[one_fine_dime] Are you submitting it raw or regrade in the current holder?

[IanRussell] I was planning to submit to CACG for crossover with min grade at VG10. If they disagree, I can then still try for a gold bean in its current pcgs G6 holder. What do you think?

[one_fine_dime] I would try gold bean first. If you are lucky, it might bring more value with the sticker than in a VG-10 holder. My two cents.

[pcgsregistrycollector] yeah, I wondered about that too! But is a gold stickered G6 more valuable than a CACG F12. Certainly hoping for F12.

[one_fine_dime] From what I've seen, gold CAC stickers skyrocket the price. They seem to be especially popular at GC.

[Winesteven] thanks for your comment. but, can you elaborate, I’m not sure I am following, what “game” ? I’m simply recognizing a significant grading error by PCGS.

[one_fine_dime] Grading is subjective, so if a TPG changes their mind and gives an upgrade, yes, one can say they made an error, but others can say it was just a difference of opinion. There are several aspects of maximizing value that involve “action” by the collector, whether by resubmitting a coin via Reconsideration, Regrade or crackout, submitting a coin for variety attribution if it adds value, submitting coins to CAC that might merit stickers, and taking into account the “value”of the current holder, potentially crossing coins from NGC to PCGS. On this latter point, yes, the coin is the coin, but for whatever reason, as a generalization the “market” values coins in PCGS holders higher than the same coin in an NGC holder. So yes, I refer to this process as a “game”, and while I participate, I recognize MANY other collectors choose not to, and that’s ok. Steve

Hi [Winesteven], thanks for your additional thoughts! Yes, I certainly see what you mean. Sure, grading is said to be an “art” as much as a “science”, so I completely agree that inherently it CAN be subjective. But I think it’s really only subjective IF one can identify already encapsulated coins of more than one grade that appear consistent with the coin in question. Meaning a borderline coin that “could go either way”. However, if you study the 1916-D grading and review enough holdered coins, you can easily see this is an OBJECTIVE error by PCGS. The reason I’m confident in that assessment is because one will not encounter ANY G6 slabbed 1916-D specimens that are consistent with the degree of circulation of this particular coin. I’d challenge anyone to find another example. It’s simply not a matter of one grade up or down, it appears to be an objective error. And I’ll likely submit to CACG later this year to prove it. Regarding NGC, I’ve been building a collection of early date mercury dimes, for around 10 years now. For circulated mercury dimes, I’ve consistently observed that NGC overgrades compared to PCGS, so I usually avoid those altogether. It’s really wild.

[one_fine_dime] Looking at these 2 coins together...they are so close. I can see a "tad" more detail on the Top coin. I have always thought that these grades of G4 & G6 or VG8 & VG10 etc are really splitting hairs, but I guess on expensive coins like the 16-D "hairs" matter.

[Dimeman] yep, and here we’re looking at a PCGS F12 on the top and a PCGS “G6” on the bottom. more than a “hair” off.

[Mattsrikki] Please start your own posts on your coins. We dont need posts from 2 years ago bumped up.

[one_fine_dime] Thank you! And best of luck on your search!