Old PCGS Grading Is Terrible

It would be fascinating to see the % of coins submitted that get CAC now vs. years ago....plus to hear from the TPGs about how many re-submissions get higher grades (also now vs. then).

Ditto for CACs and upgrades from all the different slabs -- I'm sure the older holders have higher upgrade frequencies, just would love to quanitify it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Thanks, I found it too, ddddd.

Instead of banning posters upset that PCGS looks bad, it would be better for PCGS to EXPLAIN some of those upgrades.

I'm not at all familiar with Franklins but going up 1 1/2 grades AND getting the CAC is very strange. Of course, with CAC and a TPG both saying the coin was undergraded initially, it does seem more honest than if just a TPG raised the grade.

It does appear that grading toned coins introduces more volatility in the grading process: some graders like it, some don't, and this can impact the final grade.

 

Fact: Professional coin grading is a big GAME. However, most collectors are lucky that game exists. I'll bet many knowledgeable dealers wish it did not; yet many knowledgeable dealers and auction houses like it. Ignorant dealers, that includes all who would not exist for long w/o TPG, need the game.

I've worked at five different authentication services (at four we graded coins for the public). I can honestly say that I don't agree with many coins that have been graded.

baseball21, posted: "Standards ALWAYS change as more information is learned. Everything changes as more information is learned over time.

This WAS the biggest bunch of weasel crap I've ever heard in the past. Unfortunately these are the EXACT words I heard at one major TPGS. Grading a coin was always straight forward UNTIL VALUE entered the equation. Grading has changed because that's exactly the way the TPGS and coin market wanted it.

GoldFinger1969, posted: "I mean, the change from technical to market grading seems to have happened overnight without any formal announcement, etc."

It actually took a while because the non-dealers in the two main grading services at the time were grading coins by their condition of preservation rather than their VALUE. Thus, a coin's technical grade was virtually meaningless in the market and much TOO STRICT!

 

Even if you say value or subjective measures have no place in grading, grading standards were still different in the 1950s than they were in the 1890s. They have always been changing over time as I'm sure you know, it's easiest to explain that way as some people end up getting confused and think the changes are just a function of the TPGs.

 

I take it that graders are aware of key "inflection points" where price/value increases a ton, right ?

If you are off by 1 (even 2 !) grades on a 1924 Saint from MS61 to 63, it won't change the value of the coin that much.

But MS-65 to MS-66 is a nice jump in price and then to MS-67 is stratospheric !

 

We have had our battles many a time. And I am happy that we don't do that anymore.
But, as to your statement above. The changes "ARE" a function of the TPG's. The collector did not ask for market grading. They did not ask for a clearly AU coin to be graded as uncirculated. We did not create the slider market.

 

You mean coins that slide from AU to MS or vice-versa ?

 

Yep, you know the jumps where things get really valuable

 

That's really not true though. MANY MANY collectors (myself included) have spoken about how stupid the grading system was with essentially two grading scales stacked on top of each other. It was always idiotic to say that a pristine beautiful coin that is basically flawless is held to a 58/58+ because of slight high point rub while a coin that looks like it lost a fight with a lawnmower is a 60 and graded higher because there's no rub.

While some collectors want to keep the hard never budging line, many collectors are happy that line has eroded and coins are being judged more for what they are than a single aspect being the end all be all

 

Wait a second...you're not saying that circulated (AU) coins are now going to be graded "higher" with an MS designation and that crappy-looking MS's will be downgraded to AU, are you ?

 

If the only thing is holding it back is very slight high point rub yes those should be MS. It's going to take more time but in the future yes that will most likely happen as many younger collectors do not like the hard line in the grading scale and it will very likely keep eroding over time for coins to be graded on their full merits and not one single aspect

 

Yes, coins that are clearly circulated that now are 62's to 64's.

I here your point. But, I have never been against paying a strong premium for an AU58 or an AU58+. This grade is almost non existent now and most AU53's and up, have taken it's place. You know my position contact and wear is exactly that. This just doesn't work for the models and sliding scale of value.

