Brilliant Uncirculated

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

It is an opinion that is fueled by the exact type of propaganda that you are spewing right now. Never once on any forum, magazine, or book have I seen material presented that proves that the TPG's intentionally change their grading standards over time.

Gradeflation is real and it is not an accident. It is the natural result based on the rules of the grading system that have been in place since the inception of the TPG's. I have explained it several times and you have not even attempted to refute my logic to this point. All you do is rely on your old stand by which is that only people with 30+ years of experience truly know what is going on. That is pure bs and you know it. Argue your points and let your opinion stand on it's own merit. After all, I have already proven in another thread that your recollection of history is a little hazy.

 

Maybe I am just dense, but the great change in standards in the late 80's was an intentional change, and the article I posted from an authenticator and ANA teacher stating that older collectors need to forget what they know about grades because they aren't that way today, are prime examples of how TPG have changed.

Also, like Doug said, I can sometimes see breaks in luster from photos, sometimes not. You cannot prove from a photo a coin has no breaks in luster, at least I cannot. So to belittle me for not wanting to try something as silly as that serves no purpose. Maybe you like to buy uncirculated coins by a photo, I do not. I need to see it in hand before I can tell it has no breaks in luster.

Chris

 

So now the defense of your theory is that it can't be proven so why try? In order to be taken seriously, you need to provide some evidence that your theory is correct. Your refusal to do so is an admission that you are wrong.

What are you talking about? This thead is about the TPG's changing their standards and the market grading of coins with roll/cabinet friction. It has absolutely nothing to do with toning. That subject is being discussed in an entirely different thread. And I have already debunked your little 2002 theory in that thread so stop rolling your eyes.

As for what I have proved, you are correct, I have not proved anything. What I have done is presented my logical opinion and posted examples to support my viewpoint. And that is a far more than you have done which has amounted to a self declaration of expertise on the subject due to your age.

 

You are confusing what Farazzi was saying. He was talking solely about the practice of market grading coins with wear to mint state grades. This is a change from the old grading standards that pre-dated the TPG's. Doug claims that the TPG's always included that aspect of market grading in their standards but have abused it in recent years. Either way, I am willing to admit that the TPG's have changed their standards regarding the market grading of coins with roll friction, toning, and key date rarity. The number of coins affected by those changes is very small in relation to the total number of coins graded. What I don't agree with is the notion that the TPG's intentionally change their standards for the numerical grade thereby causing gradeflation.

If you admit that you can sometimes see breaks in luster in photos, then there is no excuse why you can't find a coin that shows evidence of wear (from circulation) in a mint state TPG holder on Heritage. Both you and Doug claim that it is a common practice. All I have asked for is one example. I don't think that is an unreasonable request. And I have not belittled you at all. And yes, I have bought hundreds of uncirculated coins from photos because I agree with the accepted practice that the TPG's employ regarding roll friction. Remember the Saint I posted. I saw the wear in the photo, I saw the MS63 grade on the slab, and I accept the fact that the wear on the leg and breast are the result of roll friction, not circulation wear.

 

But how do I prove it is from circulation? You have a worn coin in a 63 holder, lets take that as our example. How do you prove it was not circulated? You cannot prove a negative Lehigh, and your coin has impaired luster, so it is impossible for you to prove to me your coin is uncirculated. You may accept what you wish, but it is unprovable, like any photo I could find in HA archives, (whatever they are, I have never been there).

This is not new, you are right that "cabinet friction" and the like has been treated differently in US coins for a long time. This is one of the biggest reasons I got out of US coins, I was tired of hearing excuses from dealers, "weak strike", "cabinet friction" etc. To me, any loss of details is negative, and should not be allowed in a mint state holder. I was responding to the article that clearly, unequivacably stated it can be from circulation wear. I thought they were wrong before to have "cabinet friction" in MS holders, but now they ADMIT they slab as MS circulated coins. To me, circulated is no different than "roll friction" or "cabinet friction" since it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove such a compromised coin was not circulated. The only coins you can prove are uncirculated are ones without any friction marks or imparied luster.

