Technical v. Market Grading

Discussion in 'Coin Chat' started by Kirkuleez, May 15, 2012.

  1. onejinx

    onejinx Junior Member

    I think alot of the rise in population numbers during the early to mid 2000's was lots of people playing the crack out game. And the labels not being returned.
     
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. rlm's cents

    rlm's cents Numismatist

    I will bet a lot of it was because of eBay. Dealers discovered that raw coins did not sell well from eBay pictures so they got them slabbed for eBay and eBay started many several new collectors who want to slab their coins. Some deserved to be slabbed and many did not. Either way, the number kept/keep growing. I am sure the crackout game enters in there also.
     
  4. rzage

    rzage What Goes Around Comes Around .

    You're right on that account , there's a reason those coins in most OGHs and rattlers are still in them , people knew they were low for the grade and wouldn't upgrade , no reason to pop them out when they might get down graded .
     
  5. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    Dick I guess that's partially because I didn't really understand your first post. I dunno, maybe I didn't read it closely enough. But once I understood that the changes you were talking about took place that quickly, I acknowledged that maybe Heritage had a glitch.

    And given what you have told me in this thread, it appears they still do on some coins.
     
  6. Lehigh96

    Lehigh96 Toning Enthusiast

    Actually, NO, I didn't. At least not with the intent you are claiming. I was working on my response to your comment in another thread, http://www.cointalk.com/t206022-9/#ixzz1vWBX8Mop , when I stumbled upon your previous comments about gradeflation. Notice that both of the threads that I quoted here are GTG threads started by me! It was dumb luck that I found it Doug.


    No I won't. You are the one claiming that grading standards have changed. It is incumbent upon you to prove that. As your proof, you offered population reports of ultra high grade moderns from 2003 & 2004. I debunked your theory rather easily. Ball is in your court.

    I will take your word for it!




    I only need the total number of MS graded coins for each coin listed in 2003 but if you want to give me all of the data for all of the MS grades I will take it. Unlike you, I don't make a hypothesis, and then try to make the numbers support my claim. I want to look at all of the relevant data so that I can make an informed conclusion. Your claim is that a population increase of a single grade of a single date/mm is evidence by itself that the TPG's DELIBERATELY changed their grading standards. I don't think it is possible to reach that conclusion with such little data and want to see more. That should be a sufficient answer to your question of why.
     
  7. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    Where is it written Paul that I have to prove everything I say, but you don't ever have to prove anything you say ? And that just because you say it, that I am wrong and you are right ?

    You did huh ? And how exactly did you do that ? I don't recall any evidence presented by you. At least I presented evidence, you have presented nothing except your personal claims that the reason for the sudden increase is due to an increase in submissions. So where is your evidence that submissions increased that much Paul ?

    Do you actually have any idea of what historical submission numbers are Paul ? I do - do you ? Back around 2002 NGC and PCGS each were grading about 100,000 coins a month. By around 2004, it was about the same. By around 2007 NGC was grading about 150,000 a month, and PCGS was grading about 100,000 a month. NGC's increase in submission numbers occurred gradually over that period of time. And you want to confirm those numbers - go read back issues of Coin World and Numismatic News. Or, ask Conder. I think he'll confirm that the numbers I mentioned are fairly close.

    So you tell me how with no increase in submission numbers, and assuming that the grading standards did not change - that there was such a huge increase in those grade populations.

    And it might be worth noting that these modern coins that you think don't really matter in determining if the TPGs changed their grading standards, because they are "modern" coins; well those modern coins make up about 50%, or more, of all the coins graded by the TPGs.

    Paul I can give you the pop numbers, in grades down to AU50, for every date for Bust halves back in 2003. And that is for every individual variety of Bust halves. PM me an email and I'll send it you in a spread sheet. It's too big to post here.

    And no Paul, I didn't try and skew the data by only presenting a few examples. I merely presented a few representative examples since I didn't want to type for a week.

    The evidence I have presented speaks for itself Paul. But you go right in ahead making claims, and saying that you have debunked my theory - without your having presented any evidence at all.
     
  8. mikenoodle

    mikenoodle The Village Idiot Supporter

    this is an awesome thread!!! It belongs on the main page!!! :thumb:
     
  9. Lehigh96

    Lehigh96 Toning Enthusiast

    It isn't written anywhere. But if you are going to make ridiculous claims and not back them up, don't get mad at me when I accuse you of blowing smoke.



    Doug, our entire conversation regarding gradeflation was in reference to classic coinage. You know it, I know it, heck even the newbies who can't spell gradeflation know it. So for you to hang your hat on some increases in modern ultra high grade coins is disingenuous at best. As for you submission numbers. Totals don't mean anything. You need to examine the number of high grade moderns being submitted year by year. Do you have that information?

    The reason I didn't provide any proof was because you decided to throw out stats on every single series of modern coins. Furthermore, you have data that I don't have. If you provide me with the population reports of all of the moderns in every grade for both 2003 & 2004, then I could do it. And if I can't, I will admit that I am wrong.



    You are a mod, why can't you just look up my e-mail? And yes, you did cherrypick the data. And no, the data doesn't speak for itself. The only way you can avoid the perception that you are skewing the data is to show transparency by disclosing all of the data that you have to me so that I can analyze it for myself.

    BTW, In what year would you say that the US mint perfected it's quality with regard to it's production to proof coinage? Mid 90's?
     
  10. Kirkuleez

    Kirkuleez 80 proof

    Are you guys still arguing about this? I think it's time for you guys to go grab a beer and hug it out.

