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

For the more recent dates that is pretty accurate, 70s are basically expected now and enough coins get graded that the supply of them is more than adequate for the market. From about 2001 and earlier though the 70s command massive premiums where the spot price of silver is completely irrelevant to their price.

The 86 and a couple of 90s dates are hardly bullion as well. Even ungraded the big boys like APMEX, JM Bullion, Provident Metals ect charge substantial premiums over spot for. The series is popular enough that numismatic premiums have developed in the older dates.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I agree with you 100%

 

This is COMPLETELY FALSE! At least two (depends on daily volume) highly paid, long-time professional graders/dealers do quality control on a daily basis. It is the full time job of at least one of them and he has been in that position for over a decade). Must be doing a pretty good job for them as he drives a car that makes my mouth water

 

Well...you just made my point!

 

I'm really enjoying the legal arguments. I tried to get into law school but didn't make the cut. PLEASE CONTINUE...

 

Why don't sharks bite lawyers?
professional courtesy

 

What's the difference between a dead skunk and a dead lawyer?

The cops find skid marks near the skunk.

 

Why can't lawyers go to the beach?

Because the cats keep burying them.

 

What do you call a car with 3 lawyers going off a cliff?

A missed opportunity...

 

A start...

 

400+ years ago Shakespeare said lets kill all the lawyers nothing changed and still sounds like a good idea

 

What's the difference between the graduating class of the Harvard Law School and a bucket of cow manure?

The bucket.

 

If ANACS and ICG were grading at the same standard as PCGS and NGC, wouldn't everyone be cracking out every valuable ANACS/ICG coin and resubmitting to either PCGS/NGC?

 

I agree with this. There is probably always a financial incentive for them to continually lower their standards. If they raised or even kept the standards the same no one would be cracking out coins in existing holders.

 

Yes, and many do; however, from my observations the majority of collectors/small time dealers are not sophisticated enough to do that. Many others get the same quality coin at ANACS/ICG often for less $$$ because they buy the coin not the slab. They don't care what it will sell for later. I like to hang around a particular TPGS table (as much as possible w/o interfering w/business) and watch what goes on. You would be amazed at the lack of knowledge shown (even from dealers at the show) by people wanting opinions. It is lucky most of us have TPGS's or the sophisticated numismatists would be "taking everyone's pants down" buying up "steals" from the ignorant.

Remember "Ignorant" means uneducated about a subject like grading, authentication, CT posting & rules (that's me but just for now)

 

I think it is more of a price problem. One numismatist I know wishes we could all grade by tight technical standards and let the dealers price stuff. The way it is now, as a particular rare coin rises in price, its grade MUST go up to reflect the change! Many famous coins have gone from XF/AU to MS in the past several decades. The TPGS call this "Grading Evolution" claiming as the graders learn more, they understand the nuances of grading better Some collectors joke that's a tongue-in-cheek admission that they may not have been qualified to start TPGS's in the first place

 

I'm not following this part, as the price goes up why does the grade have to reflect the change? Thank you for your input.

 

It is true that some famous coins have had their certified grades increased over the years, but I don't think the reason is what you say it is. The fact is that the grade on a true rarity like an 1893 S dime, 1804 dollar, 1913 Liberty nickel, etc. is essentially meaningless. These coins will increase in price regardless of whether they're graded AU58, MS62, or whatever, and they'll be evaluated on their own merits regardless of the plastic around them.

What you seem to be alluding to is market grading, which is really just a stupid consequence of peoples' desire that a coin which numerically grades higher than another coin should be worth more. Those people seem to forget that the Sheldon scale is really two scales: one for circulated coins and one for MS coins. There are plenty of AU58's out there that are better looking than a lot of MS64's, but they have the tiniest rub that makes them technically not UNC. I own one.

This is also part of the reason that most market grading (outside of early copper) happens in the upper grades. Grades below XF45 are almost 100% determined by wear, and all coins of a given date and series wear pretty much the same (weak strike notwithstanding). There's very little argument what constitutes a VF vs XF. And, in circulated grades, higher grade does equate more or less directly to higher price.

In MS grades, you have to take eye appeal and strike more seriously into account, and a good portion of the grade comes down to "does this coin look nice?" The sharpest strike and most attractive toning isn't going to get a 63 into a 65 holder, but it might squeak by into a 64 holder. That's market grading in action.

 

It's very simple...Because the TPGS'S claim that they put a value (price, what it's worth) on a coin when they assign the grade. This is demonstrated when they raise the grades of rare coins and slam the grade of dates in any series that take a large price jump at the next grade!

Once Sheldon combined condition with value long ago, the die was cast.