I doubt I’ve ever seen this subject broached in print & I’ve never collected Territorial/ Pioneer gold before as it appears to be an ext wealthy collectors’ domain. But it has increasingly been obvious there is a different grading standard used on Pioneer gold. This has really hit me as I peruse the latest auction offering of a significant collection.
Now we know there is a somewhat different grading standard for colonial coins but that is based on primitive mintage equipment & poor quality copper ( ie barrel staves) used.
But with Pioneer gold, there appears to be an “ over tolerance” of severe edge
dents ( ie Assay Office $50 slugs ) and multiple surface nicks and scratches and lack of any luster - most noticeably on large pioneer gold like Wass Molitor $50s. Or smaller territorial gold like the Oregon beaver gold bearing heavy wear & a total lack of luster. Such coins regularly, in my opinion, are graded so leniently that they often have a slab grade 10-20 points higher than a regular Federal coin of the period exhibiting the same circulation abuse.
I don’t think this grading double standard is warranted. Aside from price, it is this seeming liberal grading standard that may keep the collecting appeal of this field limited.
Comments
thank you!
Live with it.
collect them. Even WITHIN the pioneer series, different issuers are graded differently like well struck often choice Bechtler pieces vs, say, heavily edge- dented Assay Office $50 slugs, the rim dents just ignored in net grading. Perhaps 20 yrs ago a highly respected cataloguer
first catalogued a full cat page on an Unc 1793 1/2 cent w major rim dents, totally ignoring the rim dents on the newly slabbed copper. When questioned about the grade and absence of any mention on the prominent rim dents, the cataloguer replied “ So what, the slab somewhat conceals the rim dents.” Today, on early copper & pioneer gold , rim dents appear to be ignored when a slab grade is assigned. It would seem only the center of the coin dictates the grading !
I'm attracted to both but ...what a decision to have to make.
I do have a "relatively" cheaper Moffat to scratch my territorial itch. So I kinda console myself with that.
YES I am not in the retail market but I do know this. The grade assigned on a coin either raw or slabbed is not as important as the actual condition of the coin, and the desire to own that particular coin. Actually, I believe the latter is even more important than the former (its condition). So if territorial coins were graded the same way as other coins, I doubt their price would be different among knowledgeable dealers/collectors.
Then in the best of worlds we would not tell any collector their coin has problems. That way, everyone would be happy. The seller would be happy that his "gem" finally sold, the buyer would be happy because he now owns the "gem." When he sends it in for grading, the TPGS would be happy to straight grade the coin to make sure everyone stays happy. A coin is what it is. Each of us has our own standards and opinion. I was shown several slabbed flowing hair coins at Lakeland today. IMO, the were graded perfectly by both NGC and PCGS. One of the dollars graded XF had a CAC sticker and in my opinion it could have been graded XF-49 if there were such a grade.
@mellado's image-posting skills are those of a confirmed neo-Luddite who likely had someone else one quarter of his age upload his avatar.
As he never posted on the CU Forum, let me remind him of a modernistic bent for many contemporary numismatists expressed sublimely as
THIS THREAD IS USELESS WITHOUT PICTURES
What is the expectable severity of edge problems (or other marks) when 2.5 oz octagonal ingots get tossed around like expensive loose change. Bouncing around in saddlebags, or whatever hard-use frontier cliche one might conjure? What other coin of this weight ever saw commercial use anywhere in the Americas? The guidelines for juggling bowling balls are different from the ones for ordinary bowling pins.
With all the pitfalls of manufacture, the PMD (post-mint damage) for Territorials, especially marks, ranks lower for me than for much better-made and less-circulating federal issues weighing at most 40% that of a slug.
If you want to willfully enable and encourage willful mediocrity in research and exposition, have at it. Please excuse my intruding in such a way as that I might be suggesting what I imagined to be a more informed and intelligent discourse. .
Don't debate me (any further).
Set up a poll.
How much better are grading threads with pictures than grading threads without them?
1) about the same
2) twice as effective
3) it's night and day
4) why are you even asking?
Seriously, inform yourself of what your constituency might desire that you haven't yet experienced. It was a serious lack in PCGS Forums moderators. It's been hoped that your administration is flexible enough to listen and learn from its customers.
I never suggested that we should or shouldn't grade "Territorial Gold" differently, and I certainly don't think we should try to keep everyone happy all of the time. I was only pointing out that the grading standard does indeed have an effect on market value, even if we think there's no good reason for it. Not something I'd normally bother to address, but Mellado brought it up and I thought it was worth a quick discussion.
In 10 years of searching I've found maybe four or five pieces that I liked for the grade assigned. There were two that would have been within my budget, but in both cases I had bought another big coin and did not have the funds. I did have the money when I bought the two Pan-Pac $50 commemorative coins, so I guess I'll have to be happy with them.
One concept with which I strongly disagree is the idea that key dates are more loosely graded that common dates. You are already paying a higher price because the item is scarce. Why should you get doubled zinged because it’s a key date? That bogus concept has been around since I was a kid collector in the 1960s, and some dealers even opening admitted it.