Thread ATS about "rampant gradeflation"

I second this..

I had bought the 6th - and now the 7th....edited..the color photos in the 7th make it worth it, I also own a third edition bought years ago. The third is more like the 6th. The 7th is MUCH better. I also upgraded my Cherrypickers from 4th to 5th, havent read it much to notice the difference. I am still reading Jason Poe's the Art and Science of Grading coins....

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Thanks Ethan...it's on my TO BUY list.

 

Yes, that's exactly my point. The TPGs are market grading and they aren't downgrading for die cracks. This is a clear indication that the market doesn't see them as flaws and that they still fall under "esoteric aspects" to be determined by the collector in pricing. Doug is arguing that the TPGs and the market have all got it wrong.

But at the time of striking, the cracks are in the die and the die is being deliberately used. Let's say they carefully produce a fully struck coin with those dies, ensuring it does not come in contact with other coins. The resulting coin will be a fully lustrous perfect uncirculated specimen that is faithful to the dies used, is it not?

Take the Bashlow CSA restrikes for example since this represents the extreme. Here's an NGC MS68 example courtesy of Heritage, but if you care to check the pop reports, you'll see NGC and PCGS have both graded these up to 68s. We're not just talking die cracks here. These dies were defaced with a hammer and chisel. You can clearly get a perfect (or nearly so) coin from any die state.

 

When isn't he arguing he is right and the rest of the world is wrong?

Fantastic example of a coin in high mint state with strike flaws. Hard to get more extreme. I have one of those 68's interesting coins.

I'll say this though. I'm not personally in favor of market grading because I collect toned coins and with market grading, the coin gets a higher grade as the tpg market grade the coin, yet whenever you try to buy them sellers all act like the grade is technical and want a second "premium" on top of the market grading premium. For me just tell me what the technical grade is I can value the coin from there.

 

Sidebar about counterfeiting the slabs.....are the PCGS and NGC holograms able to be digitally encrypted with the actual grade and coin so even if you copy the numbers on the front, your slab can be ID'd as real or counterfeit from the hologram?

 

Be slick and anything is possible I guess

 

You're right, Gold. But it's different, today. Back then, we were collecting coins for their condition. Today, we're collecting them for their eye appeal.

 

Interesting discussion on die cracks. I think some of them can be very interesting. When collecting a large series (dates/mm's), it's nice to "break up" the monotony by adding coins with unique die cracks/breaks.

What's interesting is how to characterize the die break. Is it mint damage during the process or is it not? I can see both sides of the "coin"; pun intended.

On the one hand, the coin's design did not have "die cracks" and the orginal dies weren't made with them, so die cracks could be considered flaws. If they are considered flaws, than there is no way coins can achieve the same grade with everything being equal.

However, if you consider grading to start "as the mint intended", then you could argue that die cracks shouldn't reduce the technical grade. After all, if the mint didn't "intend" the coin to be stamped with die cracks, they would have stopped the process once a die crack was discovered, remove the die from production and insert new ones. It's clear they did not do this.

I was on the fence when I started this reply, but after typing, editing and re-typing, I believe that coins with die cracks should not grade the same as those without them, everything else being equal.

I own this coin and it's not been sent to be graded yet. I plan to do that this year. I love the coin and I think the die crack and reverse flaws add character to the coin. That being said, how can I expect my coin to achieve the same grade to a similar coin (strike, luster, lack of contact marks, light wear) that doesn't have these die cracks? My coin appears to be from a medium state die and IMO, is very eye appealing, but it certainly doesn't represent the coin as the designer intended.



So what grade reductions do you give a coin for having die cracks that don't distract from the overall eye appeal of a coin? Is it one point? 2? Do you count the number of die cracks? Do you consider the location? IMO, this is where it really gets subjective. After all, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. One mans rainbow toned morgan is another mans tarnished dreck.

