How on Earth could PCGS have graded this coin problem free?!!!

I don't see it. I don't see more articles about TPG overgrading and the complainers are almost exclusively people who don't submit coins to the TPGs. However, I do remember a rash of threads both on the PCGS and NGC forum about the perceived tightening of standards following the inception of the CAC in 2008.

But hey, if you see a bunch of articles about TPG overgrading, provide us with some links. If the articles are written by established numismatists, that might actually change my mind.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Not sure I ignored them, prolly just missed them. I have taken some extended breaks from Cointalk in the past, some voluntary, some involuntary! Maybe you could just find the best two and link them in this thread. Meanwhile, I will search Google.

 

I google searched "PCGS overgrading" and found the following articles.

PCGS, NGC Coin Grading Scam Alert

Turns out this article is not about PCGS overgrading, rather how the TPGs were instrumental in ending overgrading. Here is a quote from the article.

"Grading services came to life because of the rampant practice of overgrading, which led to major rip-offs of unsuspecting gold coin buyers. The slabbing of coins has pretty much ended the practice of overgrading."

THE 10 GREATEST MYTHS OF ‘SLABBED’ COINS

Myth #4: Slabbing has established a completely fixed, totally consistent grading standard.

But if you go on to read Travers comments about this myth, it relates more to the inherent subjectivity of coin grading than a deliberate loosening of grading standards. I have often stated that gradeflation is the result of subjectivity. While some graders might consider a coin a high end MS65, other graders might consider that same coin a low end MS66. If there is a large enough jump in price from MS65 to MS66, eventually that coin will reside in an MS66 holder.

As an aside, Travers also discusses the internal use of A,B,C to describe incremental grading within a numerical grade while he worked as a grader for NGC in the late 80's. Sounds like the foundation of the CAC was created very early on in the grading rooms.

 

Okay Doug, I found an article that basically reiterates your sentiments on the subject. Though I find his explanation a little muddled.

Gradeflation Opens Up Questions

 

Was there a time when numeric designations were not used? When I see those numeric stratifications within the grade, that indicates to me some degree of precision.

If coin grades were simply Good, Very Good, Fine, Very Fine, etc., there is play in there for subjectivity. Although I'm sure there are boundaries... for instance, fine coins should never exhibit particular flaws, which always drop the coin down a grade.

But once those numeric assignments are made, I would have to think that there has been some calibration of standards that is rather objective. Otherwise, it's like a movie critic giving a movie one to five stars. A nice opinion, but hardly useful in a precise sense.

This is why I get a little bent when someone suggests that the TPGs are not intended to render authoritative judgments on the particular grade of coins. I think that's a huge cop out, and on top of that, it is demonstrably not true in the practice of buying and selling coins today. Buyers WANT an authoritative, relatively objective grade based on shared or published standards. Otherwise, there would be no CAC.

The entire issue, in my view, hinges on allowing TPGs to push grades around based on aesthetics and rarity. That's just stupid. I don't need an expert to tell me a coin is attractive or ugly. I need them to tell me it is genuine, that it hasn't been cleaned, and how well it has been physically preserved.

When comic books are graded, the graders do not look at the yellowing of the paper and try to discern how beautiful the color of yellow is. They knock the book down a grade or two for not having white pages, depending on the severity of the yellowing. You know what you are dealing with. Rusty staples? Dings the grade. Creases? How many creases? A rip? How long is it?

I can decide for myself if the coin is attractive or desirable. That's not the kind of info I need from TPGs.

 

I would like to believe in the integrity of grading services but with every new surprise, it becomes a mute point. Grading is a necessary sales technique for auctions. It's amazing how the same coin receives different grades from differerent grading companies and it is the great unknown as to how many dealers resubmit coin after coin in order to receive a higher grade. Nice business?

 

I suspect that is particularly true at PCGS.

 

As a world coin enthusiast (primarily), the main reason for submitting to TPG is usually to establish authenticity, not grade. It has always surprised me that some US collectors get so obsessed with the assigned grade, and that pricing differentials in the hobby for US coins has become so lock-step with the assigned grade. To my way of thinking, there simply isn't a rational explanation for the value of a coin to jump ten-fold on a single point increase, no matter if it's 64 to 65 or 65 to 66 or whatever. I understand the influence registry sets have on this sort of thing, but the truth is, many "finest known" coins are of questionably more desirable esthetics than many lesser graded coins of the same issue.

The whole discussion reminds me of a friend who once taught psychology at UMKC. He could go into elaborate detail while discussing the IQ difference between an imbecile, a moron, and an idiot.

 

To me, the subjective aesthetic value of a coin and its objective condition should be separate spheres. One is artistic, one is scientific. If I am buying a car, any experienced person can tell me that the frame is bent, or the engine has been replaced, or it shows signs of having been repainted. If I want to do my homework, I can aspire to detect such things, and probably should. But no one can tell me if I like the car or not. No one can tell me if I want to buy it or not.

Give the coins a technical grade based on deductive observation of the physical coin, and leave to the market the task of assigning a value to the happy feeling it gives people. I know that's not how things are, but in my view that's the core of the grading inconsistency problem.

 

Meh... I don't remember a time when people *didn't* complain about TPG inconsistancies. I remember back when I was 13 or so, talking to a coin dealer (who specialized in extremely rare and hard-to-find newsworthy pieces) and he ranted about this. That was 20 years ago.

I also haven't seen much value in CAC before, but maybe this is an example of where it has merit.

