Gold star on slab = overgraded?

[KoRnholio]

I liked toned coins but doesn't this seem way overgraded? NGC MS64 slab, with some gold star sticker (?) affixed to the front.

 

http://rover.ebay.com/rover/1/711-53200-19255-0/1?type=4&campid=5335826004&toolid=10001&customid=&mpre=http%3A%2F%2Fcgi.ebay.com%2Fws%2FeBayISAPI.dll%3FViewItem%26item%3D330496459144

 

[Art]

Don't know about overgraded but the star looks like some strange seller gimmick.

[Saor Alba]

NGC

[bill]

Don't know about overgraded but the star looks like some strange seller gimmick.

 

I agree, someone stuck a gold star on a slab. Means about as much as the number on the slab.

[bobh]

I liked toned coins but doesn't this seem way overgraded? NGC MS64 slab, with some gold star sticker (?) affixed to the front.

As I understand the grading of MS-64, a certain number of marks are allowed, but not in prime focal areas. I think that the obverse field right in front of Liberty is as "prime focal area" as could be. And there is a lot of other chatter on the obverse. I could live with MS-62 on this one, although the reverse appears to be very nice.

 

But MS-64? Not for me...

[KoRnholio]

As I understand the grading of MS-64, a certain number of marks are allowed, but not in prime focal areas. I think that the obverse field right in front of Liberty is as "prime focal area" as could be. And there is a lot of other chatter on the obverse. I could live with MS-62 on this one, although the reverse appears to be very nice.

 

But MS-64? Not for me...

 

Not just in the field but Liberty's face and neck look like she was beaten up in a dark alley. Strike isn't bad, but certainly not good enough to overlook that many bagmarks. The darker brown color on the cheek almost looks like a rub too, does it not? I agree that the reverse is pretty nice (other than the long gouge, on the breast), but at best that one side is MS64.

 

Does NGC grade based on eye appeal and technical grade? I think I read once that PCGS is just technical grade, but NGC takes into account eye appeal. But I may be mistaken. This piece certainly has eye appeal (to me/those than like toning at least), but IMO not nearly enough to bump it 2 or more grades.

[SMS]

As I understand the grading of MS-64, a certain number of marks are allowed, but not in prime focal areas. I think that the obverse field right in front of Liberty is as "prime focal area" as could be. And there is a lot of other chatter on the obverse. I could live with MS-62 on this one, although the reverse appears to be very nice.

 

But MS-64? Not for me...

 

I agree, MS-64? Not for me...

 

However, I am surprised that Kornholio seems to accept the apparent gouge in the prime focal area of the reverse as possibly being MS-64 acceptable. On a technical basis, because of that gouge, the obverse would actually grade higher. We have to remember though that NGC and PCGS are market graders. Thus, taking into consideration the current market and other non-technical considerations in grading, the "market would accept grade MS-64" money for the coin.

 

On its technical merits, if using ANA standards (5th in my instance) then MS-64 is acceptable with a few light scattered marks in the prime focal area. This prime focal area extends from Liberty's cheek, following to just below the nose and across eastward following the cheekbone, then curving back down the cheek. The fields in front of Liberty, across her nose, forehead, and following down between the hairline and outer-cheek to the ear, are secondary areas.

 

If you look at the photo and see how it is darker in the cheek until you get to the area just in front of the ear where it is lighter in the photo: that darker area is almost perfectly outlining your prime focal area. The detracting mark just under her eye is on the borderline of the prime and secondary area. I would call it in the prime since it is blatant when taking the first look at her. This would make the obverse MS-63 at its best technically.

 

However, the amount of scattered marks in the cheek are too many for me to accept this grade. I believe the number of marks are so numerous as to afford an MS-61, but no more than MS-62. The apparent gouge in the prime focal on the reverse merits an MS-62. Thus, MS-62 would be a more reasonable grade, IMHO. However, I would say mostly because of the attractiveness of the toning, the market would no doubt accept MS-63, if not MS-64 money, for the piece. However, I do not grade in those terms.

 

It is this adjustment upwards of grade to match market acceptability for price that makes me dislike most of the TPGs out there. Price adjustments should be based on Grade+comments, not by adjusting the grade itself. Also, neither of the top two have actually published the guidelines and procedures that are internally used to determine their actual grades, technical or otherwise.

 

As for the star, remember the bean? CaC? Well, the market has been trained these past few years to accept the CaC bean as signifying market acceptance of the grade assigned inside the plastic. The gold star may simply be someone's gimmick to try to encourage(deceive?) potential buyers into believing that the coin in the plastic is properly graded at the assigned grade, if not higher!

 

I hope this post has been helpful. I have not really had time to chime in much around here anymore these past few years as life in general is way too busy and I have been focusing on some other (numismatically related) stuff. Some really good resources to get to help curb and enhance your own grading skills would be books like the Official ANA Grading Standards, Ruddy's Photograde, Halprin's NCI Grading Guide, Brown & Dunn's Guide to Grading, and the Accugrade guides.

 

Grading is subjective. That means that grading is subject to your own opinion, understanding, and philosophy. One man's MS-63 is another's MS-64 is another's MS-62. And, yet, they are all correct in their own grade. What is important in dealing in coins (buying or selling) is understanding what you have, what you value it as, and the condition you believe the coins is in. The discussion and haggle that entails when a buyer and seller come together with differing philosophies is what the open market is all about. If an understanding and agreement may be reached between the two, then the sale occurs. If not, the the buyer and seller go elsewhere until a sale can be made.

 

In my opinion, the "service" the TPGs offer by "grading" coins takes away this open market and tries to encourage(deceive?) the market into trading the said coin with a preconceived acceptance of its grade and worth, in instances even if it does not match the current market acceptability.

 

It is threads like this that truly help the collector to interact with the market(other collectors) to truly discuss a coin's grade and worth. And I believe the general consensus is that the coin posted is most definitely not what the CP market would accept as MS-64.

[KoRnholio]

Thanks for the post SMS, I've seen some ridiculously graded coins, mostly on Ebay and in "third world" third party holders, but usually NGC is pretty solid.

 

However, I am surprised that Kornholio seems to accept the apparent gouge in the prime focal area of the reverse as possibly being MS-64 acceptable.

 

I must admit that I'm really not that familiar with most US coin grading. From what I've seen it's a lot looser than British, or even Canadian, standards. Unfortunately, much of my US grading experience comes from browsing PCGS/NGC graded coins on Ebay. And as is typical of Ebay, it's where a lot of the over-graded junk ends up. I've seen a lot of coins that are quite nice other than a large mark/defect, graded as 64's or even 65's.

[bobh]

I agree, MS-64? Not for me...

 

[tons of excellent stuff snipped...]

 

 

Thank you, SMS ... very well said (and well worth saying time and again ...)