Thread ATS about "rampant gradeflation"

Didn't CAC want to separate the A-B-C coins that supposedly all got the same grade during The Bubble Years, esp. for more expensive coins and/or Double Eagles (Saints, Liberty) ?

So it's just about eye appeal....luster ? Shine ? Nothing to do with any wear on high points or bag marks ?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

It's also for toning as well as coins that have some PL but don't meet the overall requirements. Maybe the obverse qualifies, but maybe the reverse doesn't meet it.

 

Just as a note, I find it interesting that Rick Snow's thread was deleted on CU but the other wasn't.

 

Who's RS and what was his thread about ?

 

The thread consisted of an article Rick wrote about over- grading of mid grade 1877 IHC's, and how this has depressed the value of properly graded AU 50 1877 IHC's. There is a thread about this on the NGC forum with a link to the article itself which is actually pretty interesting reading. Rick is one of the top experts on flying eagle and Indian head cents and recently published a 2 volume definitive text on IHC varieties.

 

Rick has balls to have posted that thread. It was actually an article he wrote for the Longacre's Ledger. The ledger goes out to fly-inclub members.

 

It was a good article

 

I am not blaming the TPG's for inflating the overall value of coins. The problem, however, is the fact that inflation will not affect everyone the same in this hobby just as it doesn't affect everyone the same in an economy. An uneducated market place has a perceived value (from what they think is a trusted source) for what they are buying to which they won't realize their mistake until they go to sell.

 

Yes, GD....but I guess CACs own stated reason (on their web site and in interviews with John Albanese) is that so many coins got misgraded back then -- and in the years afterwards -- that you had a wide discrepancy in many popular coins, i.e., MS-65 common Saints.

I'm not blaming CAC, I realize they were formed over a decade after most of the damage had been done. But I think this notion that there are A-B-C coins for virtually ALL YEARS of coins is a bit much.

JMHO.

 

I don't mind CAC at all , as there is a definite difference in a lot of series between grades , though they should have stuck with just 2 tiers of strong or weak for the grade . Since they include solid for the grade and high for the grade as being stickered and low for the grade , not stickered that's all they really do anyways . I find CAC useful when bidding on Heritage where I can't see the coin in hand . Another set of eyes so to say .

 

Sorry to steal the thread , but Kasia I miss your Learning Hat Cat . I smiled every time I looked at it . Guess I'll get used to your new one . But the other was as Dana Carvey said "Special"

 

Doc I couldn't find the NGC thread , do you have a link ?

 

Just a thought (speculation, so maybe someone can confirm/deny this) after reading this and some of the PCGS board stuff, both now poofed and not poofed. Perhaps CAC coins don't get so much a "premium" on them, but are seen to be higher than the 'supposed' price for a coin in that grade (prices 'lowered' due to gradeflation bringing the prices down on all coins unseen in that grade (ie, AU sliders being slabbed at times as UNC but recognizing they have 'friction' on them, i.e, accepable' wear, or color on truly UNC coins to bump up a coin a notch or two, or even AU coins with market acceptable toning being graded as mid or higher UNC because allowing friction and toning/luster to override the actual wear noticed on the coin) simply by being a quality coin of that grade? So their price actually reflects what the price of that grade coin should be???

But at least CAC is an acceptable 'allowance' for a better price for a coin in that grade.

And market grading coins (like bumping up exceptional looking coins with toning, etc.) to an actual grade that it might sell for with a premium applied if it was a lower grade coin could be a reaction to the TPGs wanting to be able to put a price on each grade they do and not have extraneous features/likeability affect that pricing, because then they don't have to allow for that in seeing auction prices?

Again, this is just being tossed out there for discussion. I can't say it is true or not, but these are things that might possibly be what is behind this, no?

 

I liked my other one. I only changed this to show someone how to change the avatar. I think I miss that other one too, so back it goes.

 

Am I correct that TECHNICAL GRADING is going by the book methodically....would be a tougher standard...but MARKET GRADING is taking into account other items that may make a coin more 'desirable' and thus more valuable and hence more deserving of being bumped up 1 or 2 notches.

Am I correct or in the ballpark on this ?

 

Nope, completely wrong. Technical grading is what people use when they buy coins and market grading is what people use when they sell them.

 

Fair point, but I think if the photos are pretty good that most of the time there isn't much of a difference vs. examining it in person under ideal lighting conditions. As good as in person under proper lighting ? Of course not...but unless it's a super-high end coin where you have to look for tiny details, most of the time high-end photos are satisfactory.

Even when they have done tests using actual graders who have the coins in front of them, they find that the pros come to different grades and have trouble ID'ing which coins are MS-65, 66, etc. when asked to choose.

Agreed....while I can understand that the purists might look down to the TPGs, all-in-all, they do a good job and provide a useful service. That's why I think they are a big plus overall.

My only quibble is that it means they need to maintain their standards of consistency when grading. NOBODY expects perfection, but they shouldn't be off by more than 1 grade for the most part....2 grades off should be very rare, especially for more common coins (i.e., Saints, Morgans).

Agreed....what I find troubling is that nobody seems to agree on WHEN (or sometimes IF) the loose standards took place. I thought it happened during/after The Bubble years (1988-91), mostly the mid-1990's and lasted a few years, maybe up to a decade.

Pros I have talked to have said that the presence of the internet in the late-1990's/early-2000's led to the inability to pass off overgraded coins or series that were notorious for being overgraded. Seems logical to me, look at how much information you can get from 1 hour reading this forum or just Googling a topic as opposed to trying to get that same information 20+ years ago (phone calls, Gray Sheet, going to a LCS or coin show, etc. -- tedious and slow and time-consuming).

Bravo .....unless this person is spending an hour on each coin and cataloging/listing every blemish/nick/scratch/ding he/she sees under a 5x lens, how can you make a 1/2 point grade differential ?

MAYBE you can do it between MS-70's, 69's, and 68's where the amount of imperfections is alot lower. But to use it on MS-66's, 65's, and lower is....ridiculous.