Are Coins of the Same Grade Held to the Same Standard?

N.M. from Texas recently asked an excellent question which I’d like to try my best and answer. His question, in part, is as follows: “It seems as though the grading services are holding coins like Indian $10 and Saints to a higher standard than say CC $20's or Territorials, etc. I see MS61 or MS62 CC $20 and Assay pieces with terrible surface preservation relative to what 20th Century coins show for the same grade. I don't believe this is just a case of a few over graded coins. We all know that Territiorials and CC's had a hard life but I always thought coins of the same grade were to be held to the same standard. Care to comment?”

This question is very astute and is unquestionably worthy of some analysis. My initial reaction is that N.M.’s observation is absolutely correct. Territorial gold coins and, to a lesser extent Carson City double eagles, are definitely accorded a different grading standard than 20th century issues such as Indian Head gold or Saint Gaudens double eagles. And I think they should be.

There are at least two legitimate reasons why Territorial gold is graded the way it is (which tends to be, for the most part, very loosely). The first is that these coins were typically created in difficult circumstances by amateur coiners using primitive equipment. We expect them to look bad and, usually, the coins do not let us down. The second reason why the grading services have trouble with these coins is that they are genuinely hard to grade. There are about five people in the world who really, truly know how to grade Territorials (I am not one of them...). And none of them work for the grading services.

There is another factor that comes into play here: what I call the “veneration effect.” The graders at PCGS and NGC are savvy numismatic professionals and they get a lot more excited when they see a Bechtler quarter eagle than when they see a 1926 Indian head quarter eagle. Cool, truly rare coins will always get more of a break from an experienced grader than common coins. The graders at PCGS and NGC can deny this until they turn blue in the face but this statement is absolutely, unequivocally true.

Ironically, this is true even within the same series. I contend that a well-known rarity like an 1854-S quarter eagle is graded on a different standard than a common issue from the same series, like an 1854 Philadelphia quarter eagle. Is this “fair?” Probably not. But human beings are subjective creatures and we are influenced by factors like rarity when we determine a coin’s grade; which, like it or not, is subjective in the first place.

When the grading services first began slabbing coins, they were brutal when it came to Carson City gold. I can remember sending them coins which, even back in the late 1980’s, I thought were nice AU’s but which would routinely be graded VF35 or EF40. This began to change a few years ago and now I think the services often overcompensate when it comes to these coins. I’d like to think it has to do with the fact that the graders read my CC book and became more in touch with strike patterns on early CC half eagles or surface characteristics on 1890’s era CC double eagles. But I’m enough of a pragmatist to know this isn’t true. The market demanded different standards and the services acted accordingly.

This blog isn’t meant to be a condemnation of how PCGS and NGC grade Territorials and Carson City gold. As I said before, I believe that virtually no one has a clue how to grade the former and the market standards for the latter have changed considerably. If the market eventually determines that CC gold is all way overgraded, then you’ll see the price spreads between grades become more compact. This has already happened in some 19th century gold series.

In considering the grading of Carson City gold versus 20th century issues, there are other factors to analyze. CC gold is, as rule, rarer and as I stated above, rarer coins are graded more liberally than common coins. In addition, CC coins saw intense circulation, unlike 20th century coins which seldom entered commercial channels. Furthermore, Mint technology in 1920’s San Francisco was a heck of a lot better than it was in 1870’s Carson City and we can (and should) expect a better looking product which should be held to a more rigorous standard.

The bottom line is, if you judge CC double eagles by the same standards as 1920’s Saints, you are going to hate the CC coins and not buy any. But if you learn what the standards are for CC double eagles and try to find coins that are aesthetically pleasing for the grade, you’ll be able to be a happy collector.

Coin Collecting Questions & Answers

I recently spoke at length to a number of people who were strongly considering becoming coin collectors. They all asked me a number of great questions. I thought I’d share one from each of them along with my answers. Q. How do I find a reputable dealer?

A. I recently moved to a new city (Portland, Oregon) and had to find all new doctors, tradespeople and stores. I made my decisions two ways. For the big decisions I relied on recommendations from trusted friends and acquaintances. For the less significant decisions I went with my gut. Choosing the right coin dealer(s) is the same.

