Thoughts on cabinet friction from a professional grader.

CAC is not a product of the TPGs. JA created CAC as a way to fight the gradeflation of the TPG's and capitalize by creating a market for the premium quality coins that achieved CAC certification. If anything, the inception of CAC would force the TPGs to be more conservative in their grading, but as I have already explained, they don't change their standards on a whim, that is a conspiracy theory.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Not really. Some fallacy's needed to be corrected, I don't waste time arguing with brick walls anymore. There's plenty of evidence including the fact that standards have always been evolving with time long before the TPGs ever existed where people can see what is really happening if they choose too. If some people want to stick to the conspiracy dinosaur theories that's their right.

 

If you say so, but I really only see him arguing with Razz, not Doug.

 

It only undermines the argument that their motive was for regrades, not that there was not a motive at all.

 

I hadn’t yet looked at the second page, and I still have not looked at what he’s said.

 

I dont think Doug or I said anything about standard changes on a whim. It was a good debate I think although just devolving into conspiracy theory fallacy name calling isnt really a valid argument point. Classic coins was broughr up by Doug. My basic point is coin grading is a mature market and corporations need to come up with ways to keep generating revenue to maximize profits. If the TPGs are not publicly traded companies then those mandates are not as strong with privately held companies.

 

They make plenty of money grading and with special labels etc. They DO NOT need to intentionally manipulate grading for that.

Only PCGS is as part of CU the larger parent company. They also cut their dividend in half last year to be more fiscally responsible. Generalities don't always apply especially not in the luxury services business which collectable grading is. Being publicly owned gives them a level of transparency we do not see from the others.

 

Now that is a valid lucid argument point worth noting (except for the shouting part).

 

That's not something that should have had to have been mentioned though. There are far to many accusations about the TPGs online with 0 proof

 

https://www.cointalk.com/threads/cac-premium-and-pcgs-grade.339014/

This thread is relevant

 

Jaelus, posted: "Try explaining to someone in another area of collectibles that you've graded their item a 7.0 on a technicality but it's really worth what a 9.5 would sell for - only an expert would be able to tell though. You would get laughed out of business so fast your head would spin. Yet we put up with this nonsense with the Sheldon scale and accept it because it's the way it's been done? That answer is just not good enough."

Nonsense. Happens all the time with ALL graded items and no need to explain anything except to the ignorant or misinformed.

Your comment has nothing to do with most collectibles (cars, art, etc.) as each is unique. However, collectibles like coins, stamps, and ball cards will sell for what they are worth (most of the time) no matter what their assigned TPGS grade is. When one MS-65 coin sells for $400 and another with the same date and grade sells for $1200 the market is at work.

Today, grades are subjective guides to value with no precision or standard application. The frog is completely cooked!

 

Jaelus, posted: "I don't disagree with you. Wear is a type of damage (to be clear - I'm not using the numismatic meaning of damage here - I'm saying that wear/rub damages the surfaces of the coin). [AGREE] As wear happens in a rather uniform and understandable way on a given type, this type of damage (non-numismatic - I'm talking about literal damage) has been used to grade the state of preservation of the coin. [AGREE]

But the problem created by using damage from wear to grade the coin is that it doesn't leave any way to grade coins that don't have damage from wear. [AGREE. THAT'S BECAUSE WEAR (Damage to the coin's surface) IS NOT A CONSIDERATION WHEN GRADING MINT STATE (60-70) COINS!] Which is why we use 61-70 instead of just a single grade for 60 representing no wear. Obviously, there are states of quality that also apply to coins without wear.

What I'm advocating for is solving this problem [IMO, there is no problem EXCEPT for those who don't understand that wear is not used to grade MS coins. The amount of wear determines a coin's circulated grade!] by saying wear is not special. Instead of using wear to grade the coin, you use any damage, including marks, hairlines, hits, rub, etc. which accounts for wear and also accounts for marks on non-worn coins. This way you have a continuous scale from 1-70 without a break when you encounter coins with no wear.

As a side effect of this, it no longer becomes important to distinguish mint state coins from virtually mint state coins." [ THIS IS THE PROBLEM!]

 

Very interesting reply.

Why is it so important to you to distinguish between a faint whisp or high point rub versus a hit, to the detriment of the clarity of the grading scale?

 

Jaelus, posted: "Why is it so important to you to distinguish between a faint whisp or high point rub versus a hit, to the detriment of the clarity of the grading scale?"

I already TRIED to explain the difference to you and other members twice. A hit and a rub are TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS that affect a coin differently. Think of a hairline vs a scratch. Actually, that is not the same...sorry.

I recommend you and all collectors try to get out to CO for the Summer Seminar Program. It is informative and great fun.

baseball21, posted: "The TPGs aren't arbitrarily changing trying to get resubmissions, they're just keeping up with the times while others aren't. The market is what causes grading to evolve not the other way around. Grading had been evolving and changing long before the TPGs existed which is something a lot of people forget. Every generation thinks they grade the best and future generations preferences and standards are lose or not as good etc. This is nothing new and been going on long before the TPGs and will probably go on as long as people collect coins.

