"Reliability" of TPG Grades

Discussion in 'US Coins Forum' started by j0nnyjo, Oct 26, 2008.

  1. j0nnyjo

    j0nnyjo Junior Member

    Hi all,

    This is a very general question that I have read a bit about in different settings...but I just wanted to get your opinions on a few different issues regarding TPG grading at the present time - I know some of us may have had more experience with this than others:

    1) To what extent would you consider TPG grades "reliable" for mid range mint state (63-65) Peace Dollars, Morgans, Early Commems, and WL Halves in the hypothetical sense that you could repeatedly "crack" the coin out of its slab and "reliabliy" receive the same grade multiple times from the same TPG. (these are just what I mainly collect - of course any general opinions / opinons on other series and/or grades would be great)

    2) Are PCGS and NGC grades specifically "reliably" consistent for the above-mentioned coins or is one service consistently tougher/more lenient to any extent for any particular series that you've noticed (or in general)?

    3) Has grading from TPGs been "reliably" consistent over the past year, 2 years, 3 years, etc. (I'm aware that grading was of course very tough in the very early days of rattler holders and such, but I'm curious as to whether you've noticed variability more recently or if things have essentially "leveled off").

    If anyone has any thoughts/opinions/comments on any of the above (or any related issue), I'd love to hear them.

    Thanks for reading. :thumb:
     
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    NGC is far and away more consistent than PCGS. But over the past couple of years both of the companies have become more lax in their standards. What I mean by that is they have allowed grades to be bumped up because of the value aspect.
     
  4. 900fine

    900fine doggone it people like me

    In my limited experience submitting to both NGC and PCGS, I agree NGC is more consistent. I think both are very inconsistent with early American copper.

    I'm convinced the vast majority of slabbed coins at shows would NOT upgrade, meaning they are accurately graded or overgraded.

    There are so many eyes cast upon any valuable US coin that the undergraded ones are fairly well picked over. There are some to be had, though - that's for sure.
     
  5. kanga

    kanga 65 Year Collector

    Grades are opinions based upon experience and "local" guidelines.
    By "local" guidelines I mean each TPG has it's own set of "rules".
    And the "rules" may differ from one TPG to another.
    I don't think the "rules" change over time; I think it's the way the "rules" are applied that changes, i.e., the grader's "eye" and personal biases.

    If you, like me, can't tell the difference between a MS-64 and a MS-65, grading consistency is what we're after.
    And that's why PCGS and NGC are the preferred TPGs. They seem to be more consistent.

    BTW, since ANACS changes ownership earlier this year, IMO they've REALLY tightened up their grading.
    If you want grading consistent with what you're used to, stay with PCGS and NGC.
    IMO
    Use ANACS only when you believe an item would be body bagged elsewhere.
    But examine newly slabbed coins in ANACS holders (not DETAILS coins) very carefully.
    You may be able to get an upgrade on a crossover.

    So much for consistency across TPGs.
     
  6. jazzcoins

    jazzcoins New Member

    I think PCGS has become very popular with collectors i would say they are more consistent an accurate on there grading skills .I would stay away from ICGs that's my opinion I don't think they grade as accurate as PCGS they are fairly new.

    Jazzcoins Joe:whistle:
     
  7. grizz

    grizz numismatist

    i like pcgs and ngc for consistency. it's important to know how to grade yourself. grading is subjective so it is a matter of opinion. when you buy a coin you want it to be accurate according to the grading guide lines. if you don't know how to grade then how could you ever debate the accuracy of a slabbed or raw coin? with the grading services they have (or so it is said) coins to help them get the grade correct, these are called grading sets. with that ammo on their side i think that helps keep confidence in their accuracy being trusted.
     
  8. mrbrklyn

    mrbrklyn New Member

    When was the last time PCGS changed their standards?

    Ruben
     
  9. Cloudsweeper99

    Cloudsweeper99 Treasure Hunter

    I think the top TPGs are reasonably reliable in their grading considering the inherent subjectivity involved in the process. However, just as 94% of drivers believe they are above average, a large number of collectors and dealers will insist they grade as well as or better than the top TPGs.
     
