Is this fair grading? See the grade PCGS gave and guess who submitted it.
0

23 posts in this topic

116 posts

ridiculous variations in grading standards depending on the coin and who submitted it.

 

I have said it before; Marquis coins submitted by auction houses get upgraded and put in holders that regular coins submitted by regular people would never dream of getting. But was told: "Oh no the grading is completely anonymous and above Board". This coin is in the Stack's auction and as a chain cent would qualify as Marquis coin. If I submitted this coin it would come back with details grading, corroded. How can you explain this coin getting a pass on the corrosion and being slabbed in a regular PCGS Holder? The reverse is worse. Look at the coin and then at the holder, can you honestly tell me that coin belongs in that holder?

16903.JPG

 

See more journals by JTO

Edited by JTO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,744 posts

Kinda makes you wonder what else we subjected ourselves to by becoming a registered coin collector member. hm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 posts

 

Well, we know that all of the grading company's as well as Ebay all cater to the big boys, They get better labels and probably better results as well. Kinda sad that we can't get a retro labels or special labels but the big company's can. Preferential treatment no doubt.

 

It's kind of like the reward for submitting volume. one hand washes the other. I wonder if we will get better results if we have the big coin company's submit our coins?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13,122 posts

How do you know who submitted the coin for grading?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
487 posts

"clerical error"? In the old days, back when I started collecting in the mid-1960's, this would have been called poor, porous, or poor, corroded. Poor because of the corrosion, not because the details are better. Today we live in a world of pretenders, things are no longer what they appear to be because every pertinent term in society seems to have been perverted or corrupted. The coin should be withdrawn by PCGS and corrected before they lose any more credibility. Just my humble opinion...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
487 posts

Well, we know that all of the grading company's as well as Ebay all cater to the big boys, They get better labels and probably better results as well... I wonder if we will get better results if we have the big coin company's submit our coins?

 

years ago I submitted a lot of coins through a big time professional dealer and the quality of grades coming back through him was better than if I submitted it myself or through an 'unknown' dealer so you might have something here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13,674 posts
"clerical error"? In the old days, back when I started collecting in the mid-1960's, this would have been called poor, porous, or poor, corroded. Poor because of the corrosion, not because the details are better. Today we live in a world of pretenders, things are no longer what they appear to be because every pertinent term in society seems to have been perverted or corrupted. The coin should be withdrawn by PCGS and corrected before they lose any more credibility. Just my humble opinion...

How dare you write the truth....! Value is today measured by hype, tweets, moronic copycats, and "likes."

Edited by RWB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
487 posts
"clerical error"? In the old days, back when I started collecting in the mid-1960's, this would have been called poor, porous, or poor, corroded. Poor because of the corrosion, not because the details are better. Today we live in a world of pretenders, things are no longer what they appear to be because every pertinent term in society seems to have been perverted or corrupted. The coin should be withdrawn by PCGS and corrected before they lose any more credibility. Just my humble opinion...

How dare you write the truth....! Value is today measured by hype, tweets, moronic copycats, and "likes."

 

isn't that the truth! sigh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
80 posts

The coin is in an old blue holder so it was graded in the late 1990's. That Stacks has it now in no way enhances your thesis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13,122 posts
The coin is in an old blue holder so it was graded in the late 1990's. That Stacks has it now in no way enhances your thesis.

 

Agreed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,863 posts

The coin has an unusual look to it. The wear is on top of the "corrosion".

 

Is it possible that it was the planchet or die that was in bad shape?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13,122 posts
The coin has an unusual look to it. The wear is on top of the "corrosion".

 

Is it possible that it was the planchet or die that was in bad shape?

 

I believe the answer is no - not in that kind of "bad shape".

 

And to the original poster - who do you think submitted the coin?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,875 posts

The sharpness of the remaining obverse detail is clearly nicer than F15. This coin has been net graded due to heavy surface roughness and corrosion. Sometimes a nice early coin will be silently net graded down, rather than given a no-grade label. I don't condone the practice, but it happens frequently, especially with rarities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
487 posts
The coin is in an old blue holder so it was graded in the late 1990's. That Stacks has it now in no way enhances your thesis.

 

since you didn't quote me, I don't know what thesis you are referring to but maybe you meant to reply to someone else? If not, please explain...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
487 posts
The coin has an unusual look to it. The wear is on top of the "corrosion".

 

Is it possible that it was the planchet or die that was in bad shape?

 

yes, I collected copper for a long time and ran into a lot of high grade (as in full detail) coins that were obviously struck on bad planchets, even severely corroded ones. This one doesn't look like it though, but without holding it in my hands I wouldn't put any money on it. As for the dies- I have seen plenty of examples of coins struck from severly rusted dies and there would be raised bumps even on the highest points of the coin and it doesn't appear to have any.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,875 posts
The coin is in an old blue holder so it was graded in the late 1990's. That Stacks has it now in no way enhances your thesis.

 

From what I can see, this is the holder type used around the mid-2000s. I think the barcode was added in the early 2000s (so this cannot be a 1990s slab), and the two numbers above the serial number line were removed sometime in the late 2000s.

 

I don't think the holder type means anything here, whatsoever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
487 posts
The sharpness of the remaining obverse detail is clearly nicer than F15. This coin has been net graded due to heavy surface roughness and corrosion. Sometimes a nice early coin will be silently net graded down, rather than given a no-grade label. I don't condone the practice, but it happens frequently, especially with rarities.

 

yes, unfortunately, this is the reality of the day. Forty or fifty years ago coins like this were still thrown in the bargain box and largely ignored because nicer exaplme were always available back then and no one really knew how many of what were out there because there were no population reports to show proportion. I have seen too many net graded coins in straight grade holders and I personally think it is improper, and especially deceptive to new collectors with little experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,875 posts
The coin has an unusual look to it. The wear is on top of the "corrosion".

 

Is it possible that it was the planchet or die that was in bad shape?

 

It is very possible that the planchet was already actively corroding when' the coin was struck, though I see a lot of corrosion that has eaten away parts of the design, which indicates post-mint environmental damage.

 

I do think this was nearly an XF coin before the corrosion etched it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,875 posts
The sharpness of the remaining obverse detail is clearly nicer than F15. This coin has been net graded due to heavy surface roughness and corrosion. Sometimes a nice early coin will be silently net graded down, rather than given a no-grade label. I don't condone the practice, but it happens frequently, especially with rarities.

 

yes, unfortunately, this is the reality of the day. Forty or fifty years ago coins like this were still thrown in the bargain box and largely ignored because nicer exaplme were always available back then and no one really knew how many of what were out there because there were no population reports to show proportion. I have seen too many net graded coins in straight grade holders and I personally think it is improper, and especially deceptive to new collectors with little experience.

 

Agreed!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,875 posts
The sharpness of the remaining obverse detail is clearly nicer than F15. This coin has been net graded due to heavy surface roughness and corrosion. Sometimes a nice early coin will be silently net graded down, rather than given a no-grade label. I don't condone the practice, but it happens frequently, especially with rarities.

 

yes, unfortunately, this is the reality of the day. Forty or fifty years ago coins like this were still thrown in the bargain box and largely ignored because nicer exaplme were always available back then and no one really knew how many of what were out there because there were no population reports to show proportion. I have seen too many net graded coins in straight grade holders and I personally think it is improper, and especially deceptive to new collectors with little experience.

 

Colonials are a great series to inspect for pre-minting planchet corrosion and flaws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
0