My Beef with Grading Companys....

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Failure To Communicate

Since it appears that bold letters makes it impossible for some to understand what is written, I will respond in a like font. If you "convert" my post to your desired font, and read same with another it will be determined that I never mentioned dollars other than to show that a single grade disparity in a MS65 common date Double Eagle is quite appreciable (enough to purchase 100 MS63 Morgan Dollars, which was being used as the standard for disparity of worth). I can't quite determine where you imagined that I stated "that there is no difference between and MS63 and MS65 Morgan Dollars". I posted "I was about to do the same, showing grading incongruities by posting AU58 to MS65 "common date" St. Gaudens Double Eagles, as I've previously posted on this site." I've personally found the Morgan Dollar grading to be more difficult grading than Double Eagles, and in a study of TPG have used a coin which has more universally recognized grading criteria. The value of a Double Eagle error is probably more monetarily significant than other coins. Empirical data from past random resubmissions has shown that the top tier TPG are very inconsistent, specimens "in hand" indicating that they can hardly determine attributes, much less consistently grade, thus plus grading, and secondary certification. In my opinion, "Top Tier" TPG have already established their inconsistencies, hardly ones to correctly ask for regrading of their past efforts. My offer to wager a large sum is open to all critics of my process, especially those who are espoused to be the ultimate authorities for grading. The post challenge by GD will ascertain your personal grading capabilities relative to the "PROS", of which when shown to be undoubtedly correct, I will be very admirable/respectful, showing my failure to recognize a Morgan Dollar grading authority, for which I will express humility.

 

1902 series

1. 373
2.431
3.920
4. 632

1903 series
1.747
2.920
3.632
4.920

 

Sorry, but the only thing that will ascertain is how much some idiot was willing to pay. I may also have been a professional, but you have no way of knowing. And then there is the problem with the graders. There is no way they are perfect nor repeatable. To make matters worse, doing it without the reverses is about like trying to climb a rope with both hands tied behind your back.

 

1 632.50 - just because the pictures make it look lifeless. Nice and clean, but not as well struck as the others.
2 920 - Nicer coin, but not as nice as #4 in my opinion.
3 747.50 - Just because the pictures make the coin look frostier than number 1 and people go for that over the lifeless coin. In my opinion something about the hair just bugged me. I like coin number 1 better
4 920 - easily the best coin in the bunch based off the pictures.

Based off the pictures - my picks would be coin 4, then coin 2, coin 1 and coin 3. Just my opinion.

 

For someone who appears to know it all, I am surprised that you don't know that typing in all bold or all caps on an internet forum is tantamount to yelling. Or were you being rude intentionally like you are in the your most recent post. Now let me understand this next part. You are saying that you were concerned that we would not be able to fathom how much $2,500 is and that you needed to use the example of 100 MS63 Morgan Dollars in order to explain it. And of course the use of that example had nothing to do with the previous comments regarding MS63 & MS65 Morgan Dollars in this thread!

Now follow along rich guy, here is the first post that started this mess

This is my response

This is you quoting my response which was about the difference between MS63 & MS65 Morgan Dollars and saying that you have proved it ludicrous that anyone can consistently differentiate between these grades. It makes no difference that you were using the example of Saints, the way your post reads, it clearly indicates that you disagreed with my post. Can you determine where I imagined it now?

​

The rest of your post is basically incoherent, and no, it is not related to the font. What empirical data? You have presented none here.

If I accept your wager the way it is worded now, can I call $100 large if I lose and $10,000 large if I win? If you want to put a wager out there, then state the sum of money you are willing to bet. Otherwise, pipe down.

Lastly, GD's challenge will do nothing to ascertain grading abilities since all eight coins are known to be graded MS66. It may discern who is able to determine grades within a grade but without everyone listing comments along with their answers, it could just show who is lucky.

 

Yeah, Doug didn't ask for our reasons why we chose to match which coin with what price. He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he is trying to demonstrate how price can be affected by variations witihin a single grade which can compound the dilemma of distinguishing from one grade to another.

I'd rather be lucky than good, but if I could be both good and lucky, it would be priceless.

Chris

PS. Lehigh, Rick bought a nice set of dueling pistols on an episode of Pawn Stars if you need them.

