Comments on: Crossover, “Cross-under” or “Cross-out”? http://news.coinupdate.com/crossover-cross-under-or-cross-out-0382/ Coin Collecting News Wed, 08 Feb 2012 18:39:59 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Michael Bugeja http://news.coinupdate.com/crossover-cross-under-or-cross-out-0382/comment-page-1/#comment-1917 Michael Bugeja Sun, 01 Aug 2010 22:51:17 +0000 http://news.coinupdate.com/?p=3424#comment-1917 TD: Thanks again for your well-reasoned viewpoint. My demurs on PCGS Secure concern the extra fee to be considered for plus, with no crossovers from NGC or anyone else. NGC did it right in making a plus part of the grading schemata. My demur there is to use "star" for eye appeal and "plus" for strike and condition. Right now, NGC has blurred distinctions between "plus" and "star" by noting both must have eye appeal. As such, this makes the "plus" redundant and there only because PCGS has it. If NGC made a clear distinction between "plus" and "star," we'd not only have more consistent grading, but would understand the grade, too. Again, thanks for your comments. We do appreciate viewers adding to our knowledge base. TD: Thanks again for your well-reasoned viewpoint. My demurs on PCGS Secure concern the extra fee to be considered for plus, with no crossovers from NGC or anyone else. NGC did it right in making a plus part of the grading schemata. My demur there is to use “star” for eye appeal and “plus” for strike and condition. Right now, NGC has blurred distinctions between “plus” and “star” by noting both must have eye appeal. As such, this makes the “plus” redundant and there only because PCGS has it. If NGC made a clear distinction between “plus” and “star,” we’d not only have more consistent grading, but would understand the grade, too. Again, thanks for your comments. We do appreciate viewers adding to our knowledge base.

]]> By: TequilaDave http://news.coinupdate.com/crossover-cross-under-or-cross-out-0382/comment-page-1/#comment-1916 TequilaDave Sun, 01 Aug 2010 22:44:51 +0000 http://news.coinupdate.com/?p=3424#comment-1916 This subject of third tier grading companies transitions well into the subject of PCGS's (+) designation, NGC's expanded "star" category, and the existence of CAC sticker on graded coins. In this day and age where the bulk of coin sales occur over the internet in what is basically a "sight unseen" marketplace, the CAC and +/star designations have found the perfect niche to exploit. Too many collector/investors have been on the losing end of a badly graded coin that can seemingly be ameliorated with the addition of a star, (+) or CAC sticker. On our coin forum (CoinSpace.org), a majority of posters are up in arms over this development and find it an insult to the industry. The reasons for this vary from resistance to change, which is common among life-long collectors, to the feeling this change is just another way for dealers to charge more for their coins. I can relate to the former notion but the latter seems nonviable to me. Dealers, or any business in a free market place, must respond to customers needs and if customers did not want or need a +/* or CAC sticker, it would not last long. Personally, I find the change to */+ and CAC refreshing and see it giving new life to the hobby. TPG's were originally meant to equalize the inconsistencies in grading standards and have done a very good job of it. However, some now claim they no longer give grades according to the original ANA guidance for coin grading and that their mandate has changed by the marketplace taking over the grading process. I see the problem stemming more from a failure to acknowledge that any given mint state grade has multiple representations that would fall within this grading level. And some grades have a wider range of representative coins than others, with MS64 being the widest of all grades. While the grades bordering this grade, MS65 and MS63, would be the rank second. Much like a bell curve grading system, MS64 acts as the "average" grade with the bulk of mint state coins falling into this grade. While grades above MS65 contain far less diversity in examples. Interestingly, the grade that most needs an added designation of quality seems to be MS64 graded coins. But in most cases, MS64 graded coins are relatively inexpensive and would hardly be worth the $10 for CAC sicker. Therefor it will be very interesting to see if */+ or CAC will raise the common date MS64 Morgan from the mid $50 dollar range to $65 and higher. TD This subject of third tier grading companies transitions well into the subject of PCGS’s (+) designation, NGC’s expanded “star” category, and the existence of CAC sticker on graded coins. In this day and age where the bulk of coin sales occur over the internet in what is basically a “sight unseen” marketplace, the CAC and +/star designations have found the perfect niche to exploit. Too many collector/investors have been on the losing end of a badly graded coin that can seemingly be ameliorated with the addition of a star, (+) or CAC sticker. On our coin forum (CoinSpace.org), a majority of posters are up in arms over this development and find it an insult to the industry. The reasons for this vary from resistance to change, which is common among life-long collectors, to the feeling this change is just another way for dealers to charge more for their coins. I can relate to the former notion but the latter seems nonviable to me. Dealers, or any business in a free market place, must respond to customers needs and if customers did not want or need a +/* or CAC sticker, it would not last long. Personally, I find the change to */+ and CAC refreshing and see it giving new life to the hobby.
TPG’s were originally meant to equalize the inconsistencies in grading standards and have done a very good job of it. However, some now claim they no longer give grades according to the original ANA guidance for coin grading and that their mandate has changed by the marketplace taking over the grading process. I see the problem stemming more from a failure to acknowledge that any given mint state grade has multiple representations that would fall within this grading level. And some grades have a wider range of representative coins than others, with MS64 being the widest of all grades. While the grades bordering this grade, MS65 and MS63, would be the rank second. Much like a bell curve grading system, MS64 acts as the “average” grade with the bulk of mint state coins falling into this grade. While grades above MS65 contain far less diversity in examples.
Interestingly, the grade that most needs an added designation of quality seems to be MS64 graded coins. But in most cases, MS64 graded coins are relatively inexpensive and would hardly be worth the $10 for CAC sicker. Therefor it will be very interesting to see if */+ or CAC will raise the common date MS64 Morgan from the mid $50 dollar range to $65 and higher.
TD