    It is clear that everyone will not see eye to eye on this. I think that we all agree that the grades on very early slabs are tighter than on newer slabs. We may disagree on why this is, but we all know that it is the truth. NGC even said that it was "a learning curve".

    If we can shift from all of the numbers of population reports and submission rates, we can come to the root of the issue. How should we value the coins in early slabs? Should we treat them the same as a newer slab, add a point, crack them out for resubmission, throw them in the fire or just buy the coin in the slab? To me this is the root of the problem.

    BTW, Gradeflation is not a word so it can not be spelled wrong but it can be misinterpreted.
     
  11. Lehigh96

    Lehigh96 Toning Enthusiast

    LOL, got more than you bargained for huh? FWIW, I think we both tried to warn you! The second I saw this thread, my immediate reaction was "Oh no, not again"!
     
  12. Kirkuleez

    Kirkuleez 80 proof

    Yea I know I was warned, but a member PM a question regarding this and I didn't feel that it would be appropriate for me to give them just my opinion. I really did feel it was an important enough issue to get more than one point of view. Clearly, I agree with Doug's assessment regarding this, but your opinion is very valid as well. I hope that others will understand, based on this, how subjective grading is and how important it is to learn how to grade for themselves.

    TPGs have changed the market forever, for better or worse, but their opinion is not the only one that should count.
     
  13. rzage

    rzage What Goes Around Comes Around .

    Heck I thought it was over about 20 posts ago when they both sorta addmitted that there was indeed grade inflation . Still I wish more people would read this whole thread . There's very good valid points on both sides . Then they should go read or reread the PCGS grading standard book .
     
  14. mikenoodle

    mikenoodle The Village Idiot Supporter

    ok, now you've seen what happens in this thread and it continues every time a similar thread starts...

    What I suggest is that you grade the coins for yourself and view slabs with the understanding that some will be overgraded, some will be undergraded and some will be properly graded.There is no hard and fast rule to old slab or new. You can surmise that an older slab is less likely to be undergraded or it would have been cracked out years ago, but not even that is not certain.

    you've heard many of us say countless times that you should buy the coin and not the slab, threads like this one illustrate why. It's just not a black and white thing sometimes.
     
  15. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    Paul - you wouldn't admit you were wrong if God Almighty himself came down told you so.

    I have presented verifiable evidence of my claim. You have presented nothing, absolutely nothing ! Of course that's always how it is because you have no evidence.

    And now you have the guts to question my integrity ? I'm done with ya.

    By the way, anyone who wants of a copy of the spreadsheet with all of the grades, AU50 and up, and populations for Bust halves - just send me a PM with your email and I'll send it to you.

    edit - the numbers I provided for the moderns came an article published in Coin World 4/4/05.
     
  16. Kirkuleez

    Kirkuleez 80 proof

    I would refer you to post #91
     
  17. Lehigh96

    Lehigh96 Toning Enthusiast

    Where is this hissy fit coming from?

    In post #67 I clearly stated "Okay, I stand corrected". In the English language that means I was wrong. Just last night I posted a thread that was all about me making mistakes. STOP TELLING THE MEMBERS OF THIS FORUM THAT I NEVER ADMIT WHEN I AM WRONG, IT IS A LIE!

    I did not question your integrity any more than you have mine!

    I want a copy of the spreadsheet for the moderns and the bust halves, you have my e-mail. Both from this forum and when I was banned.
     
  18. medoraman

    medoraman Supporter! Supporter

    "Subtle" changes like "roll friction" to be BU huh? How about "Cabinet friction"? How about a TPG in NN admitting AU coins are regularly in 62, 63, and sometimes 64 holders now. I simply do not know how you classify worn coins being labelled as BU as very "subtle" Paul. ;)

    I agree AG-XF grading has not changed much, thankfully. AU-BU I do not think is cut and dried as you make out Paul.
     
  19. Lehigh96

    Lehigh96 Toning Enthusiast

    First, the grading standard has not changed with respect to the market grading of coins with high point friction. What has changed is the application of the standard. There is ambiguity within all grading standards that result in the very subjectivity that causes gradeflation. Here is what PCGS says about the subject:

    The problem lies in distinguishing which coins have friction from "wear" as opposed to "roll friction." It is extremely difficult and almost impossible to do once a coin has been dipped. The TPG's though diligent have no other choice but to admit that some of the coins they have graded with friction as MS coins are actually AU coins with circulation wear. It is unavoidable, much in the same way that it is unavoidable that they sometimes grade artificially toned coins. However, the only alternative to this is to adopt the "wear is wear" standard that you and Doug support so fervently. The result: All Saints would have the same grade: AU. Do you really want to put an MS65 Saint on a table next to an AU55 and call them equal? Apparently you do!

    The subtle change was not in that actual standard but the application of that standard. I think in the early years the TPG's were hesitant to apply their own policy and when it doubt would grade the coin AU. Over time they became aware that the market demanded that more of these coins should be graded as mint state coins and they adjusted accordingly. It was never my intent to make it appear cut and dried. It is far from cut and dried. It is the second most controversial aspect of grading, behing only the market acceptability concept employed for toned coins.
     
  20. medoraman

    medoraman Supporter! Supporter

    Perfectly avoidable to me, do not slab worn coins as BU. End of story. Its honest, its real, and its the truth. I am sure "the market"(dealers who submit), don't like it, since they no longer get to sell AU coins as MS65.
     
  21. Lehigh96

    Lehigh96 Toning Enthusiast

    Did you even read my post?

    So, refusing to slab all coins with high point friction as uncirculated is NOT honest or truthful. And while you may think it is avoidable, it certainly isn't logical!
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page