You're talking about distractions, and on circulated coins, whereas I was speaking of grading, primarily on uncirculated coins. And keep in mind, what is important to you or any one person, individually, isn't necessarily relevant to what the grading companies focus on when assigning grades.
More going on on a side isn't necessarily synonymous with importance with respect to grading. Part of the very reason that the obverse of the Morgan is more important is because the device, featuring Ms. Liberty, is so very prominent, with little else going on around it. Most eyes are immediately drawn to her face/cheek, and that is where much of the grading emphasis is placed. Ditto for coins such as Barber coinage, Peace Dollars and Liberty gold coinage of all denominations.
The cheek on the Morgan makes perfect sense. I just walked up to the case I have about 30 Morgans in and took a look, you do look at the cheek areafirst because it is most prominent. Any dings, nicks or scratches stand out immediatly. I looked at the Peace dollars and find my eyes drawn to the same are, but then back to the hair and up to the crown. (the v in trust makes me laugh)
Here ya go Mark, verbatim from the PCGS standards - "Thus, while technically the average grade for a coin's two sides may be MS65 (MS63 obv & MS67 rev), market wise the coin trades as MS63." And from the ANA standards - "In reality, the market grade of a coin is the lower of the two grades of its sides." And even from Jim Halperin's book on grading - "However, its overall grading would be Proof-63 since a coin's grade is largely determined by its worst side." That said, every single article, every book, everything I have ever read, says the same thing - a coin is graded according to its worst side. Now I would ask you Mark, what makes you say differently ?
Thank you Doug. What makes me say differently is having seen large quantities of certified coins that appear to be in direct conflict with those written standards, and having experienced that as a grader at NGC over a period of 7 years. And I know I am not the only dealer who feels that way.
Which is precisely why I said - And I don't disagree with you Mark, I know all too well that they ignore their own standards. And in many other ways besides this one aspect of them. I'm not blind, well, at least not completely. I see the coins they put in the slabs and the grades they assign them. And anybody that knows how to read, or rather takes the time to do so, and anybody that has any kind of memory, can see that what the TPG's have done in recent years - does not measure up to what they used to do. Yeah, I know, you and I disagree on that too. But let me ask ya, do you agree that the TPG's have been pricing coins in recent years ?
I didn't realize that your question (" PCGS ignores this aspect of their own written standards too huh ?") was a rhetorical one. I don't think they have been pricing coins any more in recent years than they 5-15 years ago.
Fair enough. Then I need to re-word my question. It's been discussed here, and on other forums, on numerous occasions that the TPG's do not "grade" coins - they "price" them. Meaning that if the price of a coin goes up, then the grade goes up. Do you agree with that ?
I believe that the grading companies "price" coins to an extent in their grading, but not as much as some people seem to think. Also, it can work both ways - by that, I mean that many coins don't get the extra point, because awarding it would create value that isn't merited. For example, a rarer date Morgan Dollar might receive an MS64, whereas if it were an 1880-S it might get an MS65, due to its known low value.
Isn't that basically wrong. I mean why bump it a grade if it does not deserve it only because it has historically traded at less money. Isn't this part of the reason why CAC exists and how deflation occurs?
And, you don't have to say it, I'm probably one of those "numerous occasions." Anyway, I have to know...and, BTW, if there aren't any brats and beer left for me, I'm going to hold you personally responsible D)...do you now believe that the discrepancy between the way the TPGs "market grade" and the ANA "market grading standards" is due, principally, to the former's taking, I'll call them, "liberties," to synthesize the coin's grade with the value in the price guides? I'm just trying to figure out how the TPGs grade. Do you now believe it's fair to say that they're "careless" with the ANA standards when they believe the market justifies same for a particular coin?
......now it's time for a wrench to be thrown into the mix. what happens with a coin that has edge lettering??
Wow, what a discussion I created, which leads me to believe that as an amatur collector, when looking at coinds, there is no hard and fast rule about grading. It has shades of "subjectivity". This is another reason that as a buyer, I have to always negotiate on the price. This coin dealer I go to here in the Dallas area seems to over grade all the time. Like I said I'm just an amatur now getting into this hobby, but sometimes I wonder if the grader at this dealer is any better than me. It's a fun hobby and I really respect the opinions of this forum.
OK, then I'll ask this - do you believe that gradeflation exist and is real ? Mark the point I am getting at, and I think you know it, is that I believe that the TPG's do not grade to same standards that they used to grade to. In other words, a few years ago, lets say in 2002, they (and I mean both PCGS and NGC) would have graded a given coin as MS64. But in 2007-08 that very same coin was then up-graded to MS65, maybe even MS66 in some cases. Now this is especially true, and often most easily seen, with the toned coins. Back in 2002 you couldn't hardly give toned coins away. Blast white was all the rage. Sure there was a small group that liked them and would buy them, there always was. But the toned coins back then were graded more on the actual condition of the coin - 64's were graded as 64's. Whereas in today's world those very same coins are pretty much all graded as 65's and 66's. Why ? Because the prices went up. Those same coins that used to sell for $200 now cost $600, $800, $900 and more. And as the prices rose so did the grades. You were there Mark, you have seen the very same things that I have seen. And it isn't only with the toned coins that this happened either. As the bull market progressed and prices increased 300% over what they were in 2002, the grades all went up right along with the prices. I didn't imagine it - it happened. Now, in our discussions in recent months we have rehashed the same point several times. That being about when the TPG's tightened up. You consistently say it was 3 years or longer ago. I say it has been more recently, starting last year and increasing this year. Now there is a certain logic to my thoughts as well. For all through the 90's the coin market was stagnant, it didn't go up and it didn't go down. At least not much. Then in 2001 it began to creep upwards. By 2003 it was taking off and by 2004 it was a rocket. Then it settled down, even dropped a bit and took off again in 2005. It was not until later in 2008 and 2009 that things began to turn downwards. Now, it is my contention that the TPG's followed right along with the price increases. And as the prices creeped upwards so did the grades being assigned to the coins. But now that the market has taken a downturn, those grading standards are tightening up again. The TPG's are getting tougher. Yeah, CAC coming onto the scene, coincidentally at the same time, has probably played a part in that tightening as well. But not as much as the prices dropping has. Now are you gonna say that it is just coincidence that grades loosened and then tightened, right in step with the market ? Or are you gonna say that grades never changed at all ? Or - are you going to agree with me ? That's the question I'm trying to get you to answer. On that we agree.