You are right I am old school, and I believe they have been wrong to accept "roll friction" as an excuse. If you accept "roll friction" as an excuse, then it is not much of a line to cross to grade a coin with the same details, but the wear from circulation, as the same grade. However, they are still referring to coins MS60 and above as "uncirculated" or "mint state". Simply get rid of that notion, and make all grades numerical and I would not have an issue, and it would probably help the whole situation. I am just old and grumpy and hate seeing "unciculated" affixed to impaired coins.

When I collected US I recognized this discrepancy in US grading and bought a LOT of AU coins that were superior to most 62's, just had a trace of honest wear. This is where my "sweet spot" in collecting was, and most of the time they were toned as well. While I thought these coins were good values because of how US collectors grade, I would have never thought they should ever be labelled 60 or higher, since this was supposed to be uncirculated, and my coins weren't.

Chris

 

Mine,

The other aspects of grading are an evolution of the grading process and aspects of market grading. When a TPG grades an Morgan Dollar with MS64 surfaces and dramatic rainbow toning as an MS65, essentially they are saying that the eye appeal of the coin is such that the market should treat the coin as an MS65. I don't agree that they should or need to do this, but I understand the reasoning and how it came about. In other words, it is logical as are all of the other changes that we have discussed.

What is not logical is for a TPG to offer a grade guaranty on the coins they grade and then intentionally loosen their grading standards over time with the plan to simply tighten the standards in the future once the public no longer accepts the grades. Once the standards are tightened, they are on the hook for financial compensation for any coin that was graded during the period with looser standards and they would have damaged their grading repuation in the process. Until you can explain how the TPG's plan to handle that issue, your theory is completely illogical.

The TPG's have stated publicly that gradeflation is a serious problem that threatens their business. You seem to think that they intentionally cause gradeflation to make a quick buck. Which one is it? Based on the sniffer program and plus grades announced this year, it appears that the TPG's recognize gradeflation as a problem and have taken steps to combat it. There isn't much they can do about the coins that have already upgraded, but now when they get a PQ MS64/Low end MS65 they have the option to give the coin MS64+. It may not completely eliminate gradeflation, but it will slow it down.

So you have decided to use the courtroom trick that if a witness testifies and is found to have lied, then his entire testimony is tainted. I fail to see how market grading a coin with roll friction as mint state is a lie. And while we are playing lawyer, what is the motive for the TPG's to change their numerical grading standards. You have stated that they do it in order to ensure resubmissions. However you also admit that those changes would result in gradeflation and eventually require a standard correction which would cost the company money under the grade guaranty clause. That eliminates the financial motive.

Furthermore, how do the TPG's instruct the graders to loosen their standards? VERBALLY? If there was any written policy changes in this regard, a whistleblower scenario would be created instantly.

So you want a 100% assurance that every coin with wear and is graded with a mint state grade that the wear is caused by roll friction and not circulation wear. You are right, you can't say for sure. But for almost everyone else in the world, the indicators that point to roll friction are enough. It may not be a fact that the wear was caused by roll friction, but it is a fact that the coin is market acceptable to the numismatic community as a mint state (uncirculated) coin because the indicators point that way. But I like the way you spun that one.

Perhaps you need to watch a Star Trek movie, your comphrension of logic is obviously lacking!

 

I thought the sniffer was to detect added substances on coins. How does that pertain to grades except for the fact these substances may alter the grade? Substance on a coin is where TPGer is always liable, so they are protecting themselves.

How is that? TPG'ers set their own grading standards, so they are responsible to no one. They guarantee the grade against their own opinion. When they changed standards in the 80's no one got refunds or won in a lawsuit over the grades. The TPG'ers simply changed their standards, requiring everyone to resubmit their coins for a new grade in a new grading standard. Sounds like good business to me, something that could be repeated continuously once every 30-40 years, long enough for the people burned the first time to forget about it.

