Define Market Grading

Oh no, not the dreaded 2004 TPG magical loosening of standards again. Tell ya what, just get me one grader at NGC or PCGS to admit that it happened and I will believe you.

Um, I'm not 15 years old, so yes, I was around in the 90's. However, I spent my time buying blast white premium gem Mercury Dimes during that time period and was really not interested in auction price spreads within grades, so no I do not recall seeing them. What I do remember is that it was much harder to find slabbed coins back then and that even the major auction houses like Heritage offered raw coins. The TPGs did not have a stranglehold on the market like they do now and populations changed drastically for many date/mms across a great many series. Sounds like a good reason for price variances to me.

I just explained to you in my previous post how having all the coins concentrated in a small number of grades would cause the prices of the conditionally rare grades to increase dramatically. Something would change, the "variances" as you call them would be much, much bigger. That is Mike's point and it is valid whether you admit it or not.

The reason you see them is because the TPG's started making allowances for high point wear on Saints shortly after they started grading coins. I have discussed this topic at length with Saintguru on the PCGS forums. He has collected high end Saints for a very long time. He agreed with the PCGS statement that almost every Saint he has seen has some measure of high point friction. I don't really need to walk the bourse floor at an auction with you when a lifelong collector of high end Saints has already confirmed. And IIRC, some of the other members of this forum whom you hold in high regard also agreed with the PCGS statement. Leadfoot comes to mind!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Au contraire!

The conditions stated in my post are gleaned from the "OFFICIAL A.N.A. GRADING STANDARDS FOR UNITED STATES COINS", and aren't necessarily mine.

The published standard generally covers anomalies (blemishes?) which may occur in coin processing but still would be considered integral "mint luster".

I believe the published standard has been publicly touted to be defended by two Third Party Graders (A.K.A. TPG), having stated to be the official grading services of the A.N.A.. A position strongly publicly defended by Numismatists, coin dealers, and outlets for public acquisition of numismatic certified products.

I believe the original illustrated (1977 Copyright) 350+ page published document clearly describes the general facets of specific grades, including deviations and degree of variation.

JMHO

 

JMHO, or JTheirHO? What is your opinion? Summed up, please. In other words, is there anything I should respond to, because I'm not sure what the point was, exactly.

Isn't any published "art" text open to interpretation, especially one trying to govern subjective opinions? I think that the majority of the drawn out grading discussions here on CT stem from a "must always voice opinion in every topic, must always be right, don't have to provide any real evidence and wish to remain vague and inflexible at all costs" personality disorder.

 

But, now the opinion is that 90% of collectors and most of the time the TPGs don't know how to grade.

Here is an interesting observation from another thread...

So, I gather the standard published by the A.N.A also aspires to utilize the Sheldon Scale, right?

I'll repeat what I already questioned earlier...

I really think that most people in the industry have moved on. Only a few remain to dwell on the past and nitpick all forum grading topics to death. I've been called a troll for far less.

 

Fortunately, NCI certs were still around to show everyone how it's done.

 

So you are saying that the ANA changed their grading standards because they realized that the system they were using wasn't working. But you continually criticize the TPGs for making similar changes in grading standards because you don't agree with said changes.

Furthermore, what are the differences between NGC and PCGS grading standards? A few examples might be helpful.

Oh let me guess, value grading started in 2004?

 

Yeah, instead of minor changes like the TPGs, the ANA made wholesale changes to the way they graded coins. And if they started employing market grading within one year of the inception of the TPGs then they really don't have anymore experience than the TPGs with market grading and therefore shouldn't be considered the established grading standard for the hobby.

Btw, what are the differences between NGC and PCGS grading standards? A few examples might be helpful.

 

My point is that you and others of your ilk always harken back to the ANA standards since they were the original standards. If the market grading standards were created basically at the same time with assistance from those who started the TPGs, then the ANA standards can stake no claim of superiority. Grading changed across the board in 1986.

This is the type of intellectually dishonest debate that you always resort to using when you see your case unravelling. The TPGs DID NOT, repeat DID NOT loosen standards across the board. Not in 2004 or any other year. You have never shown any proof that the loosening of standards ever happened. All of the changes employed by the TPGs were related to the expansion of market grading principles, eg. allowing for roll friction, grade bumps for toning and exceptional eye appeal, value grading of extreme rarities, net grading of coins with different grades on obverse/reverse etc.

NGC has never published their standards, that is correct. I have looked at the coins and across a great many series, I don't see any difference at all in the way these two companies grade coins. Morgan Dollars are graded almost exactly the same with the exception that PCGS is tougher on the MS67 & MS68 grades. Some of the strike designations are different, but those standards are published IIRC. You allude to the fact that there are major differences between the grading standards employed by NGC & PCGS. The only differences I see are subtle, so I ask again.

What are the differences between NGC and PCGS grading standards? A few examples might be helpful.

 

Another dodge, let me ask the question in another way. Which series of coins do NGC & PCGS have the biggest disparity in grading standards?

 

Glad to see the original date of this thread, and likewise glad to see that nothing has changed in terms of being dogmatic. This is, as if "market grading" didn't exist before TPGs? Oh please--good dates were always graded accordingly "by eye" so as to maximize profit. Not like it was the "good ole days" before TPGs.

 

Agree. Seems to me this debate has been "raging" ever since people decided to collect coins. The TPG's just add a new flavor and IMO, even the playing field a little for us smaller collectors.

"Is that a nick I see in the prime focal area? Well now, I can't be giving you anywhere close to Gem BU. It's maybe a BU, but there does appear to be a rub just above the ear. Hmm, I'll give you $xx.xx"

 

Do you think there was a change in grading from the rattler pcgs era to now? The premium rattlers have and how few exist today makes me think they are graded with tougher standards.

 

Ok, I have to walk that last statement back a little bit. I meant they did not change standards with the exception of the time they admitted to changing their standards.

John Albanese has been quoted as saying "I can speak both for NGC and PCGS concerning the first six months of operation. The grading standards of both services were too tight."

That said, this quote came from James L. Halperin from Heritage in 2005 "On average, NGC and PCGS standards were a little too tight in the 1980's and today they are just about right." And while Doug likes to credit the ANA grading standards for creating market grading, it was actually Halperin's book from 1985 "How to Grade US Coins" which is the basis for PCGS & NGC's grading standards. So while Doug spreads the misinformation about the collapse of TPG grading standards in 2004, the guy who literally wrote the book on the subject went on to say in 2005 "overall, I have never felt better or more confident about the numismatics profession in general." So really this whole debate comes down to: who are you gonna believe? Jim Halperin or GDJMSP?

All of those quotes come from Scott Travers book THE COIN COLLECTOR'S SURVIVAL MANUAL (5th Edition, 2006).

 

[QUOTE="Lehigh96, post: 2019414, member: 15309]So really this whole debate comes down to: who are you gonna believe? Jim Halperin or GDJMSP?[/QUOTE]

I never trust a man with more then four names.

 

[/QUOTE]
I never trust a man with more then four names.[/QUOTE]

Not even Francisco Domingo Carlos Andres Sebastian d'Anconia?