If you’ve decided to form a highly specialized collection (Middle Date Large Cents, Three Dollar gold pieces or Civil War Tokens, as examples) find out who wrote the standard reference works and who typically handles the greatest number of choice, high quality pieces within a specific specialization. If you are working on a more general collection, ask around. Post on the PCGS and NGC message boards and determine whether Dealer X has a good reputation or not. I’d also strongly recommend sticking with PNG dealers. These individuals tend to be more established and reputable and most of the leading dealers are members of this organization.

And, finally, trust your gut. If a dealer strikes you as being a blowhard or a sleaze, don’t deal with him. Remember: your first impression about a coin dealer (or just about anyone else, for that matter...) is usually correct.

Q. Can I teach myself to grade coins based on images on websites?

A. Not a chance. Coins are three dimensional objects and until images are capable of accurately representing three dimensional objects they will never show subtleties such as luster and surface preservation. A good photograph can give a new collector a decent impression of a coin’s appearance but a clever photographer can manipulate an image through lighting or digital enhancement(s). Not to mention the fact that most new collectors do not really even know what they are looking at when they view images.

So, how does a new collector teach himself to grade? I’m not sure I can provide an answer that most collectors want to hear. I think that many collectors will NEVER be able to learn how to grade really well because grading is an aptitude. It’s no different than being able to hit a baseball or not. A limited number of people can hit a baseball well and only a few hundred people in the world can do it well enough to play professionally. Same with coin grading.

What the collector CAN teach himself is how to determine of a coin is nice or not. You may never be able to consistently figure if an MS66 is a nicer coin than an MS65 but you can be taught that certain “looks” on a coins are preferable to others. And that, I think, is what the new collector should aspire to learn.

Q. Is it important to go to coin shows?

A. It depends. I personally think that going to third-rate coins shows is a complete waste of time. But for the new collector, a good show like FUN or Summer ANA or Baltimore can be a useful experience. I think shows are more important as fact-gathering sources for new collectors than as places to buy coins. At shows you have to make quick decisions in a setting that is less than optimal. If you establish a good relationship with a dealer or two, you can be sent coins on an approval basis, view them at home, study price and population data and generally feel a lot less pressured than if you have to make a snap decision at the dealer’s table.

Q. How important is price when it comes to buying coins?

A. Everyone likes to feel that they got a fair value when they buy something. The same holds true with coins. But collectors who are totally focused on price are probably going to wind-up with a mediocre collection. I’m not making this statement just because I’m a dealer and I’m trying to “convince” you to pay a price for my coins, or anyone else’s. I can tell you, however, that to buy nice coins you have to be willing to pay a strong price. Collectors who are primarily focused on price are probably going to do this at the exclusion of quality.

So how, then, do you establish what a fair price is for a coin? For items that trade with frequency, like a common date MS65 St. Gaudens double eagle, this is very easy. You can see what examples have sold for at auction and you can check various dealer websites and see what specific coins are being listed for. With rare, thinly traded coins it is harder to determine value. Auction prices realized are certainly a good source. Asking a trusted dealer what you would have to pay for a certain coin is good idea as well.

Do you have questions about rare coin collecting that you’d like answered? If so, please feel free to email them to me at dwn@ont.com. I make no guarantees that they will get featured in future blogs but if I like your question(s) there is a good chance that they will become a topic of discussion.

Proposed New Grading System

Oh great…just what we need: more numbers to further complicate grading. I’ve got a proposal that doesn’t entail expanding the current Sheldon scale or creating new adjectives. But I think it could be very beneficial to collectors. Let me run it by you and see what you think. Back in the early to mid 1980’s, before the creation of PCGS and NGC, I knew a few reputable dealers who employed an expanded numerical grading system. This system never really caught on but the more I think about it, the more I like it.

A sample grade using this system would be as follows:

1886 $2.50 MS65 A/B/A/B/B

Basically what this means is that an 1886 quarter eagle has been graded MS65 and it is rated as an A for strike, B for luster, A for color, B for surface quality and B for overall eye appeal. This system was used, in a form somewhat similar to this, by ANACS back when they were the only game in town and graded coins using photo-certificates. What if PCGS and NGC decided to use this system and these expanded ratings appeared on their holders?

There are, of course, good things and bad things about this system. The good things are that these expanded grades tell a potential buyer more about a coin that just the simple grade of “MS65.” The negative aspect is that it potentially adds more subjectivity to a system that has already been accused of being too subjective.

But I don’t think this system is a negative. I think if standards are created within each series, than a system with expanded grade modifiers could be very helpful to the collector.

