ANACS vs NGC

I was sitting with the Wilson's, Kim Kiick, Mike Fazzari and some of the young "kids" from NGC. I had a "Shirley Temple" with a tiny pink & green umbrella.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Hmm, sounds like the submitters could identify themselves, if they desire. At our coin club, we all know who donated a coin by the 2x2 flip they use.

 

Does your coin club grade millions of coins a year? He meant that if you sent in a 7 figure coin obviously you can't hide the owner.

He's right as well. I've been saying a long time that nonsense rumor needs to stop.

 

I'm the guy who got up to take some still photos with a Sony a6000 just as the interview began.

 

By the way, goys and birls, the grading course put on by the ANA used the official grading guide put out by the ANA, BUT THEN CONTINUED TO EXPLAIN WHY AND WHEN YOU MUST DEVIATE FROM IT!

In short, when a TPG grades a coin MS65, it DOES NOT MEAN it is a technical MS65. It means it is worth "MS65 money" when ALL it's attributes are considered, both those within and outside the technical grading parameters.

 

I don't think that has been any big secret. Most collectors dislike pure technical grading. Coins with no eye appeal and only technical strength always get hammered for being dogs that would only sell at a discount

 

Have you been reading threads here? It sometimes seems all I read here is nostalgia for pure technical grading! I loved what Mr. Salzburg said at the dinner when he was asked about "grade inflation". He said, "maybe we were wrong then and we have learned better."

That oughtta set a few people off.

 

I have, but that is the nature of threads. You see something and want to disprove it or prove why you are a harder grader. Some people just hate slabs and will hate any number they grade anything too. But the market shows us every day that eye appeal above all else is and has been king for a while. I'm not a Salzburg fan, but I have made that argument before and agree with it. Just because a grade changes over time doesn't mean it was right the first time.

 

How can it be when we once only had 60, 63, and 65 (and theoretically 70) to choose from?

60 used to be a pretty nice coin. Now a 60 is a coin that looks like a dog ate it and regurgitated it.

 

The fact is, Kurt, that Mr. Salzberg's comment is that the "grade" equates to the coin's value in the marketplace instead of giving us a technical grade, and letting collectors value the coin based on the non-technical merits.

What it shows is that the TPGs are not grading coins, but rather valuing them.

 

Exactly the system itself has evolved for more grades where you don't have to round up and down anymore. 60s really are complete dogs for the most part now a days, that's like the one more issue and you would have been details graded grade

 

Yup, and that last line literally came out of Brian Silliman's mouth at the ANA course on "Grading, Problem Coins, and Conservation". I believe the exact quote was: "These days, we aren't so much grading coins as pricing them."

No hesitation, no shame, no remorse. It's more like "we finally found the right way to do this." I find myself agreeing that this way is better.

It DOES have a downside. I won't pay for color. It's a "thing" with me. I just have to mentally subtract the "color premium" in the grade, which means I won't get a chance to buy a coin I might like despite its color, because the "color premium" is built into the grade/price.

 

mikenoodle, posted: "The fact is, Kurt, that Mr. Salzberg's comment is that the "grade" equates to the coin's value in the marketplace instead of giving us a technical grade, and letting collectors value the coin based on the non-technical merits. What it shows is that the TPGs are not grading coins, but rather valuing them."

Nothing new here. That's what every TPGS has clamed to do since 1986. Prior to that the three "important" services (ANACS,INSAB, and NCI to some extent) were not "value grading." The dealers got pissed and banded together to grade their own coins starting at PCGS.

 

then IMHO, they should call their book the "PCGS Guide to Coin Pricing and Counterfeit Detection" because they are no longer grading coins.

 

Yet the ANA is ITSELF now teaching market grading. Think about that. They publish a book based on technical grading and teach now market grading. Watch for the 8th edition. There might be a new chapter entitled, "Why the Rest of this Book is Now Hogwash".

 

It's a death spiral at this point. Soon the whole idea of grading standards will need an overhaul. Well, either that or someone is going to have to start being consistent about what they say and not changing it from time to time.

 

Well, Charles Morgan of CoinWeek is about THIS close [put two fingers VERY close together] to publicly advocating a scrapping of a Sheldon scale based system in favor of a 100 point one.

 

We don't need a new scale. We need the people who use it to apply it consistently and with reproducible results.

Because it's not that the scale doesn't work, it's that the standard by which they true the scale that keeps changing, and that's what makes the system not work.

 

Note...to self:

Anyone with good eyesight and no color blind issues can learn to grade coins in a very short period of time using the strict technical system. I've seen it in seminars. Women and those who know nothing about coins are the best students and learn the quickest.

I doubt there are more than a handful of folks (who are not successful, active dealers already) on the site that can "commercial" grade. That's because you need to know the value of the coins you grade.

 

Wouldn't make a difference, no one really wants that. That would just show how out of touch he is if he thought that revaluing billions of dollars or graded coins would be healthy for the hobby.

They results are reproducible, a lot more than people think or believe in all honesty. The idea that sending something in again changes the grade automatically is completely false.