Old PCGS Grading Is Terrible

I'd have GTGed 64 or 65 on the coin posted by the OP, but if buying a 65, I'd keep looking, as this one seems to be in a "coffin." They aren't rare and you should always cherrypick for quality when you can. It's not a good idea to compare an 82-CC with a 79-S, however, since they're two different issues. CC coins are given a little more leeway in the hit department, 79-S comes looking nice.

Making generalizations about the grading standards of any given time frame based on looking at a single coin is silly. You can find good coins and bad coins in any holder.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I'm not confident the majority of the marks around Liberty's eyebrow, nosehole and upper cheekbone, are hits. I think they may be places where the coin has begun to tone.

I think this coin may be suffering from poor photographs which don't allow for actual examination of the surfaces.

 

Sorry, but there a big slash down the jaw and many marks in the nose. This is a “C” grade MS-65. Toning does not look like that

 

In my opinion it’s a decent 64 that got a cc bump. Would I buy it at 65 money no way. At 64 money all day. I could see this coin at 64 green cac any day. At 65 it’s a c- still a nice coin regardless. Pcgs has been very inconsistent in the last 15 or so years and especially in the last 6-8 where this shaded label holder dates from. Sometimes they’re brutally conservative sometimes super leinient. Ngc even more so.

 

"Old PCGS grading is terrible"

Does that say something about their old grading or their current grading? PCGS is good, so most likely the coin DID meet the MS-65 standards at the time. So if it doesn't meet them now that would mean the standards got stricter, not that the old grading was terrible. Grading standards DO change.

 

One coin does not make a pattern

 

Checking it again as I had a feeling that range was to wide, it should be 2012-2014.

2012 saw the different color label and 2015 saw the new ticker holder start with the dupont in between in 2014 early 2015.

https://www.pcgs.com/holders

 

Are there coins -- Saints a few years ago comes to mind -- where a lower-graded CAC sells for MORE than a higher-graded non-CAC (i.e., MS65 CAC Saint > MS66 Saint) on a regular basis ?

Or was that just an anomaly ?

Yes, I have some OGH's but they aren't The Rattler or The Dot Matrix ones from the 1980's....but people complimented me on them.

What I found interesting was that veterans like GDJMSP state that the era of lax grading began in 2004 (maybe 2003, I forget)....I don't disagree, I'm just surprised that the grading didn't get lax during the Bubble Years or Post-Bubble Years of the 1990's when the TPGs exploded in popularity.

But maybe they just went from super-strict to strict, huh ?

Yup, no argument here, JM.

 

You mean back to 2004....or the 1990's ?

The standards SHOULDN'T change...I understand different graders interpret differently, but the standards shouldn't change.

 

CORRECTED: The OP's holder in the CC Morgan is a Gen 4.6 holder from 2005-2011. So this would have been right after the standards were definitely relaxed/changed as per market vs. technical grading.

https://www.pcgs.com/holders/Gen4.6

Thanks to ddddd for correcting me on the right holder (see below).

 

See my earlier post:

 

Standards ALWAYS change as more information is learned. Everything changes as more information is learned over time

 

I think you're right Ddddd....matches up better.

So it's even MORE recent.

 

Can you give an example(s) ?

 

The earth was once flat, the sun once obited around the earth, pretty much anything in medicine, the western hemisphere was once not on standard maps, literally pretty much everything has changed at once point or another multiple times

 

I mean, the change from technical to market grading seems to have happened overnight without any formal announcement, etc.

 

What 40 something years ago when it started in the 70's/80's. Even @Insider who was grading then will tell you it was LONG before the 2000s. Ask @Lehigh96 if you don't want to believe me. Doug has a very unique view on grading that it's just exhausting arguing with anymore

PS the standard that Doug says should be the standard is an evolved changed standard than the past grading as well.

 

I just like gathering as much information on what happened in the past from as many different perspectives as possible.

Talking about the past grading standards I find fascinating. I know it generates alot of controversy and tempers can rise, but I just focus on the facts and arguments and counter-arguments.

Like a 1970's "Saturday Night Live" Point-Counterpoint debate !!

 

Agreed, it just gets exhausting as many of the same people take the same hardline positions over and over. The grading in the 1800s is different than the 1910s which is different than the 1930s which is different than the 1960s which is different than today (where we also use more grades than in the past). It's just silly when people argue grading should never change yet the standard they think should be a hardline was a change already. I'm sure doug will come and write a long post disputing it all but honestly had the debate to many time and probably wont respond or only minimal respond if he does. It's just a waste of time doing the same conversation over and over and over and over

 

Though out its history, PCGS has gone through up and down periods in its grading cycle. Years ago, they had stricter grading standards during down markets and softer standards during up markets.

As for the CC dollars, there are pieces that are accurately or conservatively graded in PCGS holders. Given that, why buy the over graded pieces when it’s a common date?