Market Grading vs. Technical Grading - Round 35!!! Ding!

I'll simply ask this question, because I already know the answer. Does PCGS, NGC, ANACS or any other TPG follow the ANA standards to the letter?

I'll stick with my opinion that 'strike' is an aspect of Technical Grading. In closing you don't need to worry about any of my graded coins in their paper 2x2s flooding the market and dragging standards down.

Take Care
Ben

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

sorry, just getting back in and I would like to chime in again. As I stated in my post, whether or not someone CHOOSES (I don't know how to bold, LOL) to consider the coin that we used as an example as a VF or an XF is up to them, and that choice is subjective. I think you speak to a comment I made some time ago that I felt that it couldn't be, and that was my choice, but I can see through fleshing out my own idea where I may be able to accept it.

What I would like for you to consider though, terminology aside, is something that I think people who think like me are going through in their process. When I speak of technical grading I am referring to the aspects of grading that aren't dependent on, nor really discuss value or worth. The technical aspects of the coin's detail relative to when it was struck. I realize (and I am sure you'll tell me) that this is probably not the correct usage of the term, but what many of us think of as technical grading. The reason that I want to put the terminology aside is to get at the meat of the issue which I believe is why a coin grades a higher grade when it is a rarity vs. when it is a common date.

I, and I believe many others, have an issue with a coin getting a better grade than it technically is due to it's pedigree or rarity. This is I think the lynchpin issue. If the coin would be a VF as a common date, then it should be a VF as a rarity and it's value doesn't come in to play in this determination. We see the potential value pulling the grade upwards and we don't see any justification for it.

 

I prefer the way EAC grades and values coins to the current technical or market grading systems. So there!

 

yo GD correct me if i am wrong but that is what actually happens and its called market grading. TPG;s will even grade a coin that deserves to be body bagged just because its a rarity yes everyone is guilty of that practice even PCGS and NGC. I am of the opinion that technically a coin does not become superior because it is rare.

 

p.s. the classic "weakly struck" versus "detail visible" debate is prevalent in all of the above systems. I see both sides of the argument, but prefer to grade a coin on overall wear NOT the amount of detail -- then value it taking into account the weak strike.

 

p.p.s. I think the ANA standards are too focused on detail grading for a number of series -- including buffs. Said simply, the ANA standards focus too much on a single aspect of a coin in determining grade. Shouldn't grading be about the ENTIRE coin?

 

p.p.p.s. Market grading doesn't grade coins, it ranks them.

 

hence my problem with market grading, spock

 

i am going to stir an hornets nest when i say it but coins are now part of a market the coin market. some people will say its an hobby for them and thats fine but the fact is its an organized industry and the pure collectors for the most part lose money

 

spock... I have stated in previous posts that I was talking about the aspects that didn't take market factors into account. Grading a coin based solely on it's merits, not it's value.

The whole terminology thing is clouding what IMHO would be a very healthy and interesting discussion otherwise.

 

There are differing opinions and interpretations because there are differing standards. And I'm not talking with regards to market grading. There are also differing interpretations of what applies to technical grading. It is these differences in opinion that make discussion regarding technical grading vs. market grading difficult.

Each and every one of us grade both on a technical level as well as a market level. The weight we attribute to each is different. Grading occurs on both the technical level as well as the market level and that is why I have said that grading is subjective...completely.

I believe that it is because we all grade on both grounds on a consistent basis that the line between the technical grade and the market grade are blurred. GD had brought some issues up regarding technical grading from the 1st Edition ANA Standards, including the sub-noting of market aware detractions or enhancements, namely strike weakness.

GD has made a point in previous threads also that the ANA Standards have, over the years, become more and more market aware...in other words, more market grading based. From the fifth edition of the ANA Standards, Bill Fivaz has this to say:

This is the primary point I believe GD is trying to get at. That strike does not contribute to the technical grade of a coin. If you are using newer ANA standards or guidelines, then you have market grading mixed into the formula. When the fifth edition standard states, "Must have above average quality of strike and full original mint luster, with no more than two or three minor but noticeable contact marks", this is market grading.

In discussing market grading, the fifth edition ANA Standards state:

To reiterate, in accordance with market grading, a weakly struck coin cannot qualify as an MS-65 or higher grade. Plain and simple. So when you go through the standards and see must have this strike, or strike is such and such, that is insertion of market grading "standards", although technically the coin is MS-65.

Read the ANA's qualification on this again: a technical MS-65 that is lightly struck must be a market MS-64 or lower. A weakly struck coin cannot be an MS-65...market graded.

 

And the winner by TKO - in the 8th post of the 4th page of this contest - is GDJMSP.

(For those of you not familiar with boxing terminology, TKO is a Technical Knock Out.)

 

you are nuts GD was the referee I was the contestant

 

When one contestant lands one or more blows and the other contestant is unable to defend himself the ring official must stop the contest so the defenseless contestant is not injured. Even though the other contestant was still on his feet it was obvious that he was defenseless. The contest had to be stopped. encil:

 

well i fight a lil different it doesnt hurt if the referee is on your side does it. now quit stalling where is my champions trophy?

 

Trophy? You were supposed to bring the trophy! You were going to melt those Indian coins of your and make the trophy. Remember?

 

Probably shouldn't even be posting as I am so new, but I don't understand. Lets put the value back in, it might help me understand better.
So, question
(1)a coins surfaces technically graded MS 65, but weakly struck it would get MS 64 grade/money or less market graded?
(2)Does a technically graded coin ever get better money than a market graded coin in real life?(not counting ebay,ripoffs and flukes) And if so, what would cause that?
Please keep it as simple as possible.
Wish there was a dizzy/wobbly smilie to insert here, this one will have to do
Thanks