Is it really possible that only PCGS and NGC get it right?

Insider said: ↑
Whatever. I'm not the "expert." You certainly know more about it than I do and I am learning a lot from your posts.

Vespadoctor1 Said:
I don't think I know much about anything. Read all the posts to gather a wealth of knowledge.

So do I but there is some real "Whatever" in many posts. Also, you have to know when the guys are joking around. Some may not.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

But that patent should at or just about at it's expiration point. I forget if patents are for 17 or 27 years. So the patent either expired in 2009 or will in 2019.

This is true or at least PCGS stated as such back when the + grading was introduced.

True but it was only a couple weeks not months.

There were at least a half dozen or more services before PCGS started up.

(thanks for the link to Desk Set, I had not been able to fine it on Youtube)

Have they? they had their scanning system for 25 years, but have they been using it? They didn't even start taking pictures of submission until 3 years ago (And I don't believe they take images of all submissions) and they only post a fraction of those. I would not be surprised if they DON'T have that database.

I was thinking PCGS still came out on top, but the grades from each were still all over the map. But if you took the range of grades for each coin and used them to create a "consensus" grade for the coin, the firm that hit that consensus grade almost every single time was....Accugrade.

I believe that FTC case was against PCGS. (At least I know PCGS had an FTC ruling against them related to overgrading, might have been a different case.)

This has been true for at least the past 120 years or so. Probably longer.

 

Sorry, you are not informed about this. As soon as ANACS announced they were going to grade coins and publish a book, INSAB started issuing a written opinion stating the grade of the coin as kept in the files for ID purposes. This card/opinion was free to any submitter. It was many MONTHS!

 

I am totally new to coin forms. I should be fired from my job if I had been doing this as long as you. I am enjoying all the old threads about BTDH topics! We are contemporaries and cannot believe we have not met LONG AGO at a major show.
I believe Condor has set me "straight" on a few occasions already

HOWEVER, I do disagree 100% on the history of ANACS/INSAB and their coin grading services as quoted by you. I certainly will try to find a copy of that book as I have wished someone would publish the history of ANACS and the other grading services. Congratulations are in order for Condor!!!! I should like to point out that Condor may be the leading authority on coin slabs and coin grading services; yet he may not have researched the subject completely. I hope to meet him one day to possibly add some information that may be lacking. It would be a crying shame if any omissions are not corrected in the 2nd edition.

For now, I cannot comment on any "historical facts" that may be in that book as I have not read it; but things don't look too good based on your statements. Is the International Numismatic Society Authentication Bureau - THE first TPGS even mentioned? NCI? I know that Hallenbeck's dad was collecting slabs from the very beginning. Years ago I gave him some.

Anyway, I was Charter Member #007 (I believe) in the INS and lived in D.C. I knew/visited the people at ANACS (in DC) and INSAB. I make my posts here based on what I learned from them about their grading systems and what I have read.

Thanks for the tip...Hope Condor's book is on Amazon. It will be my present to myself for sure.

 

Look Folks, the TPG's got into the coin grading business to address a problem which had been plaguing the Coin Market. Specifically the grading of a coin for sell or trade on the open Coin Dealer's Market.

Too often, see requests would come though over the Teletype machine for BU this or BU that only to have the seller deliver a bunch of slider coins which everybody knows are AU. These disputes were usually worked out but the fact remained that there was no authority on coin grading. Sure, there were experts around whose grading opinion were highly valued but these folks weren't in the business of grading coins other than what they were selling.

PCGS's idea was to come up with a company which would grade coins "for dealers" (us peons weren't allowed to get coins graded until 2002 with the advent of the Collectors Club) based upon a panel of "experts". Those "experts" reached a consensus grade for submitted coins and the Company, in turn, would guarantee those grading opinions with a "market value" cash guarantee.

In other words, "collectors" were not the intended audience for Professional Coin Grading. Coin Dealers were and you had to have a substantial footprint in the Coin Market to become an Authorized PCGS Coin Dealer that could submit coins for grading.


So, what the TPG's are and always have been are nothing more than at least 3 professional graders, offering their opinion on the grade of a coin for a price.

Since the grade of a coin is directly related to it's market value, not every coin in every series is graded the same way. In other words, there are NO technical requirements for a coin to be a specific grade.

That is true even today since all too often, folks post pictures of coins offered at various venues with the question of "How did this coin get that grade?" or "Why was this coin even graded since it obviously has scratches!"

