<https://boards.ngccoin.com/topic/425649-buy-the-coin-not-the-holder/#comment-9778819>
<http://schema.org/text>
"Thanks.  Yeah, having two degrees in mathematics, and having once been an actuary, I understand normal distributions, as I understand that the \"distance\" between an MS63 and either MS64 or MS62 is not the same as the \"distance\" between an XF45 and (were there such a thing) an XF44 or XF46.  My surprise is in finding a 1942/41-D Mercury dime, graded by NGC as AU50, that, to my eye at least, looks (at best) no better than my 1942/41 Mercury dime, graded by NGC as XF40 (both obverse and reverse).  And, further, I am surprised that that AU50 coin would be so very inferior (to my eye, at least) to the AU55 coin that I ultimately bought.\n \n\n\n\tFurther, I also have an AU53 (NGC) Mercury dime, and an XF45 (NGC) Mercury dime; the AU53 is clearly better (on both sides) than the AU50 candidate, and the XF45 is better on the obverse and comparable on the reverse to the AU50.\n \n\n\n\tSo here I am comparing XF40, XF45, AU50, AU53 and AU55 Mercury dimes, and they are not anything like the linear progression I would expect for five coins that are neighbors on the grading scale (given that there really is no \"grade\" between those five grades).  The most likely explanation, to me, is a combination of (i) I'm an amateur, not expert at grading coins, (ii) my XF40 is perhaps under-graded, (iii) the AU50 candidate is perhaps over-graded. and (iv) the AU55 that I bought is a strong example of an AU55 Mercury dime.\n \n\n\n\tAnd it also strongly points to a nontrivial number of slabbed coins, even from NGC and PCGS, being misgraded (beyond merely being on the weaker side of the normal distribution for what is legitimately a coin of that value).  This, to me, adds value to the CAC approval sticker (although I have only one such coin, but it is my most expensive coin).  \n\t\"Buy the coin,\" indeed!\n \n\n\n\tFun discussion; thanks!\n \n"
<https://boards.ngccoin.com/topic/425649-buy-the-coin-not-the-holder/>