Have TPG'ers truly jumped the shark? (NN article)

I think to some degree we all agree...

I always hear "learn to properly grade and ignore the plastic"...but, it is difficult to do when everyone has their own (relative) scale.


I have purchased just as many overgraded coins as I have undergraded coins because they were priced right.

Now when I look at a potential purchase for my colonial type set; I "grade" a piece based on the condition and price relative to those that are currently available or have recently been bought/sold and auction/private treaty.

So, I guess rather than stating that grading is subjective, I think I should have said that it is relative?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

It would certainly be a bump in the road, but I don't think it would be too bad. I think it would actually be pretty smooth.

In addition to relieving the current injustice (AU58 < MS60), it would have another, more subtle advantage...

Currently, VF35 coins are stigmatized. Since they are "only VF", they tend to get dragged down in price; in essence they are coupled with VF20 coins, even though they are a whisker away from XF.

Is that fair ? No.

Rational ? No.

Fixable ? Yes. Easy. Get rid of VF / XF designations.

Heck, EAC got rid of 'em years ago. No chaos, no trauma. Just do it.

In fact, that's what Sheldon was doing all along. In referring to a "40 coin", he was market grading. No XF, no VF, no AU. Just a number, indicating value.

Just do it.

It starts with Greysheet and Red Book. Simply remove the alphabetic descriptors in those two and the rest of the hobby / industry will follow.

Smooth and easy.

 

There you go using your common sense...you know better...that never works.

Sadly we will probably only see larger plastic slabs in order to accommodate more stickerz.

I leave with a quote from the inventory page of Julian M. Leidman :


"I much prefer adjectival descriptions, rather than numerical. For uncirculated grades of coins, uncirculated would correspond to MS 60, choice would correspond to MS 63, very choice to MS 64, gem to MS 65, GEM to MS 66, superb gem to MS 67, spectacular or nearly perfect to MS 68 or MS 69. Perfect, of course is a 70 grade. These would correspondingly apply to Proofs, as well."

 

Lol, heck yeah. I can see special protectors as well, so people can advertise, "mint plastic, with mint CAC sticker, a coin is also in there somewhere".

 

It would be a heck of a lot easier for me to understand grades if the changes you suggest were put into effect.

 

I have great respect for Julian, but strongly disagree with him on this one.

Which is easier to understand - looking at a bunch of coins graded 60, 65, 64, 63, 67

...or looking at a bunch of coins graded uncirculated, gem, very choice, choice, superb gem ?

Imagine the consternation of a newcomer encountering the latter ! What the %%@*)(%^ is the difference between superb gem and choice gem ? What's the difference between choice and choice gem ? Select gem ?

Infinitely better to use numbers. Everyone knows 65 > 64; not everyone knows gem > very choice.

 

Please post up when that happens. In the meantime, I'm not holding my breath.

 

It was popular with beanie baby collectors. I did see at a local coin show collectors having plastic screen savers on their slabs so they don't get scratched..

 

There's wrong with putting a slab in a plastic slip. 99.9% aren't, but what's wrong with those which are ? It's an advantage to have a scuff-free slab - particularly for photography. They're simply protecting the slab. Ain't no big thing.

​

 

Fair enough Doug, but I believe the article said it could be circulation wear from 61 to 63, (since MS60 is no longer used). I agree about the whole debate of cabinet friction, I don't agree either, and I also agree that grade should be about surviving details, nothing more nothing less. It just galls me that they still use MS if they are willingly slabbing circulated coins. If they wanted to strictly switch to 1-70 or 1-100 scale and not imply a coin is MS at any number, then great, do what they feel like. Just do not knowlingly mislead collectors like that.

To me its still fraud if they label something MS when they know it is circulated.

 

Well I for one hope that I misunderstood the article and he meant only cabinet friction, but it appears much has changed as you say. Please let us know his response and if the TPG'ers are just changing the definition of 61-63. Like I said I am ok with that if they remove the illusion that anything 60 and over is supposed to not be circulated.

I wonder if all of those old AU55-58's I bought might be able to get slabbed 63's.

 

This is old news to oldtimers. Even PCGS tactfully announced this years ago. I believe it was page 19 of the first edition of the PCGS grading guide where they say that capped bust halves with light wear can be graded as MS and that Saint-Gaudens double eagles can have rub on the leg in grades all the way up the MS-67! (Darn Doug beat me to it.)

And most of the M-60 and 61 grades disappeared long ago. Back in the early years of slabbing MS-60 and 61 coins were quite common. The they just dried up and the number of 62's exploded. It seems if it was MS and good enough to send in then it must be good enough for at least a 62. This was around the 88 - 90 period.

As for the 70 to 100 point grading, you folks have missed it. They floated that ballon awhle back and it was soundly rejected. (No one wanted to learn a new system, everything would have to be regraded, AND BESIDES THEY WEREN'T CONSISTANT ENOUGH ALREADY WITH JUST ELEVEN MS POINTS!) So then they announce their new Plus system and theynow use in house 101 MS grading points. (what was that concern again about consistancy?) But they announced it and now the hobby is falling all over themselves to embrace it. (Mooo. Or maybe that should be Baahh?)

Now isn't that a mixed message since in the "Sheldon" grading system Basel State would be a Poor-1

 

Since I'm new to these parts, would you be so kind as to tell me what you have been saying for the past 3 or 4 years? I have a feeling that it's "buy the coin, not the slab".

 

I understand and appreciate everyones points. This has been a very informative thread thank you.

 

F. Michael “Skip” Fazzari, former chief authenticator for ANACS, expert numismatist for Independent Coin Grading (ICG) is an instructor at the ANA Summer Seminar.

The article is now online here at the Numismatic News site.

And just an aside as one's man's treasure is another man's trash -- You get this silly stuff with US numismatics because America does not have a long or deep history, so we protect the plastic holders that contain the artifacts and we put 14-power and 250-power opticals on them to find mistakes and we have no idea or interest who was Director of the Mint or Secretary of the Treasury when the coin was struck (much less Secretary of State). Yet, I can hand my 2500-year old Athenian "Owl" to another collector to hold, touch and appreciate while we discuss Themistocles and Pericles.

American numismatics has a lot to study and enjoy: colonials... Hard Times ... Myself, I think that stock certificates are quintessentially American. And yes, we do have Perfect Coins and I even own one, a Proof-70 Roosevelt Dime in an ICG holder. One. That's all you need.

 

Doug, I was just wondering if you have had a chance to read the article and what you thought. It just really saddens me that grading has come to this if it is true. They really should just create another structure and do what they want if they are going to ignore the basis on which grades were created. I am not usually for more regulation, but I wish a group like the ANA had the authority to set standards and not let deterioration and to me outright lies like this occur.

Circulation wear on uncirculated coins Here comes Fonzie on his skis...........

Edit: Good points as well MMarotta and thank you for posting the link.