Whether the TPG's get it right or whether the TPG's get it wrong is totally dependant upon whether or not the coin sells and for what price it sells for.

"MY" only concern with how a TPG grades my coins totally revolves around me selling them. I would like to be able to sell them for the highest price possible when the time comes to sell them. However, I am fully aware of the fact that what I paid $200 for might not be worth $10 in the coming years simply because the coin market, amongst us "dweebs", is a very fickled market. Just like it was back when the 1950-D Jefferson was commanding as much as $75 apiece and back when the 1973-S Silver Proof Eisenhower Dollar was getting $300 per coin.

So, whether they are right or whether they are wrong is totally up to the collector because we already know that virtually EVERY coin dealer out there will say that the coin they have for sale is "under graded".

Like wise absolutely ZERO Coin Dealers out there will return a coin to a TPGm that they submitted for grading, with the note that says: "I've looked at this coin over and over again and truly believe that you've over graded it by at least 2 points. Please put it in an MS60 Slab"

 

HELLLLLLLP! Can find no info on Condor's book. So far, my search has lead to a what appears to be a "boiler room" operation in MN. Anyone know the exact title?
Thanks.

 

I would like to know what standards are different to make a PF69 a PF70 in a coin like $1 LBJ Reverse Proof. The PF69 sells for $60 and the PF70 sells for $3300. We cannot find out what imperfections make the difference.

 

I wanted to put "LOVE THIS" entire post but "Like" was the only choice

 

I would love to read Condor's book. What's the title?

 

Thought this was answered before...let me go into detail. Look at page#267 in the ANA grading standards It is at the beginning of the Morgan $ section. It is there in earlier editions also.

MS/PR-70 is suppose to be a perfect coin. Until many years age they did not exist, although they actually did in modern (back then) sets. Finally the TPGS added 67, and higher levels to the grading scale until one service started calling types of coins such as Silver Eagles MS-70. I've been informed that Condor knows when everything happened regarding TPGS so he can educate all of us on the dates all the changes took place. At the time things were going on it was not important to record; but many are alive who can fill in the blanks for posterity. Let's get the facts "right" with some detective work before they become forgotten. I am fairly certain that NGC was the last service (Condor?) to add 70's to their company's holders.

According to the ANA book a MS/PR-70 will have no contact marks or hairlines under magnification (NO POWER SPECIFIED. I think TPGS say 5X [Condor?]). Additionally the piece should have "Very attractive fully original luster" and "Outstanding eye appeal." The 69's have 1 or two minuscule imperfections.

Now my opinion: 70's should be perfect. AFAIK all the grading services allow tiny "struck thrus" from lint, and various other causes; however, many 70's are perfect in slabs, without any mint-made imperfections. For me, if I see even one POST-MINT hit, hairline, or imperfection, it becomes a 69. You will find that standard is unrealistic because modern coins like SE are graded quickly by eye (Condor?) and sometimes coins closer to the ANA 68 standard are graded as 70's.

 

Yes I do, and INS was the first grading service. And yes I cover NCI, it began in December of 1984 (Although in their own grading guide, they say they began in 1985. I have certificates dated in 1984.) NCI's timeline can be confusing though because they used six different generation of certificate but the dates of usage show considerable overlap as if they used whatever certificate happened to be available and made no effort to have a clean transition from one to another. They did not use slabs at first and I have not seen any slab paired with it's certificate that was dated before late 87/early 88.

It is possible you may have better information than I have on INS as all I had was published information to go by. (and I am not infallible) Their announcement that they were now grading coins predated ANACS's by just a couple weeks, but it is possible they were doing it before they made there announcement. Examination of early INS graded coins would help to clear up the matter but unfortunately they are pretty rare. My earliest example of an INS is not dated but has Charles Hoskins signature so it has to date after 10/76. My earliest DATED INS certificate is from 10/1987. INS was in existence before Hoskins joined them, but I don't have anything from that period. They also lasted much later than I originally believed. For a long time I though they went out of business in 1992, but I have seen a single example of an INS slab from 1997. I have images of it but could not afford to buy it. (it had a proof 1840 half cent in it.)

It is highly unlikely you will find a copy of the book. it is LONG out of print and almost never comes up on the market. the last person I saw who had copies was John Burns and that was maybe five years ago and I believe he has been dead for what two years now and if he still had any they are now disbursed.

Thanks for the info about Ken collecting slabs, I'll have to drop him a line he may have some early ones I haven't seen and some extra information.

