In my humble opinion, your very heavily worn "Fair 2" copy has much more wear, and far less detail than your "Fair 02" example. There is NO WAY that both of these two 1916-D dimes should have been given the same Fair 02 grade by PCGS. If I was the grader at PCGS, I would give the one with the much more wear a Poor-01, and the other one an AG-3. It is troubling that there is so much inconsistency in grading at PCGS, and probably also at NGC.
Great video. I agree with your grading assessments of those two dimes, especially since I have a Fair 2 in an ANACS holder that arrived from you yesterday that I find to be nice for the grade. 42 years of collecting, and it's a thrill to finally have that date and mint mark.
Daniel, the problem is the exact same problem we have throughout the country in ALL businesses. Millennial's are the people now running the show. No attention to detail, no pride in their work, they just don't care. If it doesn't happen on a device in the palm of their hand, it just doesn't matter. BTW, imo, I think they were both under graded. The first submission more so than the second.
Under and over. It's only their opinion at that given time. How about at the other end of the spectrum, knowing they are a total of 2 grades off here. How can they separate an ms63 from an ms65 which is much tougher... Then again, don't clean your coins, not even with water or we will put a qualifier on it, but send them into us so we can charge you to clean them.
IMHO, the coin that just came back from grading is a FR02, and the other coin is either a high end FR02 or maybe an AG03. The savvy collector would likely bid or pay more for the one that has nicer eye appeal and detail, so in that sense the PCGS grade is not the sole determiner of value. The professional graders have expertise, but they spend so little time with each coin that it doesn't take long for the collector or dealer to know their coins better than the graders.
We all know it is totally objective to graders, however, I firmly believe they grade higher to frequent submitters and those who have quantities graded...Thanks again Daniel,. The ol collector Rick...
You got a gift I have the same problem with PCGS they are so inconsistent with there grading. I had 12 coins graded 3 of the coins came back Genuine but altered surface they where 1945 1943 p and a 1944 steel cents beautiful coins even asked the sellers if the coins where altered. Of course they said no. Also had a toned coin graded 1957 came back questionable color. When I’ve seen coins exactly like the toned ones graded with no problems from PCGS. There just so inconsistent it’s frustrating! Sometimes I just want to give up.
It just goes to show that "graded" coins are over rated. We place a value on something because someone else says so? Grading for authentication purposes is one thing, value is a completely different animal, it's an opinion! The differences in these 2 coins is night and day, even to an amateur like myself, Dan you did it again my friend, bringing common sense back to the hobby! Thank you!
The coin you found is overgraded because you got a gift for sure. The other coin I guessed it was AG 3. So I think it's under graded for sure. They probably gave you a favorable grade because you're the man Daniel!
I would have graded the poorer at AG2, and the better at AG2+ ........And if there is no such thing in the lower grades, then the better would have to be AG3. I would reserve "poor" for a coin whose date in nearly undiscernable without a microscope. HOWEVER, I NEVER expect constancy or consistency from PCGS! (or any other grader). They can't even give MS70 to a flawless coin twice in a row (in many cases)! This is why I plead for computer grading that will never vary or show favoritism. Right...fat chance! As long as there are crooks involved ( and that cannot be helped -- they ARE involved) there will always be the willy-nilly grading we have now. It's a dirty shame. Bottom line: you're right, Daniel. The coins deserve different grades.
I think with the over and under grading issue, that's what they should start using technology which is available to assist with grading. They could easily creating a perfect 3D scan of coins then use a software application that uses algorithms to complete the process. Thanks for another great video.
In my humble opinion, your very heavily worn "Fair 2" copy has much more wear, and far less detail than your "Fair 02" example. There is NO WAY that both of these two 1916-D dimes should have been given the same Fair 02 grade by PCGS. If I was the grader at PCGS, I would give the one with the much more wear a Poor-01, and the other one an AG-3. It is troubling that there is so much inconsistency in grading at PCGS, and probably also at NGC.
