If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
do grading companies consider date and mint when grading?
I have heard that there is a raging debate in numismatic circles on
whether the grade of a coin should be relative to the ideal for the type of coin being graded (e.g. Morgan $1's) or the relative to the best example possible for the date and mint of the coin (e.g. 1891 -P Morgans, which never have decent lustre). For example, some say no 1891 -P could be an MS-70, because no full lustre 1891 -P's were minted. Others say an 1891 -P should be given an MS-70 if it is perfect other than its crappy lustre. What is the policy of the major grading companies on this issue? Do PCGS and NGC consider date and mint when grading, or just type? Tetradrachm |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Michael Benveniste" wrote in message ... "Tetradrachm" wrote in message ... What is the policy of the major grading companies on this issue? Do PCGS and NGC consider date and mint when grading, or just type? PCGS does so explicitly. In it's glossary, PCGS gives the following definition: Market Grading: A numerical grade that matches the grade at which a particular coin generally is traded in the marketplace. The grading standard used by PCGS. That sounds confusing to me. Does this mean that they'll take my 1878-CC Morgan and try to match the grade to a similar1878-CC that they've previously graded and give my coin the same grade? If it best matches a MS63, is that how they will grade it? This sounds like basic technical grading. Their statement still doesn't clearly describe the standard they used to grade the earlier coin. Where/how does market price enter into the process? I feel so stupid asking this. Bruce |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Tetradrachm" wrote in message ... What is the policy of the major grading companies on this issue? Do PCGS and NGC consider date and mint when grading, or just type? PCGS does so explicitly. In it's glossary, PCGS gives the following definition: Market Grading: A numerical grade that matches the grade at which a particular coin generally is traded in the marketplace. The grading standard used by PCGS. I've never been able to dig out a similar statement from NGC or ANACS. My own experience will all three services is that the more popular the series, the greater variation of grading standards within the series. -- Michael Benveniste -- Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $250. Use this email address only to submit mail for evaluation. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Michael Benveniste wrote:
"Tetradrachm" wrote in message ... What is the policy of the major grading companies on this issue? Do PCGS and NGC consider date and mint when grading, or just type? PCGS does so explicitly. In it's glossary, PCGS gives the following definition: Market Grading: A numerical grade that matches the grade at which a particular coin generally is traded in the marketplace. The grading standard used by PCGS. I've never been able to dig out a similar statement from NGC or ANACS. My own experience will all three services is that the more popular the series, the greater variation of grading standards within the series. Amen. People can grapple tooth and nail over slabbed grades for Morgans and Lincolns, Buffs and Saints, but 'off series' are less subject to grading variation because their is less market pressure (price variation) attached to single point differences. Alan 'who cares if your BTW is MS-66?' |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Tetradrachm" wrote:
I have heard that there is a raging debate in numismatic circles on whether the grade of a coin should be relative to the ideal for the type of coin being graded (e.g. Morgan $1's) or the relative to the best example possible for the date and mint of the coin (e.g. 1891 -P Morgans, which never have decent lustre). For example, some say no 1891 -P could be an MS-70, because no full lustre 1891 -P's were minted. Others say an 1891 -P should be given an MS-70 if it is perfect other than its crappy lustre. What is the policy of the major grading companies on this issue? Do PCGS and NGC consider date and mint when grading, or just type? From the ANA Grading Standards book, page 15: "A coin which is MS-65 from a technical or numerical viewpoint but which is lightly struck can be described as MS-64, MS-63, or some lower grade, without mentioning the weakness; this is the practice of most third-party grading services at present." The book goes on to discuss more nuances between technical and market grading. The above quotation notwithstanding, PCGS and NGC do seem to grade on middle ground (between technical and market grading) for particular issues. For example, they allow more bag marks on GSA CC Morgans, and weaker strikes (and worn die states) on S- and D-mint Lincolns from the 1920's than they would on other issues from those series. --Chris |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