As an example, rating a coin from “A” to “F” based on strike is really not all that difficult. In the case of an 1886 quarter eagle—an issue that is generally seen very well struck—most examples will garner either an “A” or a “B.” What would be more difficult is an issue like an 1844-O eagle which shows a wide variation in strike. My answer for this is that only a few 1844-O eagles will be given an “A” for strike; most will be called a “B” or even a “C.”

Luster is not difficult to categorize. A coin either has superior luster (which means it will be given an “A”) or it has inferior luster (it will, in this case, probably be given a “C”).

Coloration on gold coins does not presently carry the weight that it does on silver so it should not prove to be as controversial to call a coin an “A” when it comes to this factor. However, there are certainly some subjective areas here, especially when it comes to circulated coins. As an example, I tend to not like coins which have what I call a “Euro Grime” look. These are coins that have been stored in European bank vaults for 50-100 years and they have developed a dark golden color with blackish highlights. Other people do like this color and think coins with this look are “original.”

Surface preservation is also reasonably easy to categorize. A coin with very clean surfaces for the grade and issue is clearly easy to identify as is a coin with heavily marked surfaces. Certain issues, like Type Two double eagles from San Francisco, are almost never seen with choice surfaces so an example that was given an “A” for its surfaces might be more desirable than one given a “C.”

The really difficult category would be the fifth and final one: eye appeal. This is clearly the most subjective of these categories. A coin that one person finds appealing might be looked at as unappealing by others. However, I think that experts can reach a very high level of consensus on eye appeal. If you show a certain Dahlonega half eagle to ten experts, I think that nine or ten of these people would consistently agree that this coin has “A” level eye appeal.

If all coins were given these five categories, it would be interesting to see the effect on pricing. Obviously, an 1886 quarter eagle in MS65 that was rated as A/A/A/B/A would sell for more money than a similarly graded coin that was rated as B/B/B/A/B.

I’ve read about possible changes to the Sheldon system which include expanding to a 100 point system. I hate this idea. But changing the current 70 point system to a system with five ranked categories just might make sense.

Pricing MS61 Gold Coins

Coin World Trends lists prices for every Uncirculated grade between MS60 and MS65 with the exception of MS61. So, how does one go about figuring a price for a coin graded MS61 by PCGS or NGC? This depends on a numbers of factors: what is the price differential between MS60 and MS62? How rare is the coin in MS61 and in the grades above this? How strong a level of demand is there for the specific date in this grade? And, of course, you must consider that old favorite: what does the coin look like? In other words, is the fact that it’s in an MS61 holder make any difference regarding its appearance versus if it were graded MS60?

The obvious solution to pricing an MS61 would be to take the MS60 and MS62 Trends values for a coin, add them together and then divide this number in half. Let’s pick a coin and try this and see what happens.

I am going to randomly select an 1857-C half eagle in MS61 for this experiment. The Trends value of this coin is $10,000 in MS60 and $20,000 in MS62. Add these two numbers together and you get $30,000, divide this in half and you get $15,000. Assuming that this coin is worth around 70% of Trends, our formula states that this coin should have a retail value of around $10,500.

Now let’s go on the Heritage Auction Archives and see what the last few MS61 examples of this date have sold for at auction. Between January 1998 and the present date, this firm has sold three PCGS MS61 examples for $7,130, $7,188 and $8,912 respectively as well as an NGC example for $8,970. So much for our MS61 value formula and its premise that an MS61 1857-C half eagle should be worth $10,500.

So what is this coin worth? Well, in MS60 Trends is $10,000. Assuming an MS60 is worth 70% of Trends (and I think this figure is high, given the assumption that most MS60 Charlotte half eagles are not very nice coins from the standpoint of appearance), we can state that this coin is worth around $7,000 in MS60. Even though Trends jumps significantly in MS62, there are enough coins graded in MS60 and MS61 to satisfy the admittedly limited demand for this date. My feeling is that an MS61 example of this particular coin should only command a premium of 10-15%, giving it a fair retail value of around $7,700-8,050. And the market seems to agree with this, using the four action appearances cited above as reference points.

Now that we know this formula is a dud, what is a good way to determine the value of an MS61 rare date gold coin? As I mentioned above, there are a lot of factors at hand.

What if a coin has very little difference in rarity between an MS60 and an MS61? An example of this would be an 1887-S double eagle. Now this is a fairly scarce and fairly popular date in a very widely collected series. But it shows a current PCGS population of 39 coins in MS60 and 126 in MS61. The current Trends value for this date is $1,500 in MS60 and I would be a seller in the $1,100-1,300 range. I don’t think an MS61 would command much of a premium at all; possibly a few hundred dollars at most.

