| Author |
 Replies: 13 / Views: 1,072 |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
8938 Posts |
|
|
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
94367 Posts |
You'd think the '52 would have been a shoo-in.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7273 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1613 Posts |
Wow. While an expert by no means, only having looked at many cameos over the years, the 1952 and '53 look worthy. The 1954, the fields and devices don't seem as distinctive. Or maybe it's just the lighting of your photo. Either way, a great eye as usual. In conclusion, perhaps PCGS tightened their grading criteria on what constitutes a cameo to stay competitive.
ANA member - PAN Member - BCCS Member There are no problems only solutions - the late, great John Lennon
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
8938 Posts |
Here the TV on the 54. You can see the frosting much better.  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
8938 Posts |
Quote:
Because it's a Ben 50 cent and they are all ugly. PCGS realizes how ugly Ben is and doesn't want any more out in the population.  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1747 Posts |
Get Rick T to submit them and they will come back CAM.
|
|
Moderator
 United States
187446 Posts |
The grader(s) was (were) having an off day it seems.  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
8938 Posts |
Quote:
Get Rick T to submit them and they will come back CAM. Ugh, tell me about it. Quote:
The grader(s) was (were) having an off day it seems. NO kidding. I can tell you the PR68CAM half and PR67CAM nickel will be going reconsideration as they certainly, at least in my opinion, deserve DCAM, and honestly the Half could go into a 69 holder, which, if it upgraded to a 69DCAM, which would be the new top pop if so. I might throw these on as well as the jump from brilliant to Cameo would be worth it. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1667 Posts |
Edited by Big-Kingdom
07/15/2021 11:55 am
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10029 Posts |
The fact of the matter is that as hobbyists, we cannot expect a standard of consistency when there is no verifiable scientific method used to grade coins.
There is some degree b/c of familiarity and how many hundreds of coins each grader handles. But each grader is an individual and we all have our own ideas.
And the hobby expects more from these companies than they give.
For example...everyone "knows" the companies use at least three graders per coin...right?
Wrong...
Re-read the guarantees from their own websites (PCGS and NGC - I have not looked at ANACS). It sounds great to say "a minimum 3-4 graders are assigned each coin" (PCGSs' own words).
But the choice of words is a clever product (likely form their marketing department). We, as hobbyists, if we bother to read the guarantee, just assume if 3-4 are assigned, that a minimum 3-4 look at every coin.
If anyone cares to keep reading on down the page (you are already at the 7th paragraph) the reader will see only TWO graders grade each coin with the 3rd and 4th "assigned" graders only seeing the coin IF graders 1 and 2 disagree.
BTW - kudos to the company for bringing in number 4 to break the tie. I wonder if the 3 &4 might be numbers 1 & 2 again? The wording might allow for it.
Knowing its likely that most coins only get TWO graders, its a lot easier to see the inconsistencies and myriad of mistakes that become visible to those wanting to find them vs. just accepting the slab for what it is.
Again, I want to make it clear, this is only factual info being shared in an attempt to help fellow collectors understand mass mindset is NOT the best way to go. This is not a slam against using the companies.
If you enjoy slabs, then good for you as it is YOUR way of enjoying the hobby!
The realization of the actual role these companies play, that they can, and do, make a great many mistakes, and collectors who are unaware are taken for thousands of dollars needs to be tempered with a willingness/desire (human nature - nothing unusual) to have blind faith. See the pdf file showing this as fact from PCGS own records in my signature.
Buy the coin and not the slab.
How much squash could a Sasquatch squash if a Sasquatch would squash squash? Download and read: Grading the graders Costly TPG ineptitude and No FG Kennedy halveshttps://ln5.sync.com/dl/7ca91bdd0/w...i3b-rbj9fir2Edited by Earle42
07/15/2021 12:09 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
8938 Posts |
Quote:
For example...everyone "knows" the companies use at least three graders per coin...right? Fact. Assuming the first 2 graders agree, then yes, initially there are only 2, but in the QC stage a third grader looks at the coin post encapsulation to verify the grade. Quote:
See the pdf file showing this as fact from PCGS own records in my signature. Not to beat a dead horse, but we've been over this before. You made the inaccurate claim that graders are at fault for misattributions. This was factually incorrect by your own later admission. I understand the idea behind the paper, but, as brash as it may sound, if you don't bother to research far enough to know that grading and attribution are 2 separate departments, to me that largely discredits the rest of the paper, even if it does raise some valid points. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2869 Posts |
All of these coins deserve CAM and the 52 and 53 are probably DCAM.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Russian Federation
1555 Posts |
PCGS and other companies sometimes make mistakes in such obvious things as the denomination of the coin, and you say that your coins did not pay Cameo. Perhaps if you had sent them again, you would have received DCAM, and perhaps the result would have been worse. This is a lottery.
|
| |
Replies: 13 / Views: 1,072 |
|
Posted 07/15/2021 09:53 am