 

I haven't either and many of those will sell for 63ish prices which really just shows how flawed the scale it to begin with. I'm in the collector group that is against mirco grading such as there's not a full horn can't be x grade or need full liberty for y grade, coins should be graded on all their merits.

It's one thing for coins to be limited because of an issue that causes a details grade, but it's just stupid when the 58/58+ are clearly superior coins than the 60-62+ coins.

 

baseball21, posted: "Even if you say [What I say means nothing and will not change anything. I'm just stating provable FACT because as you stated, I was there. I claim to be the "author" of "the true (not used by the ANA in CO) technical grading system." and I was around to see it made obsolete by the commercial TPG's. There is no right or wrong in this. The market made a choice to go with a system based on VALUE. That way, grading was no longer simple and precise and the majority of us came under the control of knowledgeable dealers. They know the fluctuating market value of coins. ] value or subjective measures have no place in grading, grading standards were still different in the 1950s than they were in the 1890s. They have always been changing over time as I'm sure you know, it's easiest to explain that way as some people end up getting confused and think the changes are just a function of the TPGs. ["True" technical grading only assessed the condition of preservation of a coin from its as struck appearance. It was precise and did not change over time or economic conditions. All changes in grading (including removing the MS line) have occurred due to the control of the TPGS and increases in the value of coins.]

GoldFinger1969, posted: "I take it that graders are aware of key "inflection points" where price/value increases a ton, right ?"

Yes, most of them who were successful coin dealers at one time.

Pickin and Grinin, posted: "...The changes [in grading standards]"ARE" a function of the TPG's. The collector did not ask for market grading. They did not ask for a clearly AU coin to be graded as uncirculated. We did not create the slider market."

AMEN!

 

It's naive at best to think your definition of true technical would match the same as people 100 years before you or a thousand years before you. It's not an attack on your career or your work but the fact remains the standard that you say never changes was already a change from the past

 

If I recall correctly, the OP of that thread wasn't banned for criticizing PCGS. They were banned for being involved in a drama thread where somebody was being doxxed -posting personal information publicly online without the person's permission usually to cause harm.

 

baseball21, post: "That's really not true though. MANY MANY collectors (myself included) have spoken about how stupid the grading system was with essentially two grading scales stacked on top of each other. [You and many, many collectors had NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. You and many, many collectors just AGREE with what the TPGS did BECAUSE what they did is THE ONLY WAY a VALUE BASED grading system could work Correctly! ] It was always idiotic to say that a pristine beautiful coin that is basically flawless is held to a 58/58+ because of slight high point rub while a coin that looks like it lost a fight with a lawnmower is a 60 and graded higher because there's no rub. [ONLY when the original definition of Mint State was changed.]

While some collectors want to keep the hard never budging line [What? An actual "Standard" ], many collectors are happy that line has eroded and coins are being judged more for what they are than a single aspect being the end all be all."

 

I wasn't suggesting that the person who posted that thread was banned due to the thread. I am suggesting that such threads are very likely to get deleted if posted nowadays and there is a chance a poster will be banned depending on how the thread presents itself to the moderators.

 

Not really but if you want to be childish go right ahead. I'm sorry I had a typo, how foolish of me. Almost as foolish as thinking that the market has no influence over grading or that the standard someone created wasn't a change from the past

 

If I ran a forum for my business, I would not let people use that forum to actively attack the business. I actually believe the PCGS moderators are relatively lenient with what they are working with- a bunch of grumpy old men with very strong often-infallible opinions.

I just wanted to clarify to Goldfinger that that member was not banned for making that thread. It appeared to me that was the way it was percieved. Would they ban him today for making the same thread? I don't know. Personally, I'm not going to find out because I don't want to be banned. ;p

Most of the time when PCGS forum members get perm-banned for those type of posts, it is not a singular incident. The banned members are seizing every opportunity to disparage PCGS even after being warned.

It is important to remember that the PCGS forum is a marketing tool; nothing more, nothing less.