If PCGS is loosening their standards I'm almost certain it's because more people have been submitting to NGC just to get the better grade. There probably is some bias too, in rare occasions.

That said, I agree with the post before that TPG's *do* have value in this hobby, especially now that much of it is online. You had sight-unseen coins back then too, from catalogues or magazines or whatever but I think the majority of coins were sold by dealers at actual coin stores. These days, I see many of *those* dealers turning to sites like eBay simply because they end up getting a better deal and a much broader cilent base.

It almost makes me wonder if I should get my high-priced ancients certified, despite NGC's fine print they don't even guarantee authenticity unlike they do with modern US coins. I "know" these coins are authentic, mostly because I buy from certain well-established auction houses and have read up on fakes. (I know is in quotes because I'm aware there have even been moderns that were fakes that made it through the TPG's).

If I were to sell them raw on eBay however, I doubt I'd get the same as I would somewhere like CNG which generally sells them raw anyway (come to think of it, I'm not even sure I've seen a slabbed coin on their site). It's kind of a moot point though, because I have no desire to sell any of that stuff at the moment. I'm more a collector than a dealer; I only deal duplicates when I come across something better.

With sites like eBay though, there are SO MANY fakes and problem coins it's the only way people will be able to buy the high-end stuff and have assurance what they are buying is as stated. I've bought some expensive raw coins that looked AWESOME from the pictures but after inspection found that they were either cleaned or damaged in some way hidden by the photography. I got my money back, though.

Heck, just today on the ride back home I ran across this:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/AEGINA-SEA-...E-/161473329802?ssPageName=ADME:X:AAQ:US:1123

I messaged the dealer... I'm not sure if they even know it's a fake, but I haven't gotten a response back.

EDIT: I just now got a response. He said "It was purchased from the estate of a well known british collector" and so would have no doubt it's genuine. I had already told him the weight and composition were incorrect and the size points to a stater. I guess we'll see what happens. Looking at his store, it doesn't seem like this is the only one...

 

You are a little devil, aren't you? : - )

 

LOL, both of those articles are about the same exact topic written by the same guy I already quoted above. I have never disputed that the TPGs have changed their policies regarding the expansion of market grading, the foremost topic being what qualifies for "cabinet/roll friction".

But that has never been your contention. You continually spread the notion that in 2004 the grading services across the board changed their standards for numerical grades across every series of coin. What you have never been able to do is provide any reference from anyone that it actually happened and the articles you linked don't accomplish it either.

So you want me to read a dozen or so articles in an attempt to find your needle in a haystack. Did you even read them? Or are you banking on the fact that I won't want to read them? If there are quotes in these articles from respected names about TPG grading standards changing, then find the quotes and post them. This little tactic is the same as providing me a link to the google home page.

 

So, it makes sense to me in light of what has been posted here that many (most?) of the slabbed offerings on eBay at any given time are either overgraded coins sold by submitters who got lucky, or part of a glut of undesirable but favorably graded coins cranked out by TPGs.

What do you guys think of the inventory of the David Lawrence site by comparison? They claim to favor the better coins, and also assign their own star rating for attractiveness.

I have yet to make it to a coin show, so I don't have that experience to go by.

Most of the slabbed coins at my local coin shops are graded bullion.

 

I read all of your quotes, and not one person ever stated that the TPGs have loosened their grading standards. All they said was that they have seen overgraded coins. Guess what, so have I and everybody else. But if you were to ask every expert, they will also tell you that they have seen many coins that were graded correctly as well. Take Laura Sperber for example. She routinely talks about other dealers selling DRECK, yet she never classifies the material that she sells as overgraded. In fact, she routinely states that the coins she sells for Legend are undergraded. How could the TPGs possibly be undergrading coins if the standards were loosened?

The quote that sums up the state of grading within the TPGs is this one:

"I thought that grading was decent but unspectacular in 2011. I still see coins in new holders that are doctored and some that seem so blatantly so that it makes me scratch my head and ask “how did they ever miss that?” But the level of consistency that I experienced, personally, in 2011, from both PCGS and NGC was pretty impressive. I think something that everyone has to remember is that you usually don’t see the coins that are undergraded or even properly graded in dealer’s inventories or in auctions. Those coins are easy to sell and they get placed with good clients. What you usually see are the overgraded coins that are “hits” for the submitters."

Furthermore, when he says "overgraded coins that are hits for the submitters" it includes the coins that would be considered PQ for the lower grade but end up being "C" coins for the higher grade.

Contrary to your belief that almost every coin is overgraded, if you read the quotes that you posted, it is clear that the experts believe that there are plenty of properly graded coins and SOME that are overgraded. After all, that is the entire marketing strategy of the CAC, to separate the wheat from the chaff within a grade. If every coin that the TPGs handled were overgraded, how would any coin ever get a CAC green sticker? And just to give you an idea, CAC has stickered almost 50,000 Morgan Dollars alone. Is it your contention that the CAC is only stickering coins encapsulated prior to 2004?

As for you evidence from PCGS, it needs to relate to a change in standards regarding numerical grades. I have always agreed that they have changed standards in the form of expanding market grading principles and have reiterated this point many times over the last week. But if you can provide evidence from PCGS that they have loosened their standards for numerical grades across the board, I will become a believer. But you have no such evidence! If you did, you would have showed it long ago!

The key to this whole conversation boils down to 2 simple truths. First, that you believe that almost every TPG graded coin is overgraded. Second, you believe that you are never wrong despite a mountain of evidence showing you that you are.