]]> By: Michael Bugeja http://news.coinupdate.com/crossover-cross-under-or-cross-out-0382/comment-page-1/#comment-1907 Michael Bugeja Fri, 30 Jul 2010 16:51:22 +0000 http://news.coinupdate.com/?p=3424#comment-1907 Thank you for bringing CoinSpace to our attention. Also, thank you for your detailed comment. Recently, I had the chance to evaluate an estate whose heirs noted that the deceased had spent tens of thousands on similarlly graded coins. I evaluated the collection at about $4000. My concern, though, is how auctioneers--increasingly doing business through Internet portals like Proxibid--are affirming what we know to be the sad case of hype (at best). Worse, some of these auctioneers are numismatists touting MS70 coins in bottom-tier holders with PCGS prices. I can't speak for NGC, as I do business primarily with PCGS; however, that company rarely grades at the highest level, as its population reports clearly document. I will have more posts in this series. I evaluate coins in bottom-tier holders as if there were no holders at all, using my knowledge as a grader in making my purchases. So in the end, there is no substitute for understanding how to grade ... and as you recommend ...visiting sites like CoinUpdate News and CoinSpace. Thank you for bringing CoinSpace to our attention. Also, thank you for your detailed comment. Recently, I had the chance to evaluate an estate whose heirs noted that the deceased had spent tens of thousands on similarlly graded coins. I evaluated the collection at about $4000.

My concern, though, is how auctioneers–increasingly doing business through Internet portals like Proxibid–are affirming what we know to be the sad case of hype (at best). Worse, some of these auctioneers are numismatists touting MS70 coins in bottom-tier holders with PCGS prices.

I can’t speak for NGC, as I do business primarily with PCGS; however, that company rarely grades at the highest level, as its population reports clearly document.

I will have more posts in this series. I evaluate coins in bottom-tier holders as if there were no holders at all, using my knowledge as a grader in making my purchases. So in the end, there is no substitute for understanding how to grade … and as you recommend …visiting sites like CoinUpdate News and CoinSpace.

]]> By: TequilaDave http://news.coinupdate.com/crossover-cross-under-or-cross-out-0382/comment-page-1/#comment-1906 TequilaDave Fri, 30 Jul 2010 16:07:28 +0000 http://news.coinupdate.com/?p=3424#comment-1906 This is a topic which we've been discussing for some time at the coin forum CoinSpace. These so-called third tier grading companies are handing out gem level grades like so much confetti at a New Years eve party. For the bulk of us collectors out in collector-land, we can see these things coming miles away and generally stay the heck away from them. Unfortunately, all too often I see the other side of this equation. Novice collectors will contact me with obvious joy in their voices telling me how they scored an 1878-S MS67 DMPL (graysheet price ask = $9,300) for the amazingly low price of only $650! And in the same breath telling me how this will finally get them out debt, pay off the back mortgage, repair the car, etc. And after talking them into bringing their prize coin to one of our coin club meetings, I typically see an over-dipped AU55 that's not even a PL, let alone DMPL! Clearly these so-called grading companies are not meant for the seasoned collector, rather they're meant to fool and deceive the novice collector, and boy do they ever! Granted, there's always a learning curve to any monetarial pursuit (stocks, used cars, etc.) but it breaks my heart when I see people who have so little in the first place, spending large sums of money on a coin that's worth $30 at best. Reminds me of the modern day pyramid scheme (or should I say Amway-esg scheme) innocently called "Numis Network" that sells bullion eagles at $120 ea touting them as investment vehicles because everyone knows coins only go up in value! Sadly, few people will live long enough to ever see their $120 bullion eagle turn a profit. But I digress..., Thank you for the excellent and timely article. I encourage people to "read the book" before buying the coin. Few do, but such is the way of the world. And everyone reading this comment should feel free to drop by CoinSpace and join our conversations about this subject, and all things "coins". Thank you for this opportunity to voice my opinion and I hope to see you at CoinSpace soon! TequilaDave This is a topic which we’ve been discussing for some time at the coin forum CoinSpace. These so-called third tier grading companies are handing out gem level grades like so much confetti at a New Years eve party. For the bulk of us collectors out in collector-land, we can see these things coming miles away and generally stay the heck away from them. Unfortunately, all too often I see the other side of this equation. Novice collectors will contact me with obvious joy in their voices telling me how they scored an 1878-S MS67 DMPL (graysheet price ask = $9,300) for the amazingly low price of only $650! And in the same breath telling me how this will finally get them out debt, pay off the back mortgage, repair the car, etc. And after talking them into bringing their prize coin to one of our coin club meetings, I typically see an over-dipped AU55 that’s not even a PL, let alone DMPL! Clearly these so-called grading companies are not meant for the seasoned collector, rather they’re meant to fool and deceive the novice collector, and boy do they ever! Granted, there’s always a learning curve to any monetarial pursuit (stocks, used cars, etc.) but it breaks my heart when I see people who have so little in the first place, spending large sums of money on a coin that’s worth $30 at best. Reminds me of the modern day pyramid scheme (or should I say Amway-esg scheme) innocently called “Numis Network” that sells bullion eagles at $120 ea touting them as investment vehicles because everyone knows coins only go up in value! Sadly, few people will live long enough to ever see their $120 bullion eagle turn a profit. But I digress…,
Thank you for the excellent and timely article. I encourage people to “read the book” before buying the coin. Few do, but such is the way of the world. And everyone reading this comment should feel free to drop by CoinSpace and join our conversations about this subject, and all things “coins”.
Thank you for this opportunity to voice my opinion and I hope to see you at CoinSpace soon!
TequilaDave

