Here is the grade for the 1893--S Morgan dollar

[JTO]

Has NGC begun net grading coins?

 

First, I apologize for the delay in posting the results, I am a working guy and got busy with my "day job".

 

Thank you all for your thoughtful and insightful comments. Many of you identified correctly that there are rim bumps at the 11 o'clock position and 2 o'clock position. To give you a perspective on the significance of these they do not extend to the reverse of the coin (e.g. they do not involve the full thickness of the coin.)

 

My dilemma is this: Based on all of the grating standards that I've been able to find this coin should grade VG and could possibly even grade Fine. My understanding is that the grade is based primarily on the amount the coin's wear. In different series the sharpness of strike also plays a role usually to add a positive attribute if the coin is well struck (i.e. full head designation for Liberty Standing Quarters, full split bands for dimes, full bell lines for Franklin half dollars...)

 

The conundrum for me is that both PCG S and NGC state that they do not "net grade" coins. If the coin is a problem coin then it is listed as "unable to grade" and then assigned a "Details Grade" using the adjective (i.e. VG details) without a numerical score. This allows "problem coins" to be used in the NGC registry. There "problem coins" are given a value of one half of the lowest number for the category (for example a corroded coin that has uncirculated details gets one half of the score a "no problem" MS--60 coin would get. For people new to the hobby the ANACS historically would take into account problems and assign a "net grade" based on the underlying grade of the coin and the severity of the problem.

 

Although the difference between G and VG is minor, as I looked at the coin I saw a Very Good or maybe even Fine-12 coin that was under graded. Now I am curious as to whether in fact NGC assigned a "net grade" based on a Very Good to Fine coin with rim damage. If so based on their grating policy they should have called the coin out as a problem coin and assigned to details grade.

 

I welcome your input as to whether I should return the coin to NGC to be re-graded. In my opinion it is clearly better than a "Good--6" unless they're calling it a problem coin in which case that should have been stated on the holder.

 

Again I thank you for your thoughtful comments and I await your insights.

 

John

 

See more journals by JTO

[Six Mile Rick]

Quite possible it is not a details problem in the grade selected. Maybe it is the NGC warrantee that held the grade back due to the obverse rim appearance.

[JTO]

But rim damage is not an element in establishing a grade. That is my point if there is enough of a rim "bump" to be damage then it should be "VG details...Rim Damage".

 

John

[MarkFeld]

I'm not sure why you started a new thread to reveal the grade - this way the comments from the other thread are absent.

 

On a practical basis ,any grade could be considered a "net grade", as the coin's flaws are taken into account in awarding a numerical grade. For example, an otherwise near-perfect MS68 coin has a light wipe. Perhaps the coin receives an MS65 instead of an MS68, as a result.Thus the numerically graded coin has been net graded and not been assigned a "details" grade.

[RWB]

Geeez...you let your "Day Job" interfere with coins? Tsk, tsk.... Next we'll hear you love your wife more than your coin collection!

 

As for the coin, my original estimate was G-VG. The NGC grade seems reasonable. Nothing on the obverse indicates a Fine grade is warranted.

 

It seems that most available specimens are in similar condition. Many came out of mixed bags near the end of the silver dollar run in 1963.

[Six Mile Rick]

But rim damage is not an element in establishing a grade. That is my point if there is enough of a rim "bump" to be damage then it should be "VG details...Rim Damage".

 

John

 

Your coin may not garner a RIM DAMAGE but it sure does affect the grade towards EYE APEAL!!

[physics-fan3.14]

Has NGC begun net grading coins?

 

No, NGC has not just begun net grading coins. Both NGC and PCGS have been silently net grading down a couple points for problems since they were founded. It's a well known part of TPG grading.

 

That being said, I thought your coin was a VG-8. G-6 is really not very far off, and they have the benefit of seeing it in hand. Several of the people in your former guessing thread guessed it was a 6. I'd say G-6 is a fair grade.

[coinman_23885]

Based on auction records, there is approximately $500-$600 difference between G6 and VG8. I would submit it to PCGS (where there also appears to be additional potential money to be had in the plastic based on a superficial glance at auction data).

 

If the grade does not fit, you must resubmit.

[JTO]

To Mark: I started a new thread because it had been a week since the original post and I want those, if any, who were looking for the grade to see it. Second based on your definition obviously all coins are in fact net graded. My point was when does an atribute constitute damage versus "negative eye appeal". Grading is subjective by nature but several sources (Such as the ANA grating standards, PCGS Coin Grading and Counterfeit Detection, Photograde, PCGS Photo Grading App, Coin World, Making the Grade...) give objective standard that attempt to instill an element of objectivity to the process.

 

I felt that the coin was a VG, not a Fine, based on the above resources. Is the difference trivial, sure, but the HOBBY is filled with trivia and trivial issues. Those are what appeal to the odd brains of we coin collectors.