 

Apparent Inability To Communicate

To minimize degradation of this thread, I will respond in brevity, and entertain additional submission/response by P.M.
1. My post isn't in "bold", but merely in "arial black" font, which darkens/spreads characters for ease of reading.
2. I believe your post mistated my "words of record", which I deem unacceptable.
3. I merely took exception to your post which I believe incorrectly inferred that medoraman had stated an inability to recognize grade differences, but your infallibility allowed distinguishment and acceptance of significant add. pricing.
4. Empirical data is specified as that from differing grading upon resubmission, and receipt of holders incorrectly identifying coin type enclosed.
5. I believe we understand the wager process without stated "odds", to whatever amount a responder would care to lose.
6. I must have missed a portion of the GD posts, as you've cited information, of which I find no thread posting. It isn't the first time I may have erred!!

 

1903's
1. 920
2. 632
3. 747
4. 920

My guess is based on which coins I like best. But, if the coins sold at auction, the prices realized could be surprising and have nothing to do with which is the better coin. That said, IMO the coins are for the most part of similar quality and it would be tough to choose one over the other.

 

coins 2 and 4 920

coin 1 700
coin 3 600

 

Zebras are reactionaries.

 

Thanks for the posts GDJMSP. The price differences that can be among the same grade, let alone price differences between grades that many, (even dealers), cannot reliably distiguish, was the jist of my post. I was simply trying to ask why pay more for something that is such a tiny difference.

I have a nice XF/AU set of seated halves. I have never even tried to differentiate between the grades when I purchased them or now. To me, I wanted certain dates, and that was acceptable grades to me. That is what was important. Maybe if MS65 is your lowest acceptable grade and you really can tell the difference, then ok, but I would challenge most collectors that they couldn't tell the difference 100% of the time between 63,64,65, and 66's. My question then was why do people pay so much more for the higher grades?

Grade inflation and huge price differences in insignificant grades I just cannot understand I guess. Call me old fashioned or an old timer I guess. That's ok.

 

If a dealer represents a coin as an 1878-CC Morgan Dollar and the buyer later discovers the coin received was an 1878-S Morgan Dollar; the buyer has a legal claim. Irrespective of how long the buyer spent examining the coin. Irrespective of whether the coin is counterfeit or not. Once the dealer made the representation that the coin was an 1878-CC he created a warranty. A dealer representing a Buffalo Nickel as 1938-D OMM1 has created a warranty that the coin is in fact that specific variety.

Likewise the same holds true for grading. Once a dealer places a grade on a coin they have created an expressed warranty as to condition of that coin. It is true that there is no specific grading standard recognized by the industry but that does not provide a defense for a dealer utilizing an undisclosed proprietary 100 point grading scale standard in which BU stands for butt ugly. It is reasonable for a buyer to assume when purchasing a dealer graded coin from a dealer, who list membership in ANA as credentials, that the coin purchased is graded according to ANA standards. It is reasonable for a buyer, who purchases a coin knowing the dealer priced it according to GREYSHEET, to assume the coin grades accordingly. It is reasonable for a buyer to assume that a coin will grade equal to or above a specific grade by a specific grading service if a dealer represents the coin would do so.

 

The problem is one is provable and one is not. A mintmark or error variety is provable. Most of the time 100 out of 100 people agree, so therefor you are talking about a specific TYPE of good. You cannot sell a chevy, call it a cadillac, and get away with it. Condition does NOT make a specific type of good, it is the same good, just a matter of condition. Combine this fact that there simply is no recognized system, and even if there were, 100 out of 100 experts will never agree what to grade under that system, then you have the problem. A BU is NOT a different good than an AU, it is just degrees of wear, and you cannot tell me that 100 out of 100 dealers or collectors would always agree. If you HAD a situation where it was blatant, and 100 out of 100 would back you, then you would have a case. Say a dealer sold a little old lady a coin as XF and it was a damaged VG. I am sure 100 out of 100 would agree with you its way overgraded. That is not the case you were talking about.

If there is ANY disagreement as to its grade, (grading scale, disagreement versus wear, etc), then the onus is on the purchaser to inspect the goods before purchase. Just like buying a used car, if the dealer says its in "great" condition, there is no standard to measure by, and another dealer may say its a "very good" car. Please do not try to make the comparison between new and used cars, that is a legally derived term, and does not apply here.

