Compare Gardner 1853 W/A 10c PCGS/CAC OGH MS-68 vs Simpson 1853 W/A 10c PCGS/CAC MS-68+ - Page 3 — Welcome to the CAC Educational Forum

Compare Gardner 1853 W/A 10c PCGS/CAC OGH MS-68 vs Simpson 1853 W/A 10c PCGS/CAC MS-68+

13

Comments

  • Stevie said:


    MarkFeld said:

    Stevie said:


    ptolemyII said:

    Stevie said:

    Do you think if this were Joe Shmos coin it would receive the same grades?

    Yes, but a Joe Shmo hasn't owned anything like this in the last 15 years.

    I misspoke earlier; this would have been exceptional at Stacks 1976 ANA sale. As a very common date, it might have brought triple Redbook !! . Bobby Emmer would have graded it CH BU+++

    If the Shmo hasn't done enough due diligence to find someone who can see it as a 67, he's already peaked. I'm at 67.9 on the Simpson piece. The marks are there. Call it amazing (if you trust unTruview-amped brightness) but the slab shows but a decent A luster. It has a granular surface (as do many of the half dimes of this date) that is more chalky-white than satiny-smooth.

    But no one grades well from pictures. Even super-collectors might consider thinking less about technical grading and enjoying their coins' individual personalities. Un-amped.

    Are you saying that you think the coin is a ms 67.9 meaning you agree with a 67+ grade, not 68 or 68+? I am still saying anyway that I think famous ownership subtly affects the graders thinking by 1/2 to 1 point at least in most cases. It’s just human nature I believe. The old phrase “ownership adds a point “


    The expression “ownership adds a point” is typically used to mean that owners of coins tend to think their coins are under-graded and deserve a higher grade.

    I was transferring the phrase meaning to say famous ownership can influence the graders psychologically to give a higher grade. 



    If you want an opinion, send me a coin. The rest is theoretical BS. The graders are pumped by great packages, not famous owners, but I'm sure it's happened.
  • edited January 2022
    Legend said:
    Hate to break to people-there is such a thing as a blast original white coin.
    Of course there are, but both plainly look to have secondary toning to me.  That doesn’t make either of them junk.
  • edited January 2022
    Stevie said:


    MarkFeld said:

    Stevie said:


    ptolemyII said:

    Stevie said:

    Do you think if this were Joe Shmos coin it would receive the same grades?

    Yes, but a Joe Shmo hasn't owned anything like this in the last 15 years.

    I misspoke earlier; this would have been exceptional at Stacks 1976 ANA sale. As a very common date, it might have brought triple Redbook !! . Bobby Emmer would have graded it CH BU+++

    If the Shmo hasn't done enough due diligence to find someone who can see it as a 67, he's already peaked. I'm at 67.9 on the Simpson piece. The marks are there. Call it amazing (if you trust unTruview-amped brightness) but the slab shows but a decent A luster. It has a granular surface (as do many of the half dimes of this date) that is more chalky-white than satiny-smooth.

    But no one grades well from pictures. Even super-collectors might consider thinking less about technical grading and enjoying their coins' individual personalities. Un-amped.

    Are you saying that you think the coin is a ms 67.9 meaning you agree with a 67+ grade, not 68 or 68+? I am still saying anyway that I think famous ownership subtly affects the graders thinking by 1/2 to 1 point at least in most cases. It’s just human nature I believe. The old phrase “ownership adds a point “


    The expression “ownership adds a point” is typically used to mean that owners of coins tend to think their coins are under-graded and deserve a higher grade.

    I was transferring the phrase meaning to say famous ownership can influence the graders psychologically to give a higher grade. 



    The expression “ownership add a point or so” is normally applied to any coin a coin collector acquires whether it was a very inexpensive raw coin found at face value in circulation as a youngster or an inexpensive and certainly not famous slabbed coin purchased as a teenager or as a young adult. The pride of ownership includes the belief that the coin is nicer than it really is. It affects all of us whether we dare admit it or not. Even experienced graders can be subtly affected by the “ ownership adds a point or so” as a defense mechanism to justify why they acquired the coin in the first place for their own personal collection.

    It can include the love of ugly toning as beautiful when the entire world thinks it is ugly.

    We all have such coins in our collection whether we dare admit it or not.

    With JA’s personal help, I was finally able to weed out some of the coins I was overly attached to.
  • MarkFeld said:

    Legend said:

    Hate to break to people-there is such a thing as a blast original white coin.

    As stated, that’s of course, correct. However, generally, the older the coin is, the less likely that’s the case.

    While working for David Hall in the mid 80’s I did witness the purchase of two rolls of blazing, color-free gem Seated Liberty dimes. I believe they were dated1883 and1884, though each might have been a year later.

