Prove me wrong: Market Acceptable does NOT mean problem free.

I usually do not follow these discussions, but this comment attracted my attention:

Is the argument here that this person is unhappy that a group of coins were given unsatisfactory grades by one of the TPG's, so now he is going to use another TPG?

But what if those coins really did not deserve a better or straight grade?

This really does seem a little strange to me as a total stranger to the whole TPG area.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

That would be the implication. The whole point of switch to another after being unhappy with grades is that you think the other will give better grades

I agree with you in that nothing says those coins deserved better grades.

 

In contrast, here is the “no-grade” criteria for sratches and other damage. Both say that they are dpendent on the severity, not that the presence of the damage precludes any chance at getting a straight grade.

 

Thank you for clarifying, baseball21.
An interesting point of view this person has I must say...

 

If I was NGC I would not be happy with the implications.

 

-1

Im sure PCGS wouldn't be happy either, if they lost a bunch of customers because of they're idiotic loosening/ tightening game they keep playing.

 

Just consider that someone may have taken this coin out of the slab and cleaned it......then put it back in the slab.

 

Honestly all the people involved in the annoying back and forth recently are people I respect the opinions of. I think everyone should just "agree to disagree" and go about their lives - you're not changing the other sides opinion.

 

This discussion isn’t about “but the coin not the holder” it’s about the accepted definition of “problem free holder”. The coin in question has been cleaned, but PCGS felt that the severity of the cleaning was not enough to warrant calling it a problem.

You obviously disagree with that, heck I disagree with that, but it doesn’t mean we get to change nomenclature. The fact that it bothers you that this coin is straight graded means that deep down you know that straight graded means problem free. Now if you could just grasp the concept of “severity” you would be good to go.

 

The grading companies cannot be objective or even consistent. Neither is a strong feature of human behavior and it’s humans that grade coins. Then mix in money...a great woman once sang, “Money Changes Everything”. Expecting the TPGs to meet the high standards of a group of people who grade for pleasure is always going to be a disappointment.

Discussions like this one might not solve standing disagreements but they can point new collectors to areas we should investigate or incorporate into our buying process. For that, thank you very much.

 

It still isn’t problem-free; it’s just not condemned to have unacceptable damage.

This argument is completely dependent of PCGS’s definition of “problem coin”. I interpret their vague “definition” as: a coin can have problems, but the coin becomes a “problem coin” when the damage is deemed unacceptable, meaning a straight grade does not necessarily imply “problem-free”. You interpret it as a black-and-white line (which you have said does not exist in modern grading) where if it does not have an unacceptable problem it is “problem-free.”

That’s basically it.

 

Explain, please for this poor blind guy, what are the signs of cleaning on the coin.

 

Acceptable damage = problem free

Again, it doesn’t become a problem until the severity reaches a critical point. Now you have made it perfectly clear that you think that critical point is ambiguous and arbitrary. And that’s fine, but it’s a different argument

Because like most collectors, I defer to the TPG terminology. Railing against it to prove some kind of semantic argument is pointless.

I’m the one arguing about the concept of severity, which by definition means I don’t interpret it as “black & white”. But nice little troll move you played there.

I have a question for you. What is a “problem free holder?”

 

In situations like this, the debate, however annoying, serves a valuable purpose. The goal isn’t to change the mind of your debate opponent, it is to represent your point as clearly and logically as possible in order to persuade the lurkers that your position is right.

In all the years that I argue with Doug, I never once thought I had any chance of changing his mind.

 

Make your own assessment of each coin. I've seen coins that were obviously net graded for a minor problem in both NGC and PCGS slabs. I don't remember seeing a problem coin in an NGC slab, where I disagreed with net grading, however, I have definitely seen some PCGS coins that I thought should have gotten details.

 

And this is where we fundamentally diverge.

PCGS explicitly states that any damage caused by a cleaning warrants a “no grade” as a “problem coin.” Yet we know this to not be the case. They allow coins which have problems by the definitions on their webiste into straight-grade holders. This is at odds with what you are saying, no?

They also explicitly state that the no-grade designation for scratches and other damage is dependent on their severity. Why do they not advertise that no-grade designation for cleaned coins is also based on the severity of the cleaning?

Maybe someone should post this question on CU and see if PCGS provides an official and explicit definition for “problem-free”, which they fail to do on their website for obvious reasons.

A misnomer. I call it a “straight-grade” holder. The coin within the holder is either problem-free or it isn’t.

 

It's VG! If this were an AU+ coin, then cleaning would be an issue. Did they use a Brillo pad? I don't buy anything below EF, regardless of whether or not it is perceived as a key date. 1916-D Mercs in AG/G/VG are not rare. Go to any smallish coin show and there'll be half a dozen of said coin in low grade. If you don't like it - don't buy it!

 

For starters, it's the wrong color. Compare it to other low grade mercurys and you'll see the difference. It has retoned some, but it's the color and type of toning that forms on freshly cleaned surfaces.

 

The glossy pale gray and the hairlines in the fields are indicative of an old cleaning

 

Actually, you're last sentence is where the fundamental divergence starts. I accept the fact that the industry has adopted "problem free holder" to mean a straight graded holder. It doesn't really matter whether I agree with the practice or not, but I accept that it exists. You don't, you call it a misnomer. After that, both our positions proceed to a logical conclusion.