ANACS vs NGC

Depends what the "board" is.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

0-70, Sheldon. You know, the one that worked fine before graders added their opinions on FMV. The one that existed before the bullion grading explosion. The one that existed before the TPGSs got greedy, and COULD be trusted to give an honest assessment of the coin. The one that we grew to know as the standard. The one that.... well, I think you get my point.

 

Grading guides don't take any factors into account other than technical grade. Not to mention the fact that they are never accurate and rarely if ever reflect the actual market value of any given coin.

The funny thing is, as I stated before, most grading disagreements take place at AU - MS levels and above.

 

I thought this was simple. Why cloud the issue? This is getting very confusing...

OBVIOUSLY You will not see a price guide with the value of an AU higher than an Unc. [where did this come from?] What you will see is plenty of AU coins (raw & slabbed) graded, priced, and worth more than an MS-60!

 

to be fair, Kurt is having a hard time disengaging value from grade.

To me, value is value, and grade is grade, but to be honest, he's just commenting based on the system currently in use by the TPGs

 

The scale itself already does that, it's the fatal flaw of having a defining line of uncirculated and circulated. The best of the just barely circulated will be better than the worst uncirculated. MS 60 really means this coin is one more thing away from getting a details grade. AU 58 is full detail with a touch of rub on high points, MS 60 is heavy marks and possible hairlines. The overwhelming majority of people would rather have a touch of high point rub over heavy marks

 

His interpretation of it. If they were grading strictly off value as some are presenting you would put every 58 into an MS holder and 61s would be shifted to 58s ect

 

actually, many AU58s are already in MS holders

 

There's some that some people would consider AU 58s. Some of which are attributed to the fact that various people just disagree how storage methods that impacted the surface should impact a grade and others have disagreements over what is wear and what is a poor strike, but there's no shortage of 58s out there

 

I think as long as a "trusted professional" grades the coin according to the same criteria as the next "trusted professional", the buyer/seller could decide the value of that coin, adjusting value for quality of strike, color, or marks/dings etc... The point of grading (IMO) is to authenticate, as well as grade, so that when selling/buying, the biased opinions of those involved, are not in play. Could the graders be wrong? Absolutely, but shouldn't be off more than 1 point either direction. I don't want the graders opinion on the FMV, and am not paying them for it.

 

baseball21, posted: "There's some that some people would consider AU 58s. Some of which are attributed to the fact that various people just disagree how storage methods that impacted the surface should impact a grade and others have disagreements over what is wear and what is a poor strike,..."

Another variable. However, with true technical grading that was done by professional numismatists using a stereomicroscope and florescent light at the services in DC (ANA & INS) there was NO DISAGREEMENT between the two (rub/weak strike) as any dunce could tell the difference!

Additionally, in their "ivory tower" they had no regard to please any submitter, stretch grades, worry about income, play the game, etc. Unlike today when the budget at a major TPGS possibly is larger than some small countries in the world!

 

I see your point, but it can and does happen. Some collectors would rather have a slightly inferior graded coin, if it has more eye appeal. After all, it is the buyer/seller that decide the value. We have all seen price variance in the same coin, could be the seller needs to sell, so will accept a lower price, or the buyer wanting that coin badly, so they will pay more. Also the bidding wars, market fluctuation, etc... the only constant that shouldn't change is the grade on the slab. JMHO.

 

I've been indoctrinated into the traditional grading system, so I don't roll my eyes at it any more, but I'd have a hard time justifying it to a newbie.

I think our whole hobby is based on false dichotomies. Is a coin circulated, or not? Is it "improperly" cleaned, or not? Is it artificially toned, or not?

I think it's silly to count the lightest high-point "rub" as circulation, but the heaviest coin-to-coin scrapes and gouges as "bag marks".

I think it's silly to say hairlines from wiping on a 19th-century proof drop it from a PF65 to a PF64, but identical hairlines on a 1964 Kennedy make it "improperly cleaned".

I think it's silly to say a coin left in a sulfur-bearing album or bag unintentionally is "naturally toned", but one intentionally treated with the same chemical substances, and with the same end result, is "artificially toned" and unacceptable.

It's all silly behavior, but behavior drives the market, and the market drives behavior, so here we are.

 

That is exactly right, but PCGS publishes their (the ones used by them) guidelines for grading. The problem arises when they "fudge" or re-define them, which seems to happen from time to time.

They claim that their grading has "evolved", I say that they have outright shifted and it is this exact problem that drives people crazy.

 

Direct example from Brian Silliman's course early last week in Orlando. The coin on the screen was a classic high end AU to BU slider coin. The question is, "What's the grade?"

The answer was it's a 58 or a 64 but not anything in between. Talk about trouble. You almost HAVE TO ADMIT that's a problem in search of a solution.

The true answer depended on what caused the luster break.
Wear? Coin to coin contact? Cabinet friction? Weak strike? I'm not okay with that mattering either.

By the way, let me add parenthetically here that it not possible for me to care one iota less what PCGS, in particular, ever wrote or said.

 

In my world, this isn't a problem at all. A coin that grades AU-58 should have few contact marks. That means that if it was MS, the lack of marks should preclude the coin from ANY grade below MS-63.

 

Then it seems the key problem is the desire for a single "grade vs. value" curve instead of two - one where the best AU's can be worth more than the worst BU's. Funny thing is - I don't see anyone willing to put that on paper, or screen pixels. I'm sensing here a need for at least a bifurcated (one for Uncs no matter how ugly and one for circulated no matter how nice) scale, but nobody steps up.

To me, the least worst solution is to let old AU58's become 62's or 63's and punish the grade of bagged up Uncs.

 

why not just know (in your own mind) that the AU-58 sells for more and is more valuable?

Why does it all have to be linear?

 

As has been stated by others in this thread, the line between AU and BU is a floating, variable thing with a virtually impossible solution until the computer becomes involved and a grade is locked in.

Grading is subjective. It depends on the eyesight, magnification, knowledge, experience, personal preferences of the examiner, etc.

One instructor used these two examples in class to answer a question similar to Brian's: There is an open cluster of stars called the Pleiades or the "Seven Sisters." How many stars are in the cluster? Most will say seven; yet with good eyesight you can make out fourteen. With higher magnification dozens more. So how many stars are in the cluster?

Get it? What will Brian's coin grade? Depends on the magnification used and the knowledge of the grader.

A similar thing happened when the instructor testified in a Federal Trade Commission Case. A group of professional dealers and expert graders graded the same $20 as AU-58 or MS-65. If you saw the friction or if it mattered, the coin was AU. If you didn't see the friction or it did not matter, the coin was a "gem!"

 

Can't imagine anyone being okay with a grading world like that.

I am so UTTERLY CONVINCED that without TPGS, even MORE dealers would be complete rip-off artists than they presently are. I know, I know, hard to believe, right? I am willing to put up with almost ANY grading system the TPGS think they need to do business, rather than rely on a rip-off artist dealer for grading.

An inconsistent referee still beats having none.