    I didn't want to hijack this thread so I started another one. @MarkFeld, I think I might have one of those 1883 blast White Beauties.
  • Wabbit said:

    MarkFeld said:

    Legend said:

    Hate to break to people-there is such a thing as a blast original white coin.

    As stated, that’s of course, correct. However, generally, the older the coin is, the less likely that’s the case.

    While working for David Hall in the mid 80’s I did witness the purchase of two rolls of blazing, color-free gem Seated Liberty dimes. I believe they were dated1883 and1884, though each might have been a year later.

    I didn't want to hijack this thread so I started another one. @MarkFeld, I think I might have one of those 1883 blast White Beauties.
    Cool!
  • I will likewise start another thread of coins that qualify as
    “ownership adds a point or so. “ It might take a while for me to dig up photos of what I am talking about.
  • someone wants to see this thread so ttt.
  • edited January 19
    Looks like photos were deleted?
  • The url for the photos changed when the url changed from (something like) cac to cacgrading. I think you can't edit the older posts to fix the url anymore. If you know how to view the page source you can get the url, make the fix, and repost the same photos (sorry I can't go more in depth on that right now, have to leave for work).
  • This thread is NONSENSE.

    Here is what is not said: I know BOTH coins well. The dirty little secret, Gene Gardner NEVER upgraded his coins. This is a fact. Many dealers enjoyed his sales as they got MANY upgrades. I sure did.

    So this is a BAD comparison. And do NOT compare coins via images. Its the tiny things you can't see that can make the difference.
  • It is not totally nonsense, because Ms. Sperber and Mr. Feld (and Mr. Crypto)
    alluded to older....100 years or so...original Blast white coins, and that is certainly not nonsense.

    I can personally vouch for Mr. Feld handling an 1836 RE 1/2 original Blast White, since 2008, so I know he is not embellishing. That is more than 100 years, and it was an ex-Mills.
  • I just spent 6 figures today on a 50C 1859-S PCGS MS68 CAC. Yes, it is blast white. It was blast white in 2014 when I sold it. And it was blast white when it came out of Eliasberg. I'm sure it was carefully saved since the day it left the Mint. WHITE COINS that are 100years old DO exist and are original.

    Just look at what has come out of dollar bags. You can get the wild toning or blast white coins.

    What I meant was nonsense was comparing a Gardner coin to Simpson. The Garner coin could very well be equal.
  • I also remember a roll of white seated dimes getting broke up around that time frame (mid 1980's). I thought they were 1891 but I am fuzzy on the exact date.
  • Legend said:

    I just spent 6 figures today on a 50C 1859-S PCGS MS68 CAC. Yes, it is blast white. It was blast white in 2014 when I sold it. And it was blast white when it came out of Eliasberg. I'm sure it was carefully saved since the day it left the Mint. WHITE COINS that are 100years old DO exist and are original.

    Just look at what has come out of dollar bags. You can get the wild toning or blast white coins.

    What I meant was nonsense was comparing a Gardner coin to Simpson. The Garner coin could very well be equal.

    <3
  • I also remember a roll of white seated dimes getting broke up around that time frame (mid 1980's). I thought they were 1891 but I am fuzzy on the exact date.

    If so, it was definitely not one of the two rolls I saw. They were definitely from approximately the mid-1880’s.
  • edited January 20
    Legend said:

    This thread is NONSENSE.

    Here is what is not said: I know BOTH coins well. The dirty little secret, Gene Gardner NEVER upgraded his coins. This is a fact. Many dealers enjoyed his sales as they got MANY upgrades. I sure did.

    So this is a BAD comparison. And do NOT compare coins via images. Its the tiny things you can't see that can make the difference.

    The expression “dirty little secret” refers to something bad that someone doesn’t want other people to know. The fact that Gene Gardner didn’t try to get his coins upgraded wasn’t a bad thing that he kept secret.
  • The crazy thing is that this thread continued to go on and on even with photos having disappeared

    As far as “ownership adds a point” is only for me to admit that I am perhaps a bit biased. LOL.

    No disrespect to Laura and Simpson and his also wonderful 1853 dime but the remaining question is would he have been happy with the Gardner dime had his dime not been available?

  • We were out to buy the finest period. I do not remember what Gardner looked like.

  • Legend said:

    We were out to buy the finest period. I do not remember what Gardner looked like.

    Just curious…As an example…. If a stickered MS-67+ or MS-68+ were not available but only a stickered PCGS OGH MS-67 or MS-68 was available would such alternative coin that did not have plus grades yet available have satisfied Simpson’s quest for the finest or was he was more into the plus grades after they came out? Or did he listen to your advice often enough?
    I admit he was better than Hansen in Hansen’s earlier years.
  • The dime roll was 1884 and they were off the charts ! 
Sign In or Register to comment.