[MarkFeld]

To Mark: I started a new thread because it had been a week since the original post and I want those, if any, who were looking for the grade to see it. Second based on your definition obviously all coins are in fact net graded. My point was when does an atribute constitute damage versus "negative eye appeal". Grading is subjective by nature but several sources (Such as the ANA grating standards, PCGS Coin Grading and Counterfeit Detection, Photograde, PCGS Photo Grading App, Coin World, Making the Grade...) give objective standard that attempt to instill an element of objectivity to the process.

 

I felt that the coin was a VG, not a Fine, based on the above resources. Is the difference trivial, sure, but the HOBBY is filled with trivia and trivial issues. Those are what appeal to the odd brains of we coin collectors.

 

Regarding your question "when does an attribute constitute damage vs. negative eye appeal" - I'm not sure this will help, but (and I have posted this in various threads a number of times over the years)...

 

Often, the decision whether to give a details-grade vs. a straight grade can be just as difficult and subjective as the decision regarding what straight grade to assign (a problem-free coin). Whether it be a cleaned coin, one with rim hits/problems, marks that might or might not be intentionally made, etc., it's often a matter of degree. And it can be very difficult to decide whether the problem/defect pushes a coin over the line to a details grade.

 

With respect to net grades, one admittedly non-objective test I used to try to apply as a grader, was:

 

If the problem was bad enough, such that I would have to award a straight net grade so low that it would seem silly, it would be better to apply a details-grade, instead. So, for example, if an AU coin was cleaned badly enough to warrant a VF net grade, better just to give it a details-grade, instead.

 

 

[Lucky One]

But rim damage is not an element in establishing a grade. That is my point if there is enough of a rim "bump" to be damage then it should be "VG details...Rim Damage".

 

John

 

 

While I take your point of view, grading is soooo subjective that a rather significant scratch or old light unnoticable cleaning might pass one day and get hit on another. Mood, weather, health, etc all factor into any opinion, especially from one person to the next, so we have to accept that one person's very minor rim bumps are another person's problems. This coin could have just as easily been details graded, and a fair grade might have been VG with rim damage, but any way you cut it, a details graded coin is going to be worth less than a straight graded one in my book so I think they did you a solid. As for grading fine- I personally think it lacked enough detail for the grade. Another way to look at it is the way I approach ANY coin- what is it worth as a raw coin, and I think your coin is worth what one with the assigned grade is worth in the current market. (thus the term 'market grading') No matter how you look at it though, you have a nice coin and it has been authenticated, so it will be an easy sell if that time ever comes. Thanks for sharing, love that date!

 

[Lucky One]

by the way- I meant to mention that 'net grading' is the mother of 'market grading'. Still, I think that they saw it as a nice original coin but the unsightly rim bumps, no matter how well worn off and blended in they are, still show without having to look for them, so the downgrade in eye appeal, no matter how slight it seems to us, seems to have been enough to downgrade it so that the coin slabbed is worth what the coin raw would be worth. They walk a very fine line and they can come down on either side. I have been surprised and I have been slightly disappointed as I had my half eagle set slabbed but overall, they do an outstanding job imho...

 

 

(disclaimer: I do not have any affiliation with NGC, I'm just giving an honest assessment of my experience with them over the years)

[RWB]

" 'net grading' is the mother of 'market grading'. "

 

It would be interesting to see the entire Grading family tree.

 

Could be one of the best Numismatist articles in a long time.

[Lucky One]

" 'net grading' is the mother of 'market grading'. "

 

It would be interesting to see the entire Grading family tree.

 

Could be one of the best Numismatist articles in a long time.

 

I agree, it might even be a broad enough subject for a book. I have been around in the hobby since 1965 and have watched grading evolve from drawings in my Brown & Dunn grading guide to Photograde to the debate about using Sheldon's 70 poijnt system to the ANA's official grading standards to their first paper photo certification to PCI and Hallmark to NGC and PCGS. A short book could be probably be written just on the years-long debate in numismatic forums on the subject of utilizing the Sheldon system for grading, whether it should have been modified to 100 points (my preference at the time), and whether a system of valuation (yes, many people today, including modern dealers, don't know that Sheldon devised the system in a different time to value and price coppers, not to grade them) should be converted to a system of grading in the first place. The corporate interests won the debate and forced a confusing 70 point grading system on us and here we are today debating the same BS, but now instead of questioning thousands of dealers on their grading, we now question NGC, PCGS, ANACS and the rest. I personally don't need a professional opinion but I see the need to the average casual collector or investor. It is such a huge topic with collectors that I'm surprised an enterprising numismatic author hasn't taken on the task. I think it would make great reading and help collectors understand why, how and when it all went down...

[RWB]

Good for you! Well, get cracking. Let me know when you have prepared an outline and concept description, I will send you instructions for submitting it to Whitman LLC.

[Lucky One]

Good for you! Well, get cracking. Let me know when you have prepared an outline and concept description, I will send you instructions for submitting it to Whitman LLC.

 

I've always been a do it yourselfer and never needed anyone else's help before, but writing isn't my gig so it will have to go undone I guess...

 

[RWB]

Just write what you know and experienced. The editor will fix it for publication.