What’s an example where a one point increase from MS60 to MS61 could make a significant price increase? Let’s look at a rare coin in a popular series.

The 1856-O eagle is a truly rare coin in Uncirculated grades. PCGS has a population of just one coin in MS60 with none better while NGC shows a population of three in MS60 and none above this. There is no Trends value listed for this issue in MS60 while CDN Quarterly Bid is $13,500. I would be a very willing buyer of the PCGS MS60 example of this date for $15,000; possibly even more if I thought it were nice for the grade. But what would this issue be worth in MS61? Assuming that the coin was solid for the grade, I think it would be a $30,000+ item. Why the huge price increase between MS60 and MS61? It would be a finest known example of a truly rare coin in a series in which there are enthusiastic, deep-pocketed buyers.

I have suggested to the Editor of Coin World Trends that they eliminate the Fine-12 column for gold coins (a grade that many issues do not even exist in) and, instead, add values for the more popular and more often seen MS61 grade. But until this is actually done, the collector will have to use some creativity in determining what an MS61 is actually worth.

Purchasing PQ Coins

Is it worthwhile for the collector to purchase PQ coins? I think it most assuredly is but my answer is tempered by two major “buts.” Namely: are the PQ coins you are buying really PQ and are you going to hold your coins long enough for their “PQ-ness” to matter. If you scan the ads in Coin World, you will note that many coins are given a PQ designation by their owners. It is my belief that nearly every coin listed in a retail ad in a publication like Coin World is not PQ. In fact, most of the coins in these ads are very low end for the grade.

As a dealer who prides himself in selling very nice coins, I do handle a number of pieces that I consider to be PQ for the grade. What exactly is my definition of a PQ coin? I view a PQ coin as one with very good eye appeal for the date and grade. It is a coin that is nice enough that I might have tried a few times to upgrade it. Any dealer who claims that his PQ coins are a “lock” to upgrade is either a liar or a fool. If they are so confident that their coins will upgrade then why aren’t they already in a higher grade holder? But there could be a legitimate reason why a certain coin does not work for a certain dealer. As an example, he might not be submitting it with the right coins or to the right service. I am good at getting coins to upgrade but I have seen, more times than I care to admit, a PQ coin that I sold to another dealer because I couldn’t get it to grade properly in a higher grade holder in someone else’s inventory.

Most smart dealers do one of two things with their really PQ coins. They either put them in auction and hope someone else pays too much money for it or they sell them to their best and most loyal customers. I have handled a number of coins three or four times over the past decade and each time I pass it forward to a collector who I like and who will, hopefully, sell it back to me when it comes time to move it.

As a collector, how much extra should you pay for a coin that you think is really PQ? This depends on a number of factors. How rare is the coin, especially in the next grade up? What is the price spread between the current grade and the next grade? Let’s say you are being offered a really nice coin in an AU50 holder that is worth $5,000 in this grade and $9,000 in AU55. If the coin is being priced to you at $8,000 this is clearly too much. At $6,000 the coin is a no-brainer. I’d say that $7,000 is probably an ideal price.

I mentioned above that PQ coins need to be looked at as long-term holds. Generally speaking, if you buy a PQ coin, do not expect to flip it to another dealer in a year for a big profit. If it were that easy, the dealer who you bought the coin from would have done it himself. The best strategy is to put your really PQ coins away for five years and then consider getting them regraded. Whether PCGS and NGC choose to admit it or not, grading standards do change over the long haul and a nice group of fresh-looking PQ coins could do very well if submitted at the right time.

If you are a bargain hunter or are the type of collector who is not loyal to one or two dealers, the chances are remote that you will buy PQ coins. The really nice PQ coins you see at auction are going to sell for more than you think they are worth (they’ll wind up being bought by a “crackout” dealer who is much better at grading then you are). And the really nice PQ coins that the dealer you shop with are going to be sold to the customers they regard as the most loyal. You’ll wind up with a bunch of pseudo-PQ coins that will not garner the enthusiastic response you hoped for when you try to sell them to the next generation of collectors.

