“MS64 – The Catch All Grade” or ”PCGS’s Excuse For Being Unable to Make a Decision”.

I’ve been thinking about this now for at least a month. The dissatisfaction collectors have with grading is wide ranging and seems to touch anyone who is active today. One glaring reality that has my attention are the uneven ranges of each grade. For instance, how large is the range for MS61? Looking at pop reports, it appears to be a very tiny space. The same can be said for MS60. Anomalies like this abound with grading and is something most collectors know well.

Another instance involves MS62 and MS63. Sometimes MS63 appears to be a graveyard for “failed uncirculated coins”. This grade can be populated with ugly coins that can have horrid large spots, scratches everywhere in the fields, dead color, large ripples and numerous splotches. Some show a large ghost of an upside down Lincoln on the reverse or coins minted from dies so overused you can barely make out “IN GOD WE TRUST” on the obverse or “E PLURIBUS UNUM” on the reverse. Sometimes both are smeared beyond legibility. The strange anomaly about this is coins graded MS62 are often actually more attractive than a lot of these “failed gem MS63’s.  At other times MS62 and MS63 coins are beautiful, with nice luster and gloss (like those shown in the banner image). It’s almost like the PCGS graders were rushing and didn’t give some lower graded coins the credit they deserved.

So what about MS64? A lot of the time these are “failed gems”, or coins that just don’t quite make it as convincing MS65’s. That aspect I can understand. What has been puzzling me lately though how many coins are thrown into this grade. MS64 can be a gem that didn’t quite make it all the way to a coin that has all the problems of an ugly MS63. In my view, MS64 is the most misused grade of all. It seems to be a product of either laziness or indecision on the part of graders. The population reports bear this out. The 64 tier has by far has the highest population, sometimes exceeding the total of all the other MS grades of a given date combined.

This super-wide “catch all” grade is a failure of PCGS I believe.  It almost appears at times that MS64 is some sort of default or “catch-all” grade.  I wonder if Instead of putting every coin that has any appeal at all in this grade, if it would be more honest to go back to the 3 basic tiers that collectors lived with for decades before the Sheldon numbering scheme took over. The old idea was this: Uncirculated for all those ugly coins with obvious problems. Choice for all those coins that don’t quite live up to the gem standard. Gem for the attractive coins with no OBVIOUS distractions.  Finally, if a coin is without any distractions, Gem Plus is my suggestion for the coins that now exist in 66, 66+, 67 and 67+. Who can really tell a truthful and accurate repeatable explanation for all those incremental little grades. No one!

I can’t be convinced there is a consensus on the difference between a 67 and a 67+. Or even a 66+ and a 67 for that matter. And finally, the price guide jumps for these unexplainable grades put the final nail in this current failed system. A coin can double in price for each “jump” above 65. This is not tenable or defensible. I believe the only reason those grades exist is because of collector ego and the desire to beat out competitors. Registry sets have fueled a lot of this and in the end, collectors without deep pockets end up sitting on the sidelines watching the carnage as people pay four times as much for a 67+ as someone else who just bought a 66+. The real rub is the “difference” between the two coins. My guess is that barely more than half would agree on which one is the 67+ and which one is the 66+! In any event, I don’t see how the slight difference can explain the huge price difference between coins graded this way.

So, what to do. If a coin is really ugly, just call it UNC. period. If it is moderate with flaws, call it CHOICE. I can see CHOICE PLUS as a possible increment to allow for the moderate differences between coins that used to occupy 62, 63 and 64. GEM is gem – GEM PLUS is the cream.

As it stands now, 64 holds too many coins and is too broad a category. I suggest looking through a few sources on the internet and study the coins graded 64. I think you will discover as I did that the range of this grade is HUGE and has become ineffective as a usable descriptor of a coin’s condition.

This is all obviously just my opinion as it stands today. I have been frustrated about this and believe I’m not alone in feeling this. I admit it is easy to poke holes and harder to find better solutions but the way grading is today, I don’t think most collectors are being well served by it — not by a long shot.

