't mean they aren't there Their existence doesn't matter, how noticeable they are does. |
|
Rest in Peace
United States
17900 Posts |
NGC had it right.
Anyone buying this kind of coin with outstanding eye appeal had better know technical grade.
For CSC there are not that many collectors familiar with the 50 types or the 144 piece set to accurately grade, especially not from photos only.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
13014 Posts |
Quote:
NGC had it right. CAC disagrees. But I guess an internet picture is more accurate than PCGS and CAC combined |
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
683 Posts |
Quote:
.Their existence doesn't matter, how noticeable they are does. See and to Me that makes no sense, I can understand that the toning might make them harder to notice, but thats why graders use up to 7x zoom to grade. Now I have to give credit to whoever takes the photos at HA for not trying to hide them with deceptive lighting and such, but the way I see it, those nicks if anything, are only going to become more visible in hand, the fact that proper lighting is required to see them does not eliminate the fact that those nicks are there. Quote:
CAC disagrees. But I guess an internet picture is more accurate than PCGS and CAC combined A photo doesn't lie. And do remember, that coin was in an NGC MS-66 holder, why is it that all of the sudden NGC is wrong, and PCGS/CAC is right? Also don't forget that a lot of the people in this thread also have years of experience in grading, what makes them wrong? This coin clearly stuck out as overgraded enough for the OP to make this thread, and from the sound of things most others seem to agree with Him/Her, many of whom have just as much, if not more experience as these TPGs, so why do their opinions seem to count less? |
|
Bedrock of the Community
13014 Posts |
Quote:
those nicks if anything, are only going to become more visible in hand, I'd honestly basically bet money that this is wrong. This is not how digital photos work. Quote:
And do remember, that coin was in an NGC MS-66 holder, why is it that all of the sudden NGC is wrong, and PCGS/CAC is right? Because it toned in the 66 holder and there is a reason why PCGS/CAC gets the highest prices at the high end. Two expert companies said yes this is right Quote:
Also don't forget that a lot of the people in this thread also have years of experience in grading, what makes them wrong? No offense to anyone but it will be offensive but if you're putting the posters opinions in the same weight as PCGS and CAC that's a big issue right there Quote:
and from the sound of things most others seem to agree with Him/Her, many of whom have just as much, if not more experience as these TPGs, Uh what? Not even remotely close at all Edited by basebal21
03/22/2018 10:38 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
683 Posts |
Quote:
I'd honestly basically bet money that this is wrong. This is not how digital photos work. Well I'm not a gambler but from experience, in hand the positives become more enhanced for the better, and the negatives become more enhanced for the worse. I just can't see those scratches becoming less noticeable in hand. Quote:
.Because it toned in the 66 holder and there is a reason why PCGS/CAC gets the highest prices at the high end. Two expert companies said yes this is right The toning shouldn't make to Ms-65+ coin an Ms-67+. Quote:
. No offense to anyone but it will be offensive but if you're putting the posters opinions in the same weight as PCGS and CAC that's a big issue right there Didn't say I did, just wanted to know why You value theirs less. I have already stated My reason for why I feel this coin is overgraded, and so have others. If You agree with PCGS/CAC's opinion that is absolutely fine, but just because they have an amazing reputation doesn't stop Me and others from feeling this coin is overgraded. It isn't that I hold these peoples opinions higher, its that I have My opinion on this coin being overgraded, and most of the people seem to share said opinion. |
|
Bedrock of the Community
13014 Posts |
Quote:
Didn't say I did, just wanted to know why You value theirs less Same reason why I don't think my local high school football team would beat the professional one. Should be obvious, Quote:
The toning shouldn't make to Ms-65+ coin an Ms-67+. Your grading may need some touch-ups then. And more importantly when did you see this in hand? If you haven't there's my point right there. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
8715 Posts |
Looking at any coin in hand is always better than looking at pics.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
683 Posts |
Quote:
.Same reason why I don't think my local high school football team would beat the professional one. Should be obvious, Odd comparison, as most collectors in this thread aren't amateurs with only a basic understanding of grading. I see why you would be more confidant in the TPGs opinion, I just however don't see this as a 67+, Ms-66 seemed to be a more accurate grade (still think it was a bit generous but not exactly "overgraded"). Quote:
.Your grading may need some touch-ups then.
And more importantly when did you see this in hand? If you haven't there's my point right there. Personally I feel confident enough in My opinion of this coin, You are probably right about needing some touch ups, but I feel confidant with this instance. And obviously I haven't seen this one in hand but to Me the scratch on the nose alone is distracting enough to keep it under ms-67 and the cheek and other misc nicks keep it down in the Ms-65ish, and if I ad the eye appeal I could still personally only see this coin realistically at Ms-66. Again, this is just My opinion, not a fact. If you feel this coin is accurately graded that's fine, awesome even. Its just that Me and some others disagree with the TPG's opinion. We could be entirely wrong, I've graded it what I feel confidant with, as I assume others have. Nothing more, nothing less. |
| |
Replies: 27 / Views: 4,435 |
First Page
Posted 03/21/2018 6:18 pm
