Just because you don’t like a coin doesn’t mean it’s over-graded.

[MarkFeld]

I posted on this subject previously, long ago, but feel that it bears repeating… 

There can be many different reasons why someone doesn’t like a coin – marks in the wrong place, toning that doesn’t please the eye, strike issues, luster issues, etc. However, over a period of many years, I have noticed that many collectors and dealers confuse not liking a coin with feeling that it’s over-graded. The two are far from necessarily one and the same. 

Prior to becoming a grader, when looking at coins to purchase, if I didn’t like them, I simply skipped to the next one and had no need to assign a grade or even articulate why I didn’t like them. However, when I was a grader, one of the most difficult tasks I faced was placing a fair/accurate grade on coins that I didn’t like. After all, I couldn’t just place them back in the box and skip to the next one, without providing a grading opinion. 

Next time you see a graded coin that you don’t like, if you feel up to it, ask yourself why you don’t like it and consider that regardless of the reason, it might not be over-graded. It's perfectly OK to not like an accurately graded coin.

[World Colonial]

What you state is correct.  It's a matter of personal preference and to some or many, a lower graded coin looks better than one in a higher grade.

[LINCOLNMAN]

Great point Mark, worth repeating. I've been gravitating lately towards those coins, tokens and medals, where fine-tuned grading isn't as important. Just sort of happened. Over 60 years of grading controversy and inconsistency may have worn me out. 

[numisport]

Do you think it makes a difference whether or not the particular coin is technical or market grade ? Recent examples of high grade DCAM proof coins in PCGS holders that couldn't sell come to mind. Problems with hazy or otherwise unattractive surfaces are the deciding factor for me and while I couldn't disagree with technical grade I cannot justify inflated market values except for the most pristine examples of which there are few available.

[MarkFeld]

3 hours ago, numisport said:

Do you think it makes a difference whether or not the particular coin is technical or market grade ? Recent examples of high grade DCAM proof coins in PCGS holders that couldn't sell come to mind. Problems with hazy or otherwise unattractive surfaces are the deciding factor for me and while I couldn't disagree with technical grade I cannot justify inflated market values except for the most pristine examples of which there are few available.

Yes, I think it makes a difference. However, the bottom line is that accurate grading (or the lack thereof) can be a separate matter from liking or disliking a coin.

[RWB]

So far as I am concerned, a coin has one, and only one, "grade" which should be determined as objectively as possible. Value, provenance, toning and other factors are not part of a grade. Once an objective 'grade' is determined, market factors will identify the coin's value to buyers and sellers.

[Walkerfan]

The 1935 S and D Walker come immediately to mind.

I have seen many MS 66 coins with very poor strikes that have very clean fields and booming luster.

I understand the WHY of the 66 but still don't like the coin.

You see, these coins are strike rarities, so that is factored into the grading of them, and I understand that. 

But for me, there has to be better separation and emerging detail in the thumb and fuller skirt lines, etc. for me to 'like' the coin.

 

[physics-fan3.14]

Good points Mark. 

There are many accurately graded coins which don't appeal to me. As a collector, sometimes when we say the coin is "overgraded," what we may mean is that the coin is overpriced. I've seen plenty of 65 coins at 65 prices that I didn't like - but I may have considered buying it at a 64 price.