Thread ATS about "rampant gradeflation"

The TPGs themselves tell us they are not part of grading. I agree with them.

 

Yeah, were I you, I would too

 

Equal how ? Equal in all other grading criteria - the things that are used to establish the grade of a coin.

I'm not talking value, never even mentioned value, because value has nothing to do with the grade. An '09-S VDB in 65 is worth many thousands of dollars. But a 2007 cent in 65 is worth what, a dollar, if that ? They both have the same grade so rather obviously the value does not determine the grade. Now yes those are extreme examples, but even an '09-S VDB in G6 is worth more, a lot more, than an '07 cent in 65. So again, value does not determine the grade.

Nor am I talking about aesthetics, I am talking about things that are physically there or not there on the coin. If a coin has large contact marks in the prime focal area, and it has equal luster, equal hairlines or lack of them, an equal quality of strike, is equally well centered, is struck on a planchet of equal quality, etc etc, as a coin that does not have those large contact marks in the prime focal area, then that coin is graded lower than the other example without them. And this is true every single time. Is it not ?

So now, we have 2 coins that are equal in every way, except one has die cracks and the other does not. Those die cracks are there, they are physical, measurable, they are tangible just like contact marks are tangible. And they are flaws just like contact marks are flaws. So how can those 2 coins possibly be graded the same ?

You know what the problem is with this ? The answer is obvious, and I think obvious to everybody, but nobody likes the answer.

 

I've said the same thing, but really what I am learning is that collectors still need to keep their eyes open and continue to be very diligent and critical of each coin, even with the TPG | CAC multi layered approach. The more I actually LOOK at coins, the more I realize this to be true:

TPG filter MANY really bad (problem) coins.
CAC filters out MANY really overgraded and/or problem coins that make it past TPG.

To me that means a large sample pool of TPG + CAC coins are going to be on a whole better quality than a large pool of non-TPG coins, and also better than a large pool of TPG / failed-CAC coins.

However, since neither TPG or CAC filters out ALL problems, or ALL over-graded coins, than there still exists a real need to LOOK at each coin yourself or have a dealer do so on your behalf. So buying CAC coins provides a safety net when buying coins based on photos, but it cannot replace a detailed review of the coin, even based on internet photos.

I have a few coins that are both TPG + CAC approved and clearly have issues and also overgraded. (Keep in mind, this is coming from me, a CAC-fanboy). I have evolved in my understanding of CAC, and that sticker might protect collectors from a lot, but its certainly cant protect you from everything.

 

Killer example, I've seen that coin image before.

Many collectors, me included, like a good die break, die crack, or other "flaw" in the minting of the coin. I think Doug will admit they can be interesting, and certainly agrees they are collected and desired and even sell for a premium in some cases. His point (I think), is that it is illogical to grade two coins otherwise identical, one with the minting issue, one without, as being the same exact numeric grade.

 

I find a lot of Doug's posts that way. Of course, the retorts by other respected members here can teach you a lot too. The volleying back and forth is what gets all the good info out there on the battlefield. Oh, books are good too, I discovered that recently. I'm getting me a coin edumacation. So much reading!

 

I assume you are being sarcastic? @Lehigh96 point was that he is more specific in his GTG threads than most people. He is not looking for what YOU would grade the coin, he is asking what members think the TPG graded the coin. And that, my friend, is a world of difference.

 

Hmmm, have you actually READ the ANA grading standards book(s)? I have, very recently and several times. You might think the PCGS written standards are loose, or the actual standards used at PCGS and NGC are loose, but I don't think it's very fair or accurate to say the ANA standards are "loose, arbitrary, and ill-defined". I've got the 7th edition in front of me now, and the grade levels are pretty well defined for each series. Yes, they consolidate some of the intermediate grades across all series, and list them in the front of the book.

But, if you've got a VF30 standard well defined for a particular series, and an XF40 standard well defined, and your coin exceeds the 30 and does not meet the 40, and the generic 35 description is a match, than yeah, your coin is a 35.

I would recommend you buy a copy of the 7th edition.

No, I'm not being snarky or snooty. I just bought the book recently myself. I thought the same things you did. And then I read the book.