The Gradeflation Thread

The topic of gradeflation seems to be something that we just can't stop discussing on this forum. Since so many people think that gradeflation is so rampant, it occurs to me that it should be easy to find examples where the grade of a coin has increased over the last 25 years. Please post you examples of gradeflation and we can discuss the reasons for the increased grade. I will start with a 1945-D Jefferson Nickel NGC MS65 that resided in an old fatty NGC slab. I cracked the coin out and resubmitted it because I knew that it had 5 full steps and I was hoping for a star designation. Here are the before and after photos:





Why do you think NGC thought this coin deserved a grade of MS65 in the early 90's but a grade of MS67 in 2013?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Different Grader probably?

 

Gradeflation is important to PCGS and NGC bottom lines. They need people to keep sending and resending in their coins. How else are they going to increase profits and appease shareholders?

 

Paul, is it possible that the marks at the base of Jeffie had something to do with the lower grade?

Chris

 

NGC is not a capital stock corporation.

Chris

 

I bought this PR64 Morgan. Sent it in and it came back PR64+, then sent it in again and it came back PR65. Here's the first and last pics. I bought it confident that it was better than a proof 64, so I don't think that's grade inflation, just because I think NOW it is properly graded, IMO.

 

20 years apart, most definitely

It really isn't, the number of crackouts/resubmissions is a very small % compared to new submissions and moderns.

 

The number of coins worth grading isn't finite. The mint pumps them out by the millions every year. That said, I have seen a number of coins rejected for what I consider phantom reasons. To date, nobody has ever shown me evidence that the TPGs have deliberately loosened grading standards.

 

So. Even private companies have shareholders.

 

It is impossible to judge proof coins from photos but my guess is that your proof Morgan Dollar was always a liner PR64/65 and that the subjectivity in grading determined why some would grade it PR64 and others PR65. This is a perfect example of gradeflation due to the inherent subjectivity in grading but it does not prove that standards were loosened, IMO.

 

I know that the Garrett class III 1804 silver dollar was PR45 in 1989 and is now a PR58...

 

Well I have a bad case of Gradeflation. Every time I look at my coins they go up a grade twice for every one time they go down.

 

Paul , if there's no grade inflation , what do you account for a 2 point rise in your coins grade ?

 

So you are saying that they loosened their own standards without knowing they were doing it? Can you explain how that would happen in a little more detail.

Even if you are correct about moderns, the largest growing area for TPGs is world coins. Personally, I think that the registries will keep the modern craze going for quite a long time.

 

I plainly admit that the surfaces of my Jefferson Nickel are MS66. The coin was given a grade bump to MS67 because of an above average strike, excellent luster, and outstanding eye appeal. I think that one of the graders was reluctant to give the coin a star designation because of the minor carbon spotting or the nature of the toning on Jeff's shoulder.

That explains why this coin with MS66 surfaces was graded as an MS67 but not why it was originally graded MS65 originally. I can only speculate, but my guess is that had this coin been dipped and submitted as a bright white coin, it may have been graded MS66. Another theory is that there was very little price difference between MS65-66-67 Jefferson Nickels at the time and all were very affordable. Since these coins were some of the lowest value coins, it stands to reason that they would be graded by the least experienced graders from which you would expect the largest margin of grading error. I will say that I have never seen a Jefferson Nickel with surfaces such as this graded MS65 and I have seen many with similar surfaces in MS67 holders (including old fatty holders).

 

It is possible, and I think those toning spots are what precluded the coin from getting a star designation upon resubmission.

 

I think I would characterize the decision to allow for roll friction a "conscious" one but when I hear loosening of standards I think of a change to the standards for numerical grades. Allowing for roll friction is more of an expansion of market grading principles and not what I would call loosening of standards. I think I will make my next example one where roll friction is involved.

I thought your answer was going to be more abstract. I think it is safe to assume that most knowledgeable numismatists understand that there is often a fine line between high end (PQ) coins of one grade and low end coins of the next highest grade. And when the price jump between grades is significant, it provides financial incentive for people to resubmit their PQ coins until the inherent subjectivity of coin grading yields a higher grade. This is what I consider the quintessential example of gradeflation. However, over time, is it possible that the sheer number of low end coins for a particular grade could desensitize the market into believing that these low end coins are actually representative of what that grade should look like rather than low end for the grade? If that were to happen, then there really would be an unconscious movement of the grading standard.