Author Topic: Opinions on new 2003 MS69 Panda Gold - I'm bummed...  (Read 12333 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline badon

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4487
  • Karma: -81
Re: Opinions on new 2003 MS69 Panda Gold - I'm bummed...
« Reply #60 on: December 17, 2011, 11:33:35 PM »
Thanks even more for the question! It was, after all, the question that led to things being cleared up.

Coinslinger

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Opinions on new 2003 MS69 Panda Gold - I'm bummed...
« Reply #61 on: December 18, 2011, 02:30:33 AM »
The American Silver Dollar that I think Badon is referring to, is the 1794 Flowing Hair Neil/Carter/Contursi Specimen that sold for a record $7,850,000.00(w/Buyers Premium).  It has a Silver Plug center with several 'file' marks along the rim and is considered to be the first Silver Dollar ever struck. It was graded(generously) by PCGS @ SP-66.(SP= Specimen Strike).  As Badon alluded to, it is for sure one the ugliest coins ever to receive such a grade. Here is a link for those who are interested...

http://news.coinupdate.com/silver-dollar-sold-for-world-record-price-0286/

Sadly, ultra rarities seem to get way beyond the benefit of the doubt and are routinely over-graded based on their pedigree and notoriety. At a recent grading seminar, a group(including myself) was asked to grade this very coin strictly on it's own physical merits and NOT it's reputation and rarity status.... the consensus was that it should grade @ AU 53 to 55.  The coin(and I have held/examined this coin on several occasions) has many luster breaks and wear marks that would normally preclude it from Mint State status.

A true 70 has to be literally perfect.... NOT TECHNICALLY perfect.  Die breaks, lint marks, collar damage, etc, etc.... eliminate the possibility of a true 70. As we have trading opinions tonight on this subject in this thread, I contacted a couple friends who grade for PCGS and NGC(one for PCGS the other for NGC). They both agreed that Honus' 2003 G500Y Panda was an oversight and would receive a downgrade if resubmitted.  As current graders they cannot participate in this forum, but I think I've managed to talk a former grader who worked for PCGS, NGC and ICG into creating an account and giving his opinions.  If anything, it will be a great education as he was a grader from 1986 to 2008.

 

 

Offline badon

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4487
  • Karma: -81
Re: Opinions on new 2003 MS69 Panda Gold - I'm bummed...
« Reply #62 on: December 18, 2011, 02:54:04 AM »
Yes, that's right, I was referring to the Contursi specimen. Good catch. In that case, PCGS laid aside their normal subjective eye appeal criteria for a special coin - that's one reason I don't like subjective grading as much as technical grading. Technical grading can be studied and understood, while subjective grading cannot (easily), since it changes.

I don't think I would be hasty in downgrading the Contursi specimen below mint state. It has a weak strike, which is to be expected for a test specimen, since the die pressure had not been set yet. The weak strike leaves flattened details on the high points that are easily mistaken for wear. Indeed, it is difficult to distinguish from wear, except under very close examination.

I am skeptical that PCGS would discard both their subjective standards and their technical standards for just one high profile coin. I think instead, they studied the weakly struck high points in detail to determine whether they exhibited wear, or original planchet surfaces instead. Original planchet surfaces usually have characteristics that will distinguish them from worn surfaces.

The line that is drawn in defining a "true 70" is what also defines "technically perfect", for practical reasons. It is actually very difficult to mass produce anything that is "truly perfect" - just ask the semiconductor fabrication people. It CAN be done, of course, just not for mundane objects like coins.

I have I think all of my 70 coins have some sort of a contact mark on them somewhere - It just takes a lot of hunting under high magnification to find them. The slightest touch will rub some gold or silver off, and that can actually be detected if you really want to look hard enough for it. I do sometimes, just for kicks, but I like NGC's standard where if you can't see it under 5X magnification, then it isn't there for the purposes of grading.

Oddly enough, I usually detect flaws the best without any magnification. I then switch to my 10X loupe to characterize the flaw as post-minting damage, or not. I assume that's how the pro graders do it also, except with a 5X instead of a 10X.

Offline SANDAC

  • Supporter
  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (+8)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2246
  • Karma: 118
Re: Opinions on new 2003 MS69 Panda Gold - I'm bummed...
« Reply #63 on: December 18, 2011, 11:18:48 AM »
Thank you all for an informative discussion.  As a student of the Historical Figure series, 1984-1993, I can report that fading or missing features, excessive frostings and weak strike are common place on this modern series, but they do not seem to affect the grading at all.  I have a PF69 1992 Cai Wenji with 3 characters of her poem unreadable, and a PF69 1990 Zheng He with a missing ship mast.  NGC doesn't seem to mind them.  This leads me to believe that NGC grading (up to PF69 anyway) is mostly technical.