You know very well that isn't how things are done. Nothing is ever verbal or written, it is coerced through feedback and maybe slowly changing the coins in the reference set. I am not saying this happened, but things like this happen all of the time in the military, business, government, etc without anything ever being documented in writing or even verbally. Having no written proof is hardly unexpected IF it ever happened.

The danger with this is when the market no longer values toning, this coin will still be in a 65 holder when it doesn't deserve it. Who loses? The sucker who overpays for a 65 when it clearly is not a 65.

 

I thought the "sniffer" was the terminology used to describe the new laser system that PCGS uses in the Secure Plus service. Here is the PCGS description of the secure plus service:

I hope this explains how it pertains to numerical grades. If you have anymore questions, perhaps you should venture over to the PCGS website and learn a little more about it.

If either TPG tries that course of action two things will happen. Every single customer will defect to the competition and they will face a multitude of lawsuits from collectors and dealers with deep pockets. I don't know if you know this, but I am an avid poker player and have a instinct for knowing when people are "blowing smoke". And my bluff sensor is going crazy with this most recent post of yours. I would like to ask you some questions because I don't think you have done your homework.

1) Did you really not know that PCGS's new Secure+ system is capable of recognizing previously graded coins?
2) Who exactly changed their grading standards in the 80's?
3) What year did this change in standards take place?
4) What year was PCGS founded?
5) Who founded PCGS and why?
6) What year was NGC founded?
7) Who was the founder of NGC and what other service did he create?
8) Now that you have done your homework, how many PCGS & NGC graded coins would you say were affected by the changed grading standards.
9) Do you really think that either PCGS or NGC could simply change their standards overnight and get away with it?

Now I know you are just blowing smoke. Do your really expect me to believe that you have insider knowledge of how the TPG's are changing their standards when you can't even post one example that shows that standards have changed?

Eye appeal is an element of grading and it seems unlikely that the TPG's would eliminate it as an element of grading anytime in the future. Or are you banking on the scenario that someone will discover that all toning is AT?

So you are worried about paying MS65 money for an MS64 coin. You consider those that do suckers! I am going to provide a link to a thread created by one of our fellow Cointalkers, TomB. Tom wrote this thread in 2003 on the NGC forum and it basically describes his coin purchasing philosophy. Read it and perhaps you will learn something about building a great collection.

Something I have learned about Numismatics

Take note that this thread was penned in 2003 and the author talks about something he learned over the years. I guess Doug assumes that he learned it in 2002.

And before you accuse me of belittling you again, remember, you are the one who just called me a sucker!

 

mr kotter.. mr kotter.. ew. ew .ew. I gots one ! I gots one..


In all seriousness this one blows me away..

PCGS 64BN



PCGS AU58

 

I think that coin actually goes beyond market grading an AU coin to MS. I bet PCGS would chomp at the bit to get that thing out of that holder. But thank you for finally posting an example. At least we know it actually does happen from time to time. I bet the readers of this thread were starting to believe that the old timers were just making the whole thing up.:devil:

 

I thought it was technology to "sniff" chemical compounds placed on a coin. This is the direct cause of of all of the current lawsuit, and I thought this was the meaning of the phrase from NN articles I read. If I am wrong I apologize.

But they didn't. From memory, I believe the changes happened in the late 80's, just a coupel of years after they started. You stating what will happen is conjecture, I am stating what DID happen.

I am glad you have another hobby, but I am not going to answer your little quiz. It is insulting. If you do not believe from any of my posts here I have collected coins for quite a while, that is your right, but I have met David Hall and John Albanese a few times at shows, Mr. Hall in the early 80's when PCGS was just a gleam in his eye.

