Old PCGS Grading Is Terrible

Is that really something coin collectors are demanding though ?

Yes, we know that for some coins an AU58 is better looking and nicer (and less $$$ ! ) than an MS61 or MS62. When I buy my first 1907 High Relief it will almost certainly be an AU58 (unless MegaMillions comes through ).

But that anomaly/kink at the high-AU/low-MS threshold aside....I think your solution creates more problems than it solves. Even if today's dichotomy is a problem, it's contained. I think what you propose -- even though it does have a certain logical appeal -- would open up too many cans of worms.

JMHO.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Yes the forum is a marketing tool, but banning members (some of which were staunch supporters of the product) and brushing aside legitimate concerns are poor marketing. There would be more confidence in the product if some of the gradeflation concerns were directly addressed.

 

I wasn't familiar with that situation....in fact, I just occasionally scan posts there, I am NOT a member or poster.

But I understand how a PCGS-led message board could have to tip-toe around sensitive stuff like PCGS errors or grading quirks.

 

baseball21, posted: "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.

Sometime in the past (when there really were NO previous Standards), an actual standard was devised. Thus, Mint State was defined as: Free from any trace of [friction**] wear. I didn't make this up. I wasn't even alive but some numismatists came up with that "standard" to help solve grading abuses. That's the way it was in the 70's and that was the standard I used to develop the technical grading system based on the one used by the Large cent specialists. What was going on in the "raw" coin market was generally CRIMMINAL! That "MS standard" did not work well in the commercial coin market because many attractive coins were mishandled with friction due to minor abrasion (no longer MS) on their surfaces.

Market Solution: Dump the prevailing standard that I learned so grading could evolve over time as the expert coin dealers doing the grading "learned (?) more" and coin values increased or decreased over periods of time.

What is "naïve at best" to me is that some folks don't know this.

** my addition to allow for other traces.

 

Fair point....but at the same time, going back to that Franklin thread...no reason to strongly but politely inquire as to what they were thinking either at the initial grading or the subsequent regrading.

Asking hard questions should be OK. Attacking one's ethics or smearing or being antagonistic to the company is quite another.

I don't think the moderators or owners of CT would object to us disagreeing with them, even on stuff they feel passionately about. At the same time, I know they don't want to be attacked and called idiots or stupid for their positions -- just like I wouldn't.

Understood....my interest in that thread wasn't what happened to the posters like an Epilogue from a Quinn Martin TV show in the 1970's ....I just enjoyed seeing the slabs that got upgraded and the story that went with them.

I am very happy here at CT...I go ATS to read a few threads on coins I am interested in from time-to-time but I spend 90% of my posting time here.

 

Many yes, other no. Forums probably lean more towards no as some long time members with lots of friends push back on it. But yes there is a significant amount of collectors who don’t like the hard line. It's not right or wrong and I get that change is always scary and a lot of people that have done something one way for so long don't want the change. The reality though is that very likely the change is coming and the market is playing a role in that as you see lower graded coins selling for the same or more than higher graded ones

 

To be fair, they're actually much more tolerant of criticism than most companies are with their boards. That said there's not really an upside to them letting people just trash them and often times with bans the biggest infractions are deleted and never seen

 

1,000,000% agree !!

I learn SO MUCH on CT from reading from you veterans. I don't dislike someone going against my POV, it's how I learn. This thread has been great. Reading GDJSMP's past posts on Technical vs. Market were also informative (for me at least, not being an expert grader).

Let's face it...if everybody on this site agreed with what we each think and believe, what the hell would be the point in coming here, right ?

 

There are cases that people do deserve to be banned but there are also legitimate concerns that go unanswered. The reason distrust and conspiracies often build up is due to a company not taking a definitive stance and just trying to sweep something up.

 

I haven't seen it yet in the 2 series that I follow closely -- Saints and Morgans -- but that could be a function of weak overall prices.

Saints and Morgans seem to be weak the last few months/year-or-so....esp. in low-MS and AU grades. The GAP between them may have closed from 5 or 10 years ago....but it's not a flatline going from AU to MS and I haven't seen a "kink" yet where the AU costs more.

If I see anything like that, I'll report back.

 

I'm not speaking about a specific case, but in all honesty they allow a lot more discourse than many companies do. There's no benefit to them to be paying for a board to allow people to trash them. We both know that forum was a dumpster fire a couple years ago, entertaining but definitely hurting their brand and collecting in general.

Only point was that they are a lot more tolerant than a lot of big companies are.

 

Civil disagreement should be OK, but yeah...don't trash your hosts. I could see where they might not like that.

 

There's a lot of examples out there of 58s especially 58+ and really especially CAC ones that will sell for the same or more than a 60-62, 63 isn't that uncommon it really gets to a stretch at 64 and that is rare but it's not unheard of.

 

baseball21, posted: "Not really but if you want to be childish go right ahead. I'm sorry I had a typo, how foolish of me. [ I have NO CLUE what you are referring to. We are discussing grading and your opinions are IMPORTANT and ALWAYS respected by me!] Almost as foolish as thinking that the market has no influence over grading [ Both you and I seem to agree that the "market" - as applied by the TPGS and CAC - HAS TOTAL INFLUENCE over how coins are graded!] or that the standard someone created wasn't a change from the past."

From my readings of grading ideas/systems over the past century and a half contained in a neat little book who's title slips my mind at the moment, MS was well defined UNTIL coin dealers started PCGS and gradually "evolved" the actual standard in place for decades as they learned (how to make ) more.

 

CAC is a unique situation where you really aren't comparing apples-to-apples (straight TPG grade for each), IMO.

But I see your point and you're probably right because an AU58 (+ or no +) is going to sell for another 20-25% with a CAC bean and probably cost more or be right there with MS60-62's.

 

Not really. The premium ones were always the talk. If someone took that differently that's a different talk.

If we get rid of the hard line, it's not like every coin would upgrade, very few overall would

 

I also think some well-known numismatic researchers ran afoul, too.

 

But I think comparing an "A" vs. a "B" might have led to a premium for the "A"....but not as much as now when that "A" coin has a CAC sticker.

Right ?

Confused...are you saying that pretty much most of the upgrades have already been done so there's not more to really get ?

You're saying if we got rid of the hard-line....had easier standards...we STILL wouldn't see tons of upgrades (for some reason, maybe because most of the low-hanging fruit has already been picked)....am I reading you correctly ?

 

Grading has always varied from one slab to another for the same issue of coin in the same assigned grade. Some of that is due to the fact that every coin is unique in some way, and some of it is due to the fact that the standards have been inconsistently applied even during the same generation of slab label.

I don't buy expensive U.S. coins anymore because of CAC. I made the decision that if I had to have one man’s approval for every coin purchase that I made, it was time to stop buying. I love what I have, but I am not adding to it. I also did not want to go through the risk of shipping coins to a grader again after I had gone though that with a substantial part of my collection 20 years ago.

Now I am collecting British and ancient Roman coins. I prefer most them raw unless it’s something like a Proof, which you should never touch anyway. Raw coins are much easier to store because they take up a lot less room, and many of the people who collect ancient Roman and hammered British prefer raw coins.

 

Getting rid of the hard line doesn't mean easier standards.

As has been said by multiple people on multiple forums multiple times CAC is more than one person. No one needs CAC to make a purchase, or to collect something, or to enjoy what they buy. What they do need CAC for is to MAXIMIZE resale value and protect purchase prices. The same can be said for what TPG someone chooses.

Thankfully TPGs and CAC exist to help protect collectors from those that would otherwise prey on them