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

No. Common sense should prevail.

... maybe it would help if we had CAC stickers on the arguments that make the most sense.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

You might not have to get off the fence regarding the larger subject of whether or not the TPGs loosened their grading standards, but I think you can answer this question. Does the PCGS data for 2006 include modern coins or not? If the answer is yes, then it is pretty easy to say that the evidence that he posted is not the proverbial "smoking gun" and let the debate continue.

 

you will never understand. It's not up to you to control others opinions.

 

If someone keeps putting their "art" on display, it's a courtesy and a privilege for the "artist" to get noticed and questioned.

Instead of tossing around your "you don't understand" one-liners, why don't you explain the AU grade in an MS67 PCGS topic. That's a good one to start with. Here, I'll even provide you with a link, so you can't pretend to be lost, confused and disoriented on the forum...

https://www.cointalk.com/threads/guess-the-grade-1924-st-gaudens.247514/#post-1932043

We don't even know if the delusional AU is near 50 or 58, maybe it's a lot more than a 9 point slide on the scale?

What you don't understand, is that typing phrases like "you don't understand" and "that's your problem" are not even close to being a convincing argument on the topic.

 

Please explain, elaborate...

 

Well, in the end, PCGS and NGC are doing the grading, and PCGS and NGC have gained acceptance in the broader market, particularly online. Opinions about that are rather irrelevant at this point. I'm sure this presents a wonderful opportunity for coin shops to expand their customer base beyond driving distance, or even to ditch the storefront and work from home. The challenge for collectors is to weigh the grade and try to make the best call related to the coin. Which, if you think about it, just means every buyer has the benefit of a professional second opinion on every purchase, because they always had to weigh the grade of the coin.

 

Good luck getting a straight answer. Ldhair's style is to simply throw out a comment but never back it.

Example given. I am arguing dealer behavior and appropriate responses. Ldhair assumes I condone bad behavior because I am arguing the proper response to bad behavior. Yet no where do I say anything even close to the statements or comments he claims I did.

I never said that it was ok to be rude I was arguing how to deal with the behavior when encountered. But instead of backing his statements I simply get a one liner type of response you just got. That's just his style. Basically you have to hope his interpretation is positive because evidence based discussion with him is a no-go.

 

Anyone else hear that?

 

I certainly would want to argue with you. Evidence based discussions are truly the only ones i prefer to have. Good luck

 

Over and over I read post after post about the pop reports always backing the gradflation and even how "some people won't be happy" if they read and understood the numbers. Over and over I read this. And now here are with the raw data. 2.47%. I was taught statistics in my career, and was expecting something at least say 30-40%.

Yes the number of 69 and 70 coins went up over 100x. But uh there is no possibly way those numbers don't include moderns. Even if they did they still don't impact "historic" non modern coins in lower grades. 2.47% was extremely disappointing. It appears I can no longer trust the reputation of the poster when viewing the opinions made and not look at the actual data. At least not certain posters anymore. Again big let down from all the prior hype that was put out there. 2.47%? Very earth shattering.

 

I'm not here to argue. I give my opinion and I move on. I'll write pages about coins but not about people or the opinion they have on a topic.

 

You sure fooled me, especially when you make comments that aim to belittle what a person might choose to collect, then you feel the need to apologize. You're not the class act you attempt to portray.

 

Who did I belittle? If I ever did that, I'm sure I did apologize.

 

I speak from personal experience. Your forum approach is to poke the fire with your one-liners, then claim you are not here to argue. I prefer the straight shooter that does not shy away from a discussion, especially after coming across the way you often do. Enjoy your one-liners, as you try to distance yourself from in-depth conversation by acting like it is beneath you.

 

Who did I belittle because of what they collect

 

Actually the data is easy to argue with, as it shows that there were 661,496 pre-1965 classic coins graded MS69 by PCGS as of 2005. So far I've identified a grand total of 63 of these that have been sold to date on Heritage and not even all of them were graded by PCGS, so where are all the others? If there really are over 600,000 of them then shouldn't completed auction reports be full of them?

The data shows what it shows, which is that there was a large influx of modern coins certified during a 2 year period, hence the large increase in higher grades.

I respect your and other CT members' experience and expertise which is why I started this thread to begin with. Grading is subjective which means that a lot of the information is anecdotal. If you are saying that you personally have observed a trend of looser standards over the past several years, then I consider that to be more valid than my own observations, since you have looked at a lot more coins than I have. I just don't think that the particular data set you presented makes a good case.

Therefore I would like to propose making the data set more narrow. Why can't we take a particular classic coin series such as Morgan Dollars and make a year to year comparison of PCGS populations for each grade? For instance, if the overall certified population of Morgans increased by 20% in a 2 year period and this increase was concentrated disproportionately in the higher grades, then that would definitely point more conclusively to grade inflation.

Maybe somebody has this type of data at their disposal?"

 

I guess you'll never understand due to your selective memory or maybe it's just obliviousness. Unfortunate.

 

I used the same numbers you did, I just transposed them into a spreadsheet.

It is apparent that you have never heard the expression "dig your own grave!" Put down the shovel man, you passed 6 feet a long time ago. All of the rows on the 2003 population report add up perfectly. If you need proof, simply compare them to the top left corner of my spreadsheet where you will see they match my totals exactly. And just to be clear, the only numbers I input in my spreadsheet were the actual data. The totals are calculated via a simple sum formula. If you don't believe me, I can attach a copy of the spreadsheet to the thread. That said, the totals from 2006 do not add up. I really don't know what you are trying to prove, but to insinuate that PCGS deliberately created columns and rows with incorrect totals is utterly ridiculous. They made 2 obvious errors on one page: they claim that moderns are not included when the data clearly shows that they are and they couldn't even add their numbers correctly.

I don't care about the validity of the marketing campaign they use on the cover of their population reports. It isn't relevant to what we are talking about.

So you think that a 38% increase in the MS66 grade in just 2 years is HUGE huh? You just pointed out that in 2003, PCGS graded a total of 8 million coins. You also pointed out that in 2006, PCGS graded a total of 12 million coins. That is a 50% increase in the total number of coins graded, yet the number of MS66 coins only increased by 38%. Do you even understand that those numbers hurt your case?

Furthermore, I specifically showed you that the totals provided by PCGS in 2006 were incorrect. You not only agreed that they were incorrect, you went on to say they were supposed to be incorrect, but now you want to use them in your argument. If you look at my spreadsheet, the correct total for the MS66 grade in 2006 is 508,882 instead of 535,995 which yields and increase of 31% not 38%.

All that you have done is show that you don't possess the ability to analyze data. If you were to walk into a corporate meeting with the analysis you have provided above, you would be cleaning out your desk by the end of the day.

You can't simply look at total increases over a period of time and make any usefull analysis. The only way to analyze data such as this is to compare increases over time as a percentage of total. I provided that analysis for you in a very easy to read spreadsheet. If you are having trouble understanding the spreadsheet, feel free to ask.

But you are right, the data shows what it shows, and it's pretty hard to argue with. It shows that the overall increase as a % of total for the MS66 grade is 0.44%. That is simply not a big enough increase to conclude that PCGS loosened their standards.