Define Market Grading

I've been hoping for 6 years to find some decent pocket change.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Bean Wars - CAC

What's this about a standard governing an art form?

art form
noun
any activity regarded as a medium of imaginative or creative self-expression.

Why do you waste your time discussing standards from ages ago and comparing them to now, when you believe grading to be an art? Come to terms with the fact that each grader, even you, will have their own imagination or form of creative expression. When someone wants their mint coin or entire collection downgraded to AU or Harshly Cleaned, you are the go to artist.

 

Yeah, it easy to think I would like it because it makes my coins worth more, but I really don't think that is the end state. Like I said, the market adjusts and it would be a zero sum game.

Now a question, why would you want to jam all those coins into a 63 holder? That seems to be your most popular grade. So you have some 63's that are lower quality, some average, and some dang fine coins so the value of the 63 coin is quite variable as there is a wide range of coins. Now if you get "looser" and start utilizing the upper lever grades more, you shoud wind up with only the lower quality coins in 63 holder and the grade becomes more consistent and easier for the market to determine value based on grade.

Just a little bit with the numbers. Let's pick a random number and say there are 5000 Mint State examples of a certain coin. If you are jamming 98% those coins in holders marked 64 or below that puts an average of just under 1000 per grade. Now if you use looser standards and put 98% of those coins in holders 67 or below you average around 650 coins per grade, and hopefully the result of that is less variability within the grade. Now when some says they are sell a 65 coin, you should a much better idea about what 65 really means and market values should be more consistent. Under your system, if you tell me your a selling a 63 coin, now I have to start asking. Uh, is it a nice 63? No? Okay is it an average 63? And this of course makes valuing the coin so much more difficult.

 

In fairness, you can't say that it doesn't work because your system of grading does not exist in the market place. Mike's point is that if we employed your system of grading, and all of the coins were concentrated in a small grade range, the value ranges for those grades would be much wider than the value ranges for the grades we see under the current system. It is hard to dispute that what he is saying would be true and it is the exact same argument that I have used when arguing with you about the fact that you can't simply grade every Saint Gaudens double eagle AU because of high point friction.

 

So far, in various topics, I've seen GDJMSP's AU opinion used to describe coins from AU to MS67. So yes, I agree, having such a range under the AU grade would play real havoc with AU prices. @LostDutchman, as a representative, sponsor, moderator of the same forum that GDJMSP moderates, refuses to honor his prices base on GDJMSP's grades. It's easier to get a price match at Walmart.

 

I'll agree with you on "traditional" or "historic" coins but I personally (and many others) think that many moderns minus the errors or varieties are all the same. What year people think divides modern from historic may differ but many think this way. But at least you will have cladking on your side.

 

Great balls of fire! I think I got it now. Market grading is technical grading plus whatever mysteries the TPG priesthood suddenly discover that "un-locks" value for a coin or subtracts from it.

Isn't that what coin collectors did between themselves with Brown & Dunn 50 years ago? "Yeah, it's Extra Fine, but this one is special because ( insert whimsy of the realm). And they haggle back and forth ect. Something like...an actual market?

 

.

 

I think your right on. Seems to me, collectors/dealers have been debating/arguing over the value of a coin as long as there has been a hobby.

Now we add a couple more variables (TPG's and CAC) and the process continues. The more things change, the more they stay the same!

 

I can't speak for Doug, nor would I try. I generally follow/read his posts, and believe that his distinction
for an AU coin is as stated in the general published A.N.A. standard.

I believe the primary stated distinction between AU and MS is wear, followed by varying degrees of luster, blemishes, bag marks, toning, etc..

A MS coin CAN NOT show signs of wear, and must have MINT LUSTER.

A GEM state MS coin generally should have FULL MINT LUSTER, with possible uneven toning, and a few light nicks.

I believe that any reasonable layjury would find an objective basis for "debasement" if shown examples of TPG certified MS67 or greater graded coins with exceptions to the previously stated GEM state conditions.

It's believed a plaintiff presenting "old school" graded GEM state or better graded coins having the published standard conditions would be found to have been "damaged", if a "new school" higher graded coin has lesser degree of published GEM qualities. A finding of at least the value of the greatest state comparable conditioned new school graded coin would be reasonable for all old school coins presented.

If a "new school" blemished MS70 graded coin can be shown, versus an "old school" unblemished MS65 graded coin of the same TPG, reasonable damages may be that of the greatest value "new school" TPG stated market value for the grade found offending.

I believe that reasonable adjudication would find that it unreasonable for offending TPG firms to establish the damages for their mistakes.

An automobile manufacturer who produces a defective piece of "art" isn't allowed to establish damages. It's believed that neither should a firm that abases the life savings of an elderly couple who invested their life savings in a product sold to them by a prominent Numismatic sales firm.

JMHO

 

As someone who often has to pick through the potato bin at the store to find the right size for my recipe, or to find ones that aren't too heavily spotted, discolored or sprouted, I urge you to pick your analogies a bit more carefully.

More seriously, there will always be people who care deeply about characteristics that just don't matter to other people. It's certainly true for coins, and for many other things besides. Fungibility is easy to define, and easy to declare, but sometimes hard to pin down.

 

You forgot to present the tiny air pockets and grease pockets that hide between the die and coin surface when the die strikes the planchet.

Subjective opinions about what full luster and wear is, are up for interpretation in this interpretive grading form of art. Some people have more flexible personalities, others more rigid. So far, all innocent bystanders and the TPGs do not see an AU coin when presented with an MS67. Maybe they are just more realistic, have more experience at being open-minded and flexible and just want to be able to utilize the Sheldon Scale to the max.

I once asked GDJMSP to show me his approved version of a specific coin in MS65 or MS66. To this day I have no answer, most likely doesn't exist because it would have to be graded at MS71 in the real world.

Which 1915 S $5 Matches Which Slab?

How is utilizing the Sheldon Scale only up to AU an acceptable grading standard?

 

Actually I would like to see a non modern coin that grades a Doug ms66 as well

 

When was that?

Online auction archives only go back about 10-12 years so of course you can make that claim since there is no way to prove or disprove it.

There is no possible way to eliminate price ranges completely from the coin business. But if you concentrate almost all of the coins into a small range of grades, it will only serve to exacerbate the existence of conditional rarities. With more conditional rarities and the population of those rarities reduced, the laws of supply and demand will dictate the the prices of those conditional rarities rise, thereby increasing the price gap between the conditional rarity grade and the next lower grade. The larger that gap, the wider range of price variance you will see for the lower grade.

I have seen Saint Gaudens Double Eagles with high point wear in PCGS rattler holders with MS grades. That means that the TPGs made the decision very early on not to grade Saints by the "wear is wear" philosophy. If they had graded them that way, almost every Saint would reside in an AU holder and the quality would be all over the map for the AU58 grade. The variance in that grade would be enormous.

 

I wish @mikem2000 would invite you guys for a telephone interview on The Coin Show.