Of course not. I was responding to your assertion that written or oral evidentiary records would have to exist if such a thing took place. I was just saying that things like this, anything similar, is not accomplished that was. People in every industry are smarter than that, so lack of evidence would not be concusive. That is ALL I was saying, I never inferred it had happened.

Not you Lehigh, since you are smart enough to look past TPG grade and evaluate the coin itself. I was referring to someone just buying the holder because it said 65, and not realizing that when it was slabbed the TPG marked up the grade because the toning or some other attribute of the coin was valued in the market, but now maybe it wasn't. You are right surfaces are usually nice on toned coins, this is a little bit of the differences of opinion on toning. Original surfaces have always been valued, whether toned or not. These were valued in the late 70's as well, "original" coins, not "toned" coins. Original surfaces will always be in demand, they always have been. Toning, though, is not a guarantee of original surfaces, it just usually it means it will be there.

 

First, I don't understand why these questions are insulting to Chris. Second, while you believe that the only pertinent question is number 9, many of the other members of this forum do not know the answers and they are all important. Since you know the answers, would you be so kind as to provide them for us. Queston 1 is irrelevant and 9 has been answered. Thanks in advance!


2) Who exactly changed their grading standards in the 80's?
3) What year did this change in standards take place?
4) What year was PCGS founded?
5) Who founded PCGS and why?
6) What year was NGC founded?
7) Who was the founder of NGC and what other service did he create?
8) Now that you have done your homework, how many PCGS & NGC graded coins would you say were affected by the changed grading standards.

 

If you insist Paul, though I do not know why you think I have to take your quiz, I have already told you of the founders, 86 and 87 was the founding years I believe, 87-88 was when grading standards changed, though it affected ANACS holders more, I have no idea about what other business, I am not into his personal activities, but I think it was NCS, I really don't know Paul, you tell me. I was talking about TPG'ers, not SPECIFICALLY PCGS and NGC. You may not know it, but the coin world did not always revolve around PCGS and NGC, we did fine before them, and even had other TPG'ers before them. As to why you don't understand you imposing on me a duty to answer your questions, I will love to see you insisting any other posters comply to the same degree of questioning their background that you have shown me before you deign to discuss coins with them.

The bottom line is who are TPG'ers responsible to? If they tomorrow change grading standards across the board, stating "collector preferences have changed", who is there to say they are wrong? They already do not follow ANA guidelines, so what authoritative body is there to disagree with them? Who is to say what a 65 is? I will tell you, the TPG is the only authority now to say so, since they make their own grading standards. How would you sue PCGS over your worn 63 if PCGS simply stated that collector grading has changed, and your coin is now a 55? They would reply that your 63 was accurate AT THE TIME, but now it is not. That is how TPG'ers responded in the 80's, that they did nothing wrong, but standards have changed. TPG'ers are always responsible for doctored coins, fakes, etc. They will reimburse bad grades NOW since they are saying standards are the same, if they slab a coin with a bad grade. They have no responsibility to pay ANYTHING if in the future they state that standards have changed "in the industry" and they change their grading standards.

You may very well be right that standards will not get changed en masse like this again. I am just telling you there is no legal repurcussions to them doing so. You cannot sue them, since they are giving an opinion AT THE TIME of a grade. Change standards and they have a get out of jail free card.

Edit: The OP question was what is BU mean. This has gone offtrack, across the road, and onto four other tracks so far. I never meant this to be about TPG'ers, and didn't mean to single them out from any other source of grading, since there are too many threads like this already. To the OP, BU and MS are both supposed to mean an uncirculated coin. As you can see there is a lot of discussion and history concerning what that means, both in the past and now.

 

When those changes happened in the 80's, no one was complaining, because dealers and collectors were reaping huge profits , encapsulating their " Raw " inventories, quietly moving them into the secondary market as over graded coins resulting in inflated secondary market values . For the most part, this was not across the board so to speak, but specific to some early U.S. coinage series .