Just for fun, I started a thread on another forum, without stating what I thought. The replies were pretty much as I had expected: http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=3436921&gonew=1#UNREAD
I absolutely believe that grade-flation exists. But I think it has occurred more slowly, over a much longer period of time then you seem to think. Here are the two main factors which I feel are responsible: 1) Initially, the major grading companies were quite conservative, often grading truly exceptional coins no higher than MS/PR 65. Over time, as they saw more coins, they gradually began awarding higher grades, both to the coins that deserved it, as well as those that did not. 2) No matter how good the best grading companies are, they over-grade some coins and under-grade some coins. If they do so,at the rate of only 5% on the high side and 5% on the low side - that would be excellent, as far as I'm concerned - that still amounts to thousands of coins per month and tens of thousands per year. And hundreds of thousands (of over-graded and under-graded) coins since PCGS and NGC began operating. But, while the over-graded coins remain in their holders, many/most of the under-graded coins are cracked out of their holders and resubmitted for higher grades. So we end up with a badly skewed sample/representation of how the coins have been graded. Also, generally speaking, if anything, when prices are higher, I think that the grading companies might tend to tighten up. Conversely, when prices are lower, I think they might tend to loosen up, in order to try to stimulate business. I am of the view that grading has gotten tighter the past few years, at the same time prices were increasing (until about a year ago). So you wont get me to agree with you on all counts.
Dang straight ! It's all your fault ! Yeah - that's your fault too !! :hail: eddie the TPG's have never paid any attention whatsoever to the ANA standards - not since day one. The TPG's have always, and will always, follow their own individual sets of grading standards and completely and totally ignore the ANA standards. And yes - I think my response to Mark answers your question about them taking, as you say, liberties. Now, ya wanna here something that will probably surprise you ? From the ANA standards, 6th edition, 2005 - "Lest the reader get thge wrong idea, this book reports the grading being used in th emarketplace. It does not create it. if the 6th edition were to give definitions that were not useful in th ebuying and selling of coins in the real life, it would not be of much use ! Who sets the definitions ? The grades of coins are not God-given, nor are they scientific, nor are they immutable. Perhaps like the English language, coin grades change based upon their use. Today, we have to consider what the leading grading services such as ANACS, ICG, NGC and PCGS do, as well as what can observed in offerings in auction sales, dealers stocks, and coin shows. It may well happen that grading interpretations will shift some more in the future. In the meantime, your challenge is to keep abreast of changes as they occur ..........." Now listen to what PCGS says - "From the outset, PCGS dedicated itself to standardized grading, so any fluctuations in the value of a coin would be limited to priuce swings, rather than market-related changes in grade. A Minst Stae MS65 coin would still be the same in any market - hot, cold or neutral. The price might change, but the grading would not - and could not - because the coin was encapsulated along with a unique serial number and a fixed grade." Too bad they forgot to mention what happen if that coin was re-submitted
I've always known that's what most people do. And as stated earlier, I agree the obverse is the more important of the two sides. But personally, I stand by what the written standards say. Most others, even if they can legitimately claim to be knowledgeable, apparently don't know, or don't care what the written standards say.
Doug, I recognize that toned coins were not always as desirable as they are now, but I think you time line is a little off. This is a link to an auction of the following coin that I purchased from Heritage in 2002. http://coins.ha.com/common/view_item.php?Sale_No=289&Lot_No=1149 At the time, I believe that wholesale value of an 1886 MS65 Morgan was about $100. This coin in an ANACS holder sold for over 4X wholesale. I wouldn't call that giving it away. As I recall, it was just as difficult to obtain rainbow toned coins in 2001 and 2002 as it is now. The shift from blast white to toned coins must have happened prior to 2001. I understand your point about gradeflation and I do believe it exists to a certain extent with toned coins. You routinely see rainbow toned coins getting a grade bump from the TPG's. Personally, I think the TPG's are making a big mistake trying to "price" toned coins. First, they will never be able to keep up with the premiums for most of the monster coins which sell for 10X+ bid price. Second, the actual price of each toned coin varies so much with respect to the overall look of the coin that trying to price them with a price guide is futile. The TPG's should grade the coin based on it's merits and let the market determine the price of the coin, IMO. I think the CAC had more of an impact on the grading by the TPG's than you are giving credit. I can't prove it of course, just a feeling from reading the forums.
Paul - there are exceptions to every rule, as I noted in my comments. But don't take my word for it. The forum archives for NGC and PCGS are still there, go read them. And check the auction records from the time. Then tell me what you see. 2002 was the beginning of the time when coins with original surfaces first began to gain mainstream popularity.