On the NGC FAQ page, all of the links work EXCEPT the one to the question
"Is NGC grading 100% consistent?" at least from my IE browser. A manual scrolldown through the list of questions and answers shows the consistency question to be conspicuously absent. Harrumph! "Michael Benveniste" wrote in message ... "Tetradrachm" wrote in message ... What is the policy of the major grading companies on this issue? Do PCGS and NGC consider date and mint when grading, or just type? PCGS does so explicitly. In it's glossary, PCGS gives the following definition: Market Grading: A numerical grade that matches the grade at which a particular coin generally is traded in the marketplace. The grading standard used by PCGS. I've never been able to dig out a similar statement from NGC or ANACS. My own experience will all three services is that the more popular the series, the greater variation of grading standards within the series. -- Michael Benveniste -- Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $250. Use this email address only to submit mail for evaluation. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"James McCown" wrote in message om... "Bruce Remick" wrote in message news:QHr_b.421$Ri6.193@lakeread04... That sounds confusing to me. Does this mean that they'll take my 1878-CC Morgan and try to match the grade to a similar1878-CC that they've previously graded and give my coin the same grade? If it best matches a MS63, is that how they will grade it? This sounds like basic technical grading. Their statement still doesn't clearly describe the standard they used to grade the earlier coin. Where/how does market price enter into the process? I feel so stupid asking this. Bruce What it means is that if your 78-CC were an 89-CC, it would get an MS-64. In PCGS' mindset: rarity = higher grade. So then would it be correct to reword: "Market Grading: A numerical grade that matches the grade at which a particular coin generally is traded in the marketplace. The grading standard used by PCGS." to read: "Market Grading: A numerical grade that quantifies the desirability of and demand for a particular coin in the marketplace. The grading standard used by PCGS."?? Bruce |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Bruce Remick" wrote in message news:QHr_b.421$Ri6.193@lakeread04...
That sounds confusing to me. Does this mean that they'll take my 1878-CC Morgan and try to match the grade to a similar1878-CC that they've previously graded and give my coin the same grade? If it best matches a MS63, is that how they will grade it? This sounds like basic technical grading. Their statement still doesn't clearly describe the standard they used to grade the earlier coin. Where/how does market price enter into the process? I feel so stupid asking this. Bruce What it means is that if your 78-CC were an 89-CC, it would get an MS-64. In PCGS' mindset: rarity = higher grade. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
You've hit the nail on the head. Remember the 1933 Saint "What grade is it?"
When the Saint was going up for auction, we ended up with a pool to guess how much it would bring at auction. As a lurker on the PCGS board, most of those folks were concerned about how it would grade. Some of us got the catelog and offered our own opinions. We all agreed it was low MS (60-63 tops). Then David Hall and company got to it and announced it was an MS-65. Basically, so what? Even if it were G-4, I believe it would still have brought $7,590,020.00. There's still only one. I guess the bottom line I'm bringing here is that if a coin is a key or semi-key (like CC Morgans), it would grade higher than a common date of the same series. Jerry "James McCown" writes: "Bruce Remick" wrote in message news:QHr_b.421$Ri6.193@lakeread04... That sounds confusing to me. Does this mean that they'll take my 1878-CC Morgan and try to match the grade to a similar1878-CC that they've previously graded and give my coin the same grade? If it best matches a MS63, is that how they will grade it? This sounds like basic technical grading. Their statement still doesn't clearly describe the standard they used to grade the earlier coin. Where/how does market price enter into the process? I feel so stupid asking this. Bruce What it means is that if your 78-CC were an 89-CC, it would get an MS-64. In PCGS' mindset: rarity = higher grade. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Newbee | Mickey | Coins | 3 | January 27th 04 07:55 PM |
VERY Newbie question | pete | Coins | 6 | January 10th 04 11:22 PM |
Commemorative coin proposal (Denver Mint) | D Carr | Coins | 2 | December 5th 03 09:45 PM |
just when you think the U.S. Mint is getting its act together... | Chuck D'Ambra | Coins | 5 | October 29th 03 07:16 PM |
FA: 38-D/D Buffalo, 1837 HTT that's had hard times, roll 90% halfs, mint sets, 1859 IHC VF | Bill Krummel | Coins | 0 | October 24th 03 07:01 PM |