Importance of Expert Assistance During Auctions

A recent auction experience reminded me why it is so important to view coins in the proper condition(s) and why it is so important for collectors to have an expert look at auctions lots for them. At the 2006 FUN show I was walking by the table of a West Coast auction firm who happened to have a group of coins on display for future sales. Included in this group was an early gold coin that was a major rarity and which had an excellent pedigree. I excitedly called a client of mine who I knew would be interested and told him about the coin. I hurriedly viewed it without magnification and using harsh convention center lighting. It looked magnificent to me and I relayed this to my client.

At another show a few months later, I looked at the coin again. It still appeared to be nice.

Prior to the June Long Beach sale, I touched base with my client and reminded him about the impending sale of this coin. Was he still interested? Very. Was he willing to pay what I felt he would have to in order to own this great coin? He said he was.

I viewed the coin again but this time with a 5X glass and using my special coin light that I bring with me to auction viewing rooms. As I tilted the coin into the light and rotated it on its axis, something looked wrong. I checked the coin again and realized that it had, in fact, been subtly wiped many years ago. To the naked eye, the coin looked like a virtual Gem and I had wondered why it was only in an MS62 holder. And given its impeccable pedigree, it had to be a great coin. Right?

Well it was a great coin. But it wasn’t going to upgrade and it did have a subtle but definite problem that might well have made it difficult to sell down the road. And I shuddered thinking about what would have happened if my client bought it and had me crack it out in an attempt to upgrade it. The coin might have wound up in an MS63 or even an MS64 holder. Or, it might have no-graded and we would have had a five-figure problem.

What’s the moral of this story? There is no possible way that the problem that this coin had could have been determined without seeing it in person. And even seeing it in person, it was very hard to detect the wipe lines with a good glass, a good light and an expert’s eyes looking at it. Considering that this coin was worth well north of $100,000 it presented a unique set of circumstances that I feel could only have been properly handled by a very knowledgeable dealer.

Grading Services

For the most part, the grading services do a decent job. Sure, they blow a few grades every now and then (after all, they’re only human…) and their lack of consistency can be infuriating. If I were the Commissioner of All Things Numismatic, what would be some of the things that I would make the services really improve on? 1. The line on AU55 and AU58 gold coins needs to be tighter. A coin in the higher AU grades needs to have a decent amount of natural mint luster present and not be riddled with marks. If a coin is very lustrous but very bagmarked, it shouldn’t be in an AU58 holder. If a coin has less than a third of its luster remaining, it certainly doesn’t deserve to be in a 58 holder.

The line on MS61 and MS62 coins should be tighter as well. Nearly every southern branch mint gold coin that I see in MS61 and MS62 holders has obvious wear. MS61 and MS62 used to be grades that meant a coin is free of wear. This needs to be the case once again.

2. Both services are maddingly inconsistent on their net grade policy. I have no problem with PCGS taking an AU58 coin that has been cleaned at one time and net grading it as an AU50. But this needs to be indicated on the holder. NGC has been a bit better with this but they tend to be inconsistent with this policy as well.

3. Both services need to reward submitters for keeping their coins original. The only way that people will be discouraged from cleaning or dipping nice original coins is if the services give such pieces high grades on their initial submission. I don’t know how many times I’ve had both services send me a subtle hint that the deeply toned, crusty coins I’ve just submitted could grade higher if they were lighter and more “commercial” in appearance. I’ve had to ruin some really nice coins because they wouldn’t work with this sort of original look.

4. The population reports are a disaster. Clean them up!! I don’t expect them to be perfect but I’d like them to be 75-85% accurate. Encourage submitters to redeem their grading inserts. Hire someone smart to go through submission reports and figure out which populations figures are greatly inflated by resubmissions. I contend that the grading services have been very lazy in this respect and that it would not take much effort for them to make their population figures far more accurate.

5. Stop encouraging submitters to destroy original Proof gold coins in order to get Ultra Cameo or Deep Cameo designations. We’ve gotten to the point where there are almost no original brilliant proof gold coins left. They’ve all been destroyed because the grading services have tacitly told submitters that their coins will be regarded as more valuable if they are bright and shiny and fully show contrast between the fields and the devices. By the time tastes revert back to originality, there will be no pieces left that haven’t been sent to NCS or dipped by submitters themselves.

If I had to address a complaint to each service on an individual basis, I would state the following:

To PCGS: Be more numismatic. With the exception of displaying Registry Sets at Long Beach shows, PCGS has done almost nothing to encourage numismatics. How about some original research? Or increasing the numbers of varieties recognized on holders?