]]> By: Michael Bugeja http://news.coinupdate.com/crossover-cross-under-or-cross-out-0382/comment-page-1/#comment-1900 Michael Bugeja Thu, 29 Jul 2010 09:30:39 +0000 http://news.coinupdate.com/?p=3424#comment-1900 Richard: Thank you for sharing the anecdote about the 1921 proof coin. We appreciate your comments and observations. Sadly, this coin in a third-tier holder is precisely what would be hyped at auction, ironically citing PCGS prices, when the latter wouldn't slab such a coin, and for good reason, as you note. Richard: Thank you for sharing the anecdote about the 1921 proof coin. We appreciate your comments and observations. Sadly, this coin in a third-tier holder is precisely what would be hyped at auction, ironically citing PCGS prices, when the latter wouldn’t slab such a coin, and for good reason, as you note.

]]> By: Richard Stinchcomb http://news.coinupdate.com/crossover-cross-under-or-cross-out-0382/comment-page-1/#comment-1898 Richard Stinchcomb Thu, 29 Jul 2010 06:34:27 +0000 http://news.coinupdate.com/?p=3424#comment-1898 It is sad, but true when it comes to the crossover game. One of my dealer friends purchased a 1921 proof Peace Dollar (satin finish) that he had graded and slabbed by one of the lesser-known companies you mentioned. He submitted the coin to PCGS for crossover, but the coin was returned in the original grading slab. PCGS deemed that the coin was in fact not a proof, but was a business strike coin minted from proof dies. I personally inspected the coin. Under magnification, this coin just did not meet the required specifications that are required for the satin proof version. The triangle between the last "t" in "trVst" and the rim simply did not meet specifications. This triangle was similar in definition to normal mint state business strike coins, lacking the clear full definition that true proof specimens display. Lady Liberty's hair and the reverse eagle also lacked the definition in the highest areas required for proof specimens. The finish was the only attribute that made this coin different. PCGS recognized that the minute details did not meet the specifications of a proof striking. This severely outraged my friend as PCGS did not certify this coin as a very rare satin proof like the other not-to-be-named grading company. -Richard Stinchcomb It is sad, but true when it comes to the crossover game. One of my dealer friends purchased a 1921 proof Peace Dollar (satin finish) that he had graded and slabbed by one of the lesser-known companies you mentioned. He submitted the coin to PCGS for crossover, but the coin was returned in the original grading slab. PCGS deemed that the coin was in fact not a proof, but was a business strike coin minted from proof dies. I personally inspected the coin. Under magnification, this coin just did not meet the required specifications that are required for the satin proof version. The triangle between the last “t” in “trVst” and the rim simply did not meet specifications. This triangle was similar in definition to normal mint state business strike coins, lacking the clear full definition that true proof specimens display. Lady Liberty’s hair and the reverse eagle also lacked the definition in the highest areas required for proof specimens. The finish was the only attribute that made this coin different.

PCGS recognized that the minute details did not meet the specifications of a proof striking. This severely outraged my friend as PCGS did not certify this coin as a very rare satin proof like the other not-to-be-named grading company.

-Richard Stinchcomb

]]>