Don’t even get me started I see some of these high dollar coins and I see the grades and I scratch my head
Great video. I agree with your grading assessments of those two dimes, especially since I have a Fair 2 in an ANACS holder that arrived from you yesterday that I find to be nice for the grade. 42 years of collecting, and it's a thrill to finally have that date and mint mark.
The coin with more details I would agree is under graded
Daniel, the problem is the exact same problem we have throughout the country in ALL businesses. Millennial's are the people now running the show. No attention to detail, no pride in their work, they just don't care. If it doesn't happen on a device in the palm of their hand, it just doesn't matter. BTW, imo, I think they were both under graded. The first submission more so than the second.
Grading at any level even PCGS is just opinion. Well educated opinion but opinion none the less.
Under and over. It's only their opinion at that given time. How about at the other end of the spectrum, knowing they are a total of 2 grades off here. How can they separate an ms63 from an ms65 which is much tougher... Then again, don't clean your coins, not even with water or we will put a qualifier on it, but send them into us so we can charge you to clean them.
IMHO, the coin that just came back from grading is a FR02, and the other coin is either a high end FR02 or maybe an AG03. The savvy collector would likely bid or pay more for the one that has nicer eye appeal and detail, so in that sense the PCGS grade is not the sole determiner of value. The professional graders have expertise, but they spend so little time with each coin that it doesn't take long for the collector or dealer to know their coins better than the graders.
We all know it is totally objective to graders, however, I firmly believe they grade higher to frequent submitters and those who have quantities graded...Thanks again Daniel,. The ol collector Rick...
You got a gift I have the same problem with PCGS they are so inconsistent with there grading. I had 12 coins graded 3 of the coins came back Genuine but altered surface they where 1945 1943 p and a 1944 steel cents beautiful coins even asked the sellers if the coins where altered. Of course they said no. Also had a toned coin graded 1957 came back questionable color. When I’ve seen coins exactly like the toned ones graded with no problems from PCGS. There just so inconsistent it’s frustrating! Sometimes I just want to give up.
It just goes to show that "graded" coins are over rated. We place a value on something because someone else says so? Grading for authentication purposes is one thing, value is a completely different animal, it's an opinion! The differences in these 2 coins is night and day, even to an amateur like myself, Dan you did it again my friend, bringing common sense back to the hobby! Thank you!
I agree with you - AG3 and FR2. I think the one you had is under graded and the one you just sent in is graded fairly. Just my twenty cents worth. 😀
The coin you found is overgraded because you got a gift for sure. The other coin I guessed it was AG 3. So I think it's under graded for sure. They probably gave you a favorable grade because you're the man Daniel!
Your videos are very much appreciated and informative
I am sincerely grateful to Daniel and your team
Next week I send out 2 Mercury dimes. I'll keep you posted. Congratulations on the grade. Nice video. Thank you bud.
Thanks for another great teaching video Daniel. You are a gentleman and a scholar. Please keep doing what you are doing friend!!
I would have graded the poorer at AG2, and the better at AG2+ ........And if there is no such thing in the lower grades, then the better would have to be AG3. I would reserve "poor" for a coin whose date in nearly undiscernable without a microscope. HOWEVER, I NEVER expect constancy or consistency from PCGS! (or any other grader). They can't even give MS70 to a flawless coin twice in a row (in many cases)! This is why I plead for computer grading that will never vary or show favoritism. Right...fat chance! As long as there are crooks involved ( and that cannot be helped -- they ARE involved) there will always be the willy-nilly grading we have now. It's a dirty shame. Bottom line: you're right, Daniel. The coins deserve different grades.
I think with the over and under grading issue, that's what they should start using technology which is available to assist with grading. They could easily creating a perfect 3D scan of coins then use a software application that uses algorithms to complete the process. Thanks for another great video.
Interesting video indeed, Daniel! Nice visual comparisons!