Thread ATS about "rampant gradeflation"

I'm still learning and also an innocent bystander.

Sometimes I feel like a customer on the Shinkansen platform as the train roars through the station!

(I've spent a lot of time in Japan and have experienced the above. It's actually quite thrilling, but you know you're at the mercy of the train as it roars through the station at ~ 250 kph)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

That isn't true, lots of Saints show no wear, maybe some rubbing or friction from a bag or just handling.

There's an MS-69 1907 EHR Saint for viewing on Ebay; extreme example but shows that the rich back then were collecting coins and wanted them pristine.

 

No doubt that you are not most people, only Doug is as rigid and unyielding as you, slaves to a world of black and white, determined with all your might, not to ever see the grey areas.

When they left the presses, no, they did not start like that. But then again, they did not have a single bag mark either. Jaelus attempted to show you the trivial nature of your beliefs on this subject, but you simply invented a classification that supports your opinion.

You are free to believe that abrasions from coin to coin contact in a sliding motion causes a change in preservation state while coin to coin contact that cause marks simply degrade condition and don't change preservation state. But when that belief results in an entire series of coins (Saints) that are relegated to AU status, the rest of us see the flaw and refuse to accept the absolute philosophy that "wear is wear." When you an open an unsealed bag of Saints, and pull out coin after coin with high point friction, knowing that none have ever seen circulation, the logical result in the grading world is the market grading that you abhor.

This is a serious question. Why do you think that the TPGs make allowances for cabinet/roll friction?

 

It is nice to see you admit that your beliefs about grading are in fact, radical.

 

But that is the point! To him, any friction is wear.

Furthermore, I was not the one who originally stated that all Saints show some level of friction. That came directly from PCGS.

 

I wonder if the following three examples, all the same date/mint, graded by the same TPG, would qualify as the hypothetical exceptions described?: 1885cc MS64 grades. #371212163018 @$1167.08 and #391001046863 @$1083.71.

The TPG affirms by it's designated grade that these coins are not "Gem" quality, undeserving of a MS65 "Gem" grade, but adds a suffix, which seemingly deceives the buyer into believing the coin is more desirous than a "Gem" state MS65 certified coin.

I personally believe that the "Gem" state grade MS65 identical date/mint #151588852925 coin, which I purchased for $1025, is undergraded relative to higher priced/graded coins seen.

I anticipate a re-submission of my acquired 1885cc MS65 "Gem" Morgan to the other "Premier" TPG for an expected elevated grade.

JMHO

 

To further this point, I wouldn't even call that market grading, but rather a warranted grading exception for this series. This is a perfect example of what I was saying regarding the TPGs being consistent with their application of complex grading rules. It only appears to be inconsistent if your expectation is black and white.

But grading is not black and white. We know more about the quirks of many series and the underlying causes behind them than we did 30 years ago, and the internet has allowed for the rapid dissemination of information and new ideas. Grading has evolved and matured as a result, and has taken on a higher degree of complexity to match the reality.

The TPGs are pragmatists. They do not blindly adhere to a black and white grading approach for scenarios in which that approach does not make sense in practice. Grading rules take into consideration those very real and differing aspects between coining periods and between series (differing alloy composition, storage/transportation methods, and methods of manufacture and the resulting effects like die cracks, weak strikes, etc.). As we learn more, grading will evolve further, and the TPGs will adopt new standards and exceptions to keep up with the realities of the market.

If a black and white approach to grading (wear is wear) leads to the dubious conclusion that uncirculated examples of an entire series of coins are actually all circulated, isn't that clearly an indication that the approach is flawed?

 

Good catch, Lehigh...the coin I referenced apparently IS a proof.

I wonder if that PCGS statement applies to the Wells Fargo Hoard ? Probably.....I think that $4 MM 1907 Proof EHR is the only MS-69 I have heard of, the rest of the Saints max out at MS-68.

 

I'd rather you put it I'm not swallowing the head games you're swallowing and being fed a steady diet of. You don't think they're head games? Apply your theory on wear to stamps, comic books, sports cards, notes, any number of hobbies. Try telling a comic book collector he has a mint state comic book even though there's wear on it because you in your pretentious wisdom happened to determine that wear is in fact cabinet friction. Do you know what you're going to get? You're going to get, "So what, it's wear, and it affects the condition!" If not, "Go collect coins, because that's where you belong with that nonsense!" I hope I made my point.

 

Why do TPGs make allowances for cabinet friction, roll friction, and bag marks? Because they are sane, and not rigid to the point of insanity. If one wants only perfect coins, they should stick to collecting only graded moderns that are MS/PF 70, and stop worrying about grade inflation. Wait a minute--they'd argue that the 70s are really 68s or 69s, and that it is a TPG conspiracy to manipulate every coin market in every realm.

 

That's a little over the top. Are you calling collectors of stamps, comic books, sports cards, notes, etc., every other hobby, "rigid to the point of insanity," as well? Or, do you just reserve that profile for me? Oh, and our fearless leader, here, Doug, who probably forgot more about coins than most of these third-party "graders" will ever know?

 

Comic books are graded on a 10 point scale, where a 9.9 (MS) to 10 (Gem) is considered mint state. Near Mint, the equivalent of AU, is 9.0 to 9.8 and is considered to be the typical range of new condition a reader would receive them in from a comic shop, accounting for some minor wear in transport. So while you're right that they consider wear to be wear for a comic book, it's not really analogous to coin grading. Unlike with coins, the comic book grading scale is based entirely on condition without a hard delineation between circulated/uncirculated or complex uncirculated states. If comic book style grading was applied to coins, everything 50-68 would be considered AU. They don't have an expectation to receive comics in mint state. It's more of an ideal representing the best possible condition.

 

That is a matter of opinion. I stated fact--graders take storage into consideration, and if you have a problem with the word "rigid," perhaps the shoe fits a bit uncomfortably. As regards Doug's experience, that isn't what this thread is about--it concerns itself with TPG standards, and market grading/grade inflation. It isn't personal, but an exploration of the standards that some people think too flexible and others think realistic.

 

In every hobby grades are synonymous with state of preservation or condition because that's what the collectors want to know. Well, excepting the coin hobby. In the coin hobby the collectors want to know how eye appealing the coins are.

 

What's a matter of opinion? Every hobby is just as "rigid" on wear. Prove it wrong, I'm listening.

 

Oh, OK. I'll let you off the hook because of that "like."

 

Because you said it doesn't make it true either. The debate about minor storage friction, contact marks, and blemishes on uncirculated coins shall go on forever. If one talkes it rigidly, only a MS 70 coin is truly uncirculated, as it is unblemished. Obviously, this is an excessively rigid standard, as is no storage friction, and allowances being made for same.

 

Doesn't MS stand for Mint State? The state in which a coin leaves the mint? So whatever contact marks or blemishes are created at the mint would lower a coins MS grade?

Please slap me with some knowledge.

 

SMH, they are not head games, they are the result of logic and reason. You consider them head games simply because they are contrary to your own beliefs. And rather than open your mind to the virtues of those who hold a dissenting opinion to your own, you cast them as crooks or lemmings. I understand your point very well, and I can even understand how a collector would support the "wear is wear" philosophy, right up until the point that its flaw is exposed in the form of roll/cabinet friction.

I don't collect stamps, comic books, sports cards, or paper currency so I know very little about their grading systems. But for the sake of argument, lets say that you are correct and that in everyone of those hobbies, the "wear is wear" argument holds firm. So your point is that coins should be treated exactly the same as the other hobbies. And if coins were made from cardboard or paper, perhaps I would be inclined to agree with you.