A few days ago I started to make a list about each date and what the “scoop” was on finding good examples. I quickly gave up on it because it was daunting and also I wasn’t sure how much detail to put down. For example, should I just mention mint state? Should I say how hard each coin was to get in red, red-brown, and brown?  So it petered out before I got past “1920”.

I guess the impetus for doing the list stuck in my brain and some of it came spilling out when I started a communication with a coin collector friend about finding an especially tough date.

One thing I always wondered about are the statistical anomalies in our day to day hunts.  For example, I could search for months and not see a decent 1928-S (for instance). Then I go on vacation for a week and there are a dozen on eBay, and all at once!  I’ve seen this before. I think it happens to all of us. A collector friend of mine searched for a nice looking 1916 for seven years.

On the other side of the argument, we’ve all had those monsters we “lucked” into finding. A collector comrade has a real touch for 1914 as both his business strike and matte proof are super monsters. The point is that a person can get an idea about the difficulty of a certain coin and the whole thing is colored by luck. The longer you look the more the odds begin to even out but it does take time.

That being said, i did finally make my list!  In exceptional condition, I found the following the most frustrating:

• 1909-S.  You can find decent ones but the real lookers are almost nowhere to be found.
• 1915-S. I had a dog for 3 years waiting for something I could stand.
• 1917-S. Attractive examples just never show up anywhere.
• 1920-S. You can find nice browns but pristine well struck examples are elusive.
• 1925-S. Notorious for crappy strikes and warped planchets.
• 1927-S. Same as the 1925-S.

These are tough too:

• 1913-S. Often with a warped upper left quadrant on the reverse.
• 1914-S. Better strikes are available but be prepared to pay up the nose.
• 1918-S. A frustrating date to find with both sides of the coin attractive.
• 1919-S. These are everywhere but rarely are they nice.
• 1925-D. Often poorly struck.
• 1926-S.  Finding a nice red is near impossible but you can find attractive brown coins.
• 1928-S. Another case where coins are plentiful but rarely are they without spots or other problems.

Finally, the expensive:

• 1909-S VDB. So common really but SO expensive.  You can find attractive examples due to many being saved in high grades.
• 1914-D.  More common than people think, look at the POP reports, they’re everywhere — but XF or better is major dollars. Even so, it’s hard to find truly beautiful examples.  Most are mundane looking with little pop. Color is extremely rare.
• 1921-S. They get you coming and going on these and they are often ugly with stripes.
• 1923-S. Same as above.
• 1924-D. Rare and expensive and often ugly.
• 1924-S. Nice ones exist, but again, you’re going to pay for it.

More Details (Coin by Coin)

1909 VDB.  Being the first year of a new issue, these were saved in very large quantities. These are easy to find in any condition up through MS67. A nice example in choice will be well under $100. These are often described as brassy in appearance and the surfaces on a large percentage of them almost appear to be “whizzed”. In plain English, this means the surface has tiny lines everywhere, usually running parallel to each other. Toned examples, while not common can be found with a little patience but expect to pay a small premium. Beautifully toned examples are rarer and can cost up to 3X the guide price.

1909-S VDB.  With slightly under a half million minted, you would expect this date to be rare. Countering intuition, in reality this is not at all the case. Population reports reveal that among the early S mint coins, these are actually the most common! The availability however is not reflected in the price. Also, this date is one of the most consistent performers in value of all the early Lincolns. This coin is more of a condition rarity than its VDB cousin from Philadelphia. Very attractive coins are much rarer and if the collector can hold out for one and pay the price, these examples will reward the owner with steady gains in value. While most Lincoln cents have been flat in the last 15 years, the value of a high grade S-VDB has at least doubled. Unfortunately because of the demand for this storied coin, it is also the most often counterfeited Lincoln cent. Basic information on spotting fakes is easily found in books and the internet and it is of absolute importance to familiarize yourself with the necessary information to protect yourself from disappointment and loss of money. Authentication by a major third party grading company is an absolute necessity.

It’s fun to take a few minutes and think about your own experiences with this series!