 

You go on living in your world and let us live in ours. In my world, you are innocent until proven guilty. How can you prove guilt when "there is no specific grading standard recognized by the industry" available to prove guilt? Just like the used car salesman is guilty of nothing when he sells a car low mileage in excellent condition - despite being into its third turnover on the speedometer and the engine literally dragging on the ground. Sorry, but that is the law.

 

Anyway - here's the answers to the price match up.

First group -

1 - $373.75

2 - $920

3 - $431

4 - $632

Second group -

1 - $632

2 - $920

3 - $747

4 - $920


To take this analysis a step further, let's assume there's only one coin, not four different of each date. Now, assume that one coin is auctioned four different times within minutes of one another. You could probably find those same four different prices realized for the same coin. For that matter, if the same coin is sold by four different dealers, you could probably find those four different asking prices. It pays to not get caught up in the “excitement” of an auction or to shop around.

 

You are not going to like this but I am going to say it anyway. It is your claim that collectors can't tell the difference between MS63, MS64, & MS65. Therefore collectors should not pay MS64 or MS65 money when they can simply pay MS63 money and get an MS63 coin. The problem is that your theory is predicated on the assumption that the professional graders also can't make the distinction between these grades. This basically turns back time to before the TPG's existed. A time when only MS60 and MS65 existed. Now since there are no TPG's in your scenario, the dealers will simply grade all MS63's as MS65 and charge MS65 prices for coins that are not gem uncirculated.

People pay more for for higher grades because the quality of the coin is better. Under the current system, we rely on the grade assigned by the TPG to determine the grade of the coin. Each collector must decide if they agree with the TPG grade before they buy the coin. Nobody can differentiate between the grades 100% of the time because of the inherent subjectivity of grading. However, the reason these grades (that you think people can't differentiate) exist is because collectors were being ripped off when those grades did not exist. You think that your method will result in lower prices, but in fact, the exact opposite is true. You will pay more!

 

I'd Appreciate An Opinion

You appear well versed in "consumers' rights", and I believe you've insinuated that you're of the opinion that a "top tier" TPG should be the ultimate authority for determining "value" of a coin. If I've misunderstood, please correct me. I have a dilemma, for which I'd appreciate your opinion. The attached photo is of a coin purchased in auction many years ago, being sold by a son (of a deceased collector), who had been informed by the father of the coin rarity, because it was a MOTTO coin which had been undergraded in the past by PCGS, when "standards" were very different than today. This unblemished coin without "rub", scratches, nicks, gouges, having uniform "cartwheel" field luster should grade MS65, using current standards. The auction had just a close-up Obverse photo, which clearly allowed one to determine the truth of MS65 claims. I purchased the coin for a significant premium above the value for the grade shown upon the holder. Upon receiving the coin, I compared the coin Obverse to others of MS65 grade, certified by the same TPG. None of the other MS65 coins had unflawed fields, and all had nicks, gouges, rub, etc.. I knew that I had a resubmission "Gem", which should easily grade MS65. Because of my busy schedule, the coin was hastily placed in storage, until recently when I intended to re-submit. My Lady asked to inspect the coin, which was allowed, where she asked the meaning of the word MOTTO, indicated on the holder. I explained the history/rarity of this coin which was relatively minimally produced with the motto "In God We Trust" on the reverse, and had an ~$16500 retail value in a MS65 grade. She said "what motto"? Upon inspection, I realized that the coin was without the motto, having an ~$12,000 lesser value. I'm certain the coin will realize the anticipated grade, but who is culpable for the damages caused by the "missing MOTTO"? I'm not certain who I should sue, as many on this site recognize the TPG to be the ultimate authority, but accepting that grading standards are no longer "conservative", as in the past, allowing resubmission to achieve current grade status. Should I sue the U.S. Mint who failed to insert the MOTTO, or the deceased father who may have mislead the son and TPG? My damages are minimally ~$12,000. Who is at fault? I'd appreciate your opinion. I Trust that this post is proper for inclusion in this thread about grading problems. :bow: