PCCS Grading

[ozjohn 672]

Again a comment on a familiar topic.

Attached are two PCGS photographs from their PGCS's verification web site, both 1933 half crowns.  Coin # 37007246 is a coin I own, while coin# 45189418 is a coin I saw on Ebay that has been  graded by PCGS. On looking at both coin's photographs on the PCGS verification site IMO coin # 3700246 is a better coin although  being graded by PCGS as MS 62 as against MS64 for coin #45189418. I understand that the coins were submitted  at different times but the whole idea of professional coin grading  is to provide a consistent result that collectors and investors can rely upon. Have PCGS grading standards fakken?

To digress some coins submitted to NGC and PCGS are declared as cleaned and described as AU features etc. with out citing any examples it can be hard to se why they have made this opinion while other coins that seem to have obvious cleaning marks on them indicating some form of cleaning seem to receive a grading while coins submitted  PCGS that have been dipped are deemed by PCGS as not cleaned

Your comments are invited

[Sword 1,504]

I am not a fan of the top coin. Yours is better struck and the top coin has some contact marks especially on the forehead. (I had a look at photos on the PGCS website).

However, the top coin is more lustrous than yours particularly for the reverse. 

[ozjohn 672]

Toning? Not sure if your comments account for a MS 64 for the top coin as against a MS 62 for the bottom coin. The one thing required of a grading service is consistency.

[VickySilver 876]

OK, first of all I do like 20th C. silver as you probably have seen so like BOTH. I looked at the PCGS cert pictures and think I may be able to answer [to some degree]:

The second coin has a cheek and base of the neck (along the SCM muscle to be precise) that show some degree or rub or contact, at least to my eyes. They will tend to be hard on that bit. Also, it is likely just the pictures but the top coin appears to have better lustre even if struck more softly than the second coin.

On what I have heard a "technical" basis, aside from strike the first coin would then get the higher grade. I think this is something that both NGC and PCGS tend to go with more strongly.

[ozjohn 672]

I'll take another look.

[ozjohn 672]

Had another look at both coins on PCGS verification. For the first coin on the obverse there is damage to the King's forehead and a scratch on the King's neck extending into the adjacent field. Also the strike is weaker and the hint of wear on the Kings beard on the side of the face Scuffing perhaps some wear extends up the King's neck and on the eyebrow. As for the reverse it is a good strike  with luster. However there is a disfiguring mark in the field above the top RHS of the shield.

The second coin, the one I have. The obverse is a good strike with the King's ear fully struck. On the king's neck there is a little scuffing near the point of the truncation  and several small scratches in the field behind the King's neck. For the reverse again a good strike and toned. Regarding the luster the coin in hand has good luster

[Menger 96]

Our left-side brains are seduced by quantitative scales (such as Sheldon - the American system), as if they somehow represent greater certainty than qualitative grades (such as extra fine etc of the British system).  This is a pure mirage, but a good one and it is what the PCGS and NGC make money from. A fine business model!

In reality, all grading is qualitative - and all qualitative judgments are (to a degree) subjective and error prone.  

In my view, TPG provides a useful rule of thumb to purchase at a distance; no better nor worse than qualitative grading provided by a reputable auction house. Neither is a substitute for the expanded qualitative descriptions and exchange of observations as per the thread above. None of this is a substitute for the subjective feel of a coin in hand - preferably broken out of it’s slab with a hammer and victory dance.

Edited 15 hours ago by Menger