And the title of the book was

Third Party Grading/Certification Services & Slab/Certificate Varieties

 

What is your definition of a hairline? Please

 

Actually, Hoskins and a group of mostly foreign/ancient coin dealers (International) such as George Beach, Lucien Birkler, and so many more well-know numismatists I have not mentioned (forgive me) started INS when Hoskins resigned from the Directorship of ANACS when ANA moved it to CO. Along with being on the board and one of the principles, he assumed duties as Director of the INS Authentication Bureau immediately. The Hoskins family held a note for some of the start up expenses. Fazzari also worked for INSAB but not full time until later. They are the numismatists who developed the Technical (Hoskins called it "archival grading") Grading System used at first only to help identify coins for internal ANACS records.

While at ANACS, Hoskins and Fazzari attended the first ANA Grading Rountable which probably marked the actual beginning of the ANA's attempt to establish some sort of grading standards in earnest. Anyway, ANACS was moved. Fazzari has written that the "true" technical grading method (which was carried over to the INSAB) became "bastardized" (perhaps he should have said "somewhat changed in a few respects") by the ANA. For example: Unfortunately, the amount of wear - the only thing to lower a circulated coin's technical grade - was combined with other attributes such as marks (choice vs typical). Therefore, the "new" ANA "so-called" Technical system no longer worked as originally devised. Fazzari has written about many of these things in Numismatic News over the years.

Hoskins has passed away. After 1986, PCGS took the biggest part of the grading business and INS was disbanded. Hoskins continued the authentication business from PA. I last saw him at the ANA Convention in Philly. Fazzari has been a grader/authenticator at various services. There are several people still alive you may wish to contact about the early years of grading services. Tom Delorey, Dave Bowers, Skip Fazzari, Ken Bresett, James Halperin, Randy Campbell, Rick Montgomery, Brian Silliman, Ken Hallenbeck, and... Most of these people were around/involved before 1980 and some back to the 1970's.
This is

 

Hairline:

1. A very slender line.
2. The lower edge of the hair, esp. along the upper forehead.
3. You'll know it when you see one. Couldn't resist.

Now as I said previously, the #1 entry in a dictionary is usually the best.

If you wish to see a hairline take a look at a few fresh, "raw" proof coins. Tip them at the same time you turn them through 360 degrees under bright light in a dark room. It's best to use a nice new coin because then you will probably see one extremely fine shiny scratch which flashes out then disappears as you keep turning the coin. I said scratch because a hairline is a micro-scratch. Once you find one (or several) on a proof, you can start looking for the same micro scratches on MS coin's (much harder to see). This next is important. Usually, hairlines lower a proof more than a MS because the are more noticeable. And...with enough magnification ...hairlines can be found on virtually all coins. Again it is a matter of degree. A few random (this way and that) hairlines usually are OK; but when you see a patch of them very close together and sometimes covering the surface of the entire coin it usually indicates "mechanical" abrasion (cleaning, buffing, improper drying, etc.) in some degree.

There is much more to add to this about to classify them, etc. but this will start you out. Nothing has a simple answer.

 

Thanks for your opinion. I would like to hear others too. I guess 5X is the standard as 10X for diamonds.

 

How long have you collected?

Boy did I blow it. Reason I asked how advanced you were because you asked an important yet basic question. So, you got me curious. What I think a hairline is does not matter. I just went to Google and read a bunch of answers from folks more qualified to answer that question. I'll also bet this has been talked about here many times before I joined.

PS Standards, Smandards: Long ago, one professional wrote that when he goes in to pick a diamond and they put a few on the desk w/a 10X scope; he zooms the power up to the max to pick the stone with the fewest flaws at the highest power. Sounds like good advice as standards can change in the future. Don't know how that applies to coins though.

 

Different case, years before the PCGS one.

 

It is possible you may have better information than I have on INS as all I had was published information to go by. (and I am not infallible) Their announcement that they were now grading coins predated ANACS's by just a couple weeks, but it is possible they were doing it before they made there announcement.

I forgot to mention that INSAB was grading for free a long time before the announcement. The grade was sent to the submitter on a buff card that was different and kept separate from the photo certificate because Hoskins felt that the INS grade was just an opinion that was used for internal records to ID the coin (Just as he had done at ANACS). I have several of the things in storage. As best I can remember the card read: "In the opinion of INSAB the grade of this coin is ________. Split grades were used back then. There was more on the front. If I remember, on the reverse of the card was a short guide to the grades assigned.

 

NGC uses a 5X I think they said on their website.