 

Jaelus, the TPGs can never "get it wrong," not when they're market grading for the market for their slabs. These ANA market grading standards Doug is purporting to hold the TPGs to and judge their market grades by are irrational. I agree with you, the TPGs shouldn't be held to those irrational standards. They should be given license to make up their own irrational standards. Let me explain that, better, thusly. Take the ANA technical grading standards. Unlike the ANA market grading standards, the ANA didn't just pull those out of their hat. Those are rational standards related to how coins wear. The ANA didn't just make up those standards, then try to impose them on everybody. The ANA simply observed the rational standards and categorized them for everybody. When the ANA went market grading, they went silly. Well, guess what, the ANA isn't the only one with eyes? Once the ANA opened that door, that grades can be tied to eye appeal, that's when everything fell apart. No longer can anybody hold anybody to any grades, provided they both have eyes that can see. Bottom-line, what makes the ANA's irrational standards any the more legitimate than those of the TPGs? If one is going to answer, "Because the ANA is the ANA," sorry, not good enough.

 

I think that if a mint decides to produce coins with a flawed die then those coins produced should reside in details slabs. The coins still work for circulation which they are intended and I understand the financial reasoning, but should in no way compare to their problem free counterparts. Sure, people could still pay whatever they want for them but should not be graded as if they were problem free coins. IMO

 

Take the standing liberty quarter for example. The type II coin was considered flawed by the mint due to how the raised date wore quickly, and it was revised with the strikes of 1925. Can a "flawed" mint state type II SLQ achieve the same grade as a type III? Should all type I and type II standing liberty quarters get details grades because they were struck with flawed dies?

I think you answered your own question here. It's clear you think the coin is attractive and the die crack adds eye appeal. Why then should it detract from the grade? The TPGs don't seem to think it should. The market doesn't seem to think it should. The only thing it may affect is the value of the coin, but that is highly dependent on the buyer. Many collectors would be interested in that coin specifically for the die crack.

As for representing the coin as the designer intended. Take the standing liberty quarter again. The coin certainly doesn't represent the coin as the designer intended. Take a look at MacNeil's intended design for the coin.

The obverse especially was redesigned significantly by the mint, and then redesigned yet again in 1917. Should we downgrade all type I SLQs a step and all type IIs two steps for deviation from the designer's intent?

 

When I bought one for my type set, I bought a Type I coin. No, I don't think we should downgrade Type II's.

I guess I should have clarified a little about my use of the word designer. I understand your point, but I was thinking along the lines of once the master hub has been made. I realize that the end product can be a little different from the original designers intent for a variety of reasons.

 

Should you guys hold your wives to the same standards you hold your coins? Lol!

 

I would say that is a different story altogether. One is a design flaw (SLQ) and one is a process flaw. If the original SLQ were produced as designed, then no, they should not be in details slabs. Again, IMO.

 

And that is my point. Just as how changes the engraver makes that alter the end product are valid, so too are the changes the press operator makes that alter the end product.

But the design phase is just as much a part of the coining process. Flaws that will negatively impact strike and wear are supposed to be identified and eliminated in this phase. The resulting design flaw on the type I and II SLQs is actually a worse flaw than a die crack because it occurred earlier in the process and remained undetected, making it all the way into the end product. The end product was undeniably flawed. The mint admitted such when they revised the series in 1925. Despite being flawed, the coins are faithful as struck by the mint, the same as the ones with die cracks.

 

One was unintentional and the other was intentional. That is not the same in my book.

 

But it's the exact opposite of what you are thinking. The date flaw was absolutely not intentional. That mistake cost the mint quite a bit.

Cracked dies, on the other hand, were almost assuredly used intentionally. Sometimes they even switched which die was the hammer die when the other was shattered, demonstrating intent quite clearly.

 

Exactly. I wasn't trying to imply I thought it was the other was around. I'm saying a flaw that is intentional should be in a details slab.

 

I hear where you are coming from, but I think Condition and Eye Appeal are like those old Venn Diagrams we learned as kids...I think they overlap at least 80% and maybe 90% of the time.