If anything the TPGs evolve as a reflection of the market and what people want, not the other way around."

While most of this is true, $$$$ just might also be involved. Imagine this stupid example: Service A get's several hundred coins a week from Joe dealer. Joe does not like the grades on his last order. He calls the service to bitch and is not satisfied. He says the coins were graded too tight. What if Joe tells Service A to shove it and takes his business to Service B. No big deal, right?


Jaelus, posted: "Let's be real here. The ANA hasn't been keeping up with updating the grading standards, and they're not going to. That's on them. The TPGs are working with grading standards every day where the rubber meets the road.

There are many examples of professions where standards are somewhat ignored and independently updated because the organization setting them does not respond to changes fast enough (or at all) and people cannot afford to wait for them to do so."

Before your time, the ANA published grading standards. Unfortunately, they messed up a few things but they did not screw up the long-time, original, and ONLY STANDARD for Mint State: "No trace of wear." Unfortunately, much of the commercial market ignored the ANA's published opinion principally because the "bastardized technical system" they adopted had no relation to how coins were being graded in the market especially with regard to a coin's Strike & Eye-Appeal. This forced ANACS to revise their opinion and many MS-65 became MS-63's.

Jaelus, posted: "Why can't evolving standards be a mix of TPG innovation and market desires?"

I grew up in a family with a collection going back three generations, but started collecting very seriously in my early 30s. Now as a 40 year old advanced collector, I look at many AU58 coins with booming luster and eye appeal to spare, and likewise coins with pristine fields and light high point rub (especially gold) that clearly have not seen circulation, and I think to myself that it's only a disservice for these coins to be in AU58 holders. I don't see much aesthetic difference between wear and bag marks, and would rather see a touch of high point rub on an AU64 than have an MS61 hairlined dog. As a consumer, I would rather see TPG grades that make sense based on quality. I frequently deliberately cross PCGS world coins to NGC to get a lower grade. I'm not looking for gradeflation, just common sense."

As a 40 year old advanced collector, your opinion and desires mean a great deal to you - as they should. That's why IMO this may have been a better way to express yourself: "Why can't evolving OPINIONS be a mix of TPG innovation and market desires?" There are no "Standards."


Razz, posted: "And that is why for profit corporations should not have control over grading standards. Corporations have only 1 objective, to maximize profits for shareholders; if you don't beleive this then you know nothing about business."

The ideal TPGS would be owned by a trillionaire who did not give a damn about any of us and our stupid fixations with coins! He would be totally independent and have a team of millionaire grading experts of the caliber of the guys/gals we all respect. The graders would not be paid and work only for the fun of sticking it to all the loose grading that has been done in the past decades!. Grading opinions and slabbing would be free. A precise standard would be published and ONLY the coin's condition of preservation from its as struck condition would matter. A coin's rarity, provenance, value, age, method of manufacture, eye-appeal, etc. would not be considered. A corroded, splotchy-toned, flatly-struck coin with a hole in it would be graded using those words + a # corresponding to the design details remaining. NOTHING at all could influence the opinion of the 3 experts on each coin and they would not GAFF what any person in the world thought of their opinion which due to their knowledge, examination methods, and strict standards would NOT CHANGE over time or due to market conditions.

This would eliminate the need for these discussions we all love. ]

 

You didn't answer my question.

My question was not one asking you if you knew the difference between very light high point rub and a hit. My question is why is it important to YOU to distinguish between them.

I ask because I can plainly observe both of these detrimental surface conditions on a coin, and in many cases the high point rub aesthetically bothers me much less but it affects the grade so much more severely. I understand what the difference is between them, despite your assumption that anyone who disagrees with you does so out of ignorance. I understand how it is graded. I just happen to disagree.

Penalize coins based on the severity of their surface conditions, whatever they may be. Who cares if a coin is technically mint state or not if it is the observable quality of a 64? Just call it a 64. Keep it simple.

 

Not only is the purpose of grading a collectible to determine market value, but determining value is the original intent of the Sheldon scale!

If the product of grading is a label with a list of features that require an expert to price, you might as well not submit the coin for grading at all. This sounds about as useful as slabbing a book with a label that has a summary of the content. Ideal grading should produce a single number representing a ranked market value and nothing more.

 

Ideal grading should assign a number to a coin based on an objective set of standards, and an ideal market would assign a higher price to higher-quality coins regardless of grade.

 

A grade that exists for the purpose of assigning a grade is like a self-licking ice cream cone. A numerical value representing quality is the whole point.

The TPGs have been moving in this direction, and the proof is in the pudding.

 

Why don't TPGs put the date the coin was slabbed on the holder somewhere so that it is transparent to everyone what that date is?