To NGC: Change your holder. Let us be able to see the edges of the coins we own. Give the coins more room in their holders and make the background any color other than bright white which is hard to photo and not always easy on the eyes.

Online Coin Images

More and more I find myself buying and selling gold coins based on the images on my website and on other websites. Is this a good thing? I am a very strong advocate of the adage that there is absolutely no way that you can accurately grade a coin based on an image. But in today’s Internet-driven numismatic market many collectors and dealers have to make important and potentially expensive decisions based on images.

The reason that I hesitate to make certain decisions based on images is that, frankly, most of them are not very good. The large coin companies, who often handle hundreds if not thousands of coins at a time, are not able to take the time on each coin image that is required for them to be accurate.

There are a few things that I like about coin images. For one, they make nice, original coins look better than the typical coins offered for sale. In the past few years, I have become very “image conscious” when I buy coins. If a coin is overly bright or has funky color, it will not image well and will be a hard coin to sell. If a coin is crusty with dark, natural color and nice surfaces it will image well and, hopefully, be easier to sell.

Coin imaging is still unable to accurately capture a coin’s luster—which is best sensed in three dimensions, with the coin being spun back and forth. That’s one major reason why I am always very hesitant to buy a high grade Uncirculated or Proof coin without seeing it in person. Lower grade coins are different. I feel fairly comfortable buying circulated coins (up to AU50 or so) based on images because on these pieces luster is not an essential characteristic in determining grade.

There are other things to keep in mind when looking at coin images. Many people forget that the typical plastic slab has lots of wear and tear and this often makes the surfaces of coins look scuffy and scratched when they aren’t. In my experience, gold coins in PCGS holders photograph better than those in NGC holders. While I can’t offer scientific explanations as to why this is, my guess is that since coins are jammed tightly into white holders, this makes them a much more difficult subject to image than PCGS coins which float more loosely in clear holders.

As you become more familiar with certain rare coin firms, you learn more about their imaging. All of DWN’s images are taken using natural light and no coins are enhanced with Photoshop or other imaging software. But I can think of at least one major retail firm that blatantly uses Photoshop to make their Proof gold coins seem virtually flawless and an auction company who so totally enhances their color images that the coins in person look absolutely nothing like they do in the catalog.

There is still no substitute for buying coins based on seeing them in person but coin images are clearly getting better all the time and are becoming a huge factor in retail and auction sales. It will be interesting to see how this develops over the next few years, as digital cameras get better and better and new technology emerges that will enable websites to contain three dimension reproductions of coins and other flat objects.

Old Coin Holders

No term gets collectors or dealers more excited than “old holders.” An old holder coin is one that has been graded approximately ten years ago (or more) by PCGS or NGC. Old PCGS holders are often easily identified by having a green label insert and are sometimes smaller in size than the current capsules. Old NGC holders tend to have a somewhat chunky configuration and a totally different internal label which lacks a barcode. Say the words “old holders” and most collectors and dealers think of upgradeable coins. Clearly, grading standards were different back in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s. Many coins were very conservatively graded in the early days of PCGS and NGC and these can often be upgraded today if resubmitted.

So it should be a slam dunk when buying old holder coins, right? I mean it’s got to be a guarantee that an MS64 in an old green label PCGS holder is today’s MS65, no? Well this isn’t always the case. In fact, I would contend at this point in time many green label holders are, in fact, potential downgrades.

Oh sure, there are still some deals out there with groups of PCGS and NGC coins graded in 1990. These invariably wind-up in auction where dealers slug it out and play games of “bidding chicken” to see who is willing to stretch the most on potential upgrades. But I would contend that many of the stray old holder coins that collectors see at shows are time bombs.

Let’s say that PCGS had graded 250,000 coins by 1991 (and I’m willing to bet the actual number is substantially higher). The graders at PCGS are only human and certainly 2% of the coins that they had examined were errors on their part. Assuming that these numbers are correct, that means that 5,000 old holder coins exist(ed) that have major problems. These coins have been recolored or expertly repaired or have rim problems. Many of them have not been removed from their old holders because experts have seen them and determined that they will not upgrade. In many cases the only buyer of such a coin will be a naïve collector who is “certain” that “just because it’s in an older holder it has to upgrade.”

Look, I like old holder coins as much as the next guy. Show me an 1839-C quarter eagle in an old PCGS AU50 holder and my hear starts racing with visions of a five or eight point upgrade. But more often than not, most of the old holder coins I see these days are mistakes that are destined to be entombed in their final slab until the game changes.