  10. Collect89

    Collect89 Coin Collector

    NGC and PCGS are quite repeatable

    In my experience, NGC and PCGS have been quite repeatable & consistent with their grades. Occasionally I disagree with their grades but it is only an opinion.

    Not all of your MS63 coins are identical. Some might be 62.5s and some others might be 63.5s. If you take a 63.5 coin & submit it a bunch of times, it may come back as a 63 some times and it might come back as a 64 sometimes. (Of course, if it comes back 64 you might want to keep it in the holder).

    We all should practice our grading by inspecting & discussing as many coins as possible (at shows and here in the CT forum).

    In my TPG experience with copper coins, NGC is a little more strict on the RED designation than is PCGS.

    Very best regards,
    collect89
     
  11. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    To my knowledge they haven't. But - if you read their standards it is easy to see why there is no need for them to change their standards. It is because of the way they are written - and that has always been one of the main problems for me with the PCGS standards.

    Example -

    With MS grades for specific coins, they don't really list standards. They provide about 3/4 of a page that describes marks, luster, strike and eye appeal. But they give absolutely no definition or description of how those attributes apply to individual grades. Then they will provide a picture page, sometimes several pages, for some coins and none at all for most, that will list short 1 or 2 sentence descriptions. Like with Peace dollars, for MS66 they say - "obv - Only light scuffs are note on the face and in the left field. rev - A few light scuffs and marks are noted mainly on the eagle" Or for MS65 they say - "obv - a light mark on the neck and lightly scuffed fileds are seen. rev - Scuffs and marks are often just as common on Peace dollar reverses, found on the rays and tail feathers." That's it, no more no less. And for Peace dollars they only do that for MS62 thru MS66. There is no mention whatsoever for the other MS grades.

    Now in the beginning of their standards book they do provide generic definitions and descriptions for the various grades from MS70 all the way to PO-1. But you cannot grade all of the widely varied and indivually unique series of US coins based on 1 generic description that is supoosed to cover all of them. But PCGS does it.

    And with the ciruclated grades, it gets even worse.

    Example - again, I will use Peace dollars.

    VF20/35 - "With wear to VF20/35, much of the hair detail is lost. The lower grade VF coins may have only the deepest hair strands with slight detail, while the higher grade VF coins may show half or more of the hair. Strike, of course, will affect the amount of hair detail remaining. All of the major hair groups, except the ones exactly where the ear would be should still be outlined, though quite flat. The reverse will some feather detail stil lpresent on well struck coins, but on poorly struck coins and lower grade VF coins there may only be slight detail in th eneck and tail feathers with the wing feathers worn smooth. The PEACE inscription on the rock should still be sharp, though the rock will not have much wear on the top part. Individual letters of some inscriptions may be weak from localized strike weakness or filled dies and should not affect the grade."

    Now out of that description we are supposed to be able to determine the differences between 4 different grades - VF20, VF25, VF30, VF35. As you can see, there are no specifics for each grade - merely vague generalities. And if you read the book yourself, you will easily see that it gets much, much more vague with other coin series.

    So it is that vagueness with both the MS and circ standards that allows PCGS to pretty much do whatever they want when it comes to grading a coin. They can be off by as many as 4 grades and still say that they followed their standards for those grades. So they have no need to change them - ever. They have all the built in latitude, (wiggle room), that they could ever want.

    So if you ever wonder why PCGS is so inconsistent - just take a look at their grading standards. There is no way they could ever be consistent with generic and vague standards like those.

    And that is in a nutshell why I have always preferred to follow the ANA standards. At least with them you have specific and detailed descriptions for each and every grade from the top to the bottom. And they are individualized for each specific series.
     
  12. Leadfoot

    Leadfoot there is no spoon

    Prove it. ;)
     
  13. Frankcoins.com

    Frankcoins.com Junior Member

    I have always found it disturbing that PCGS not only slabs coins with wear or friction as Mint State, they even dismiss concerns with "What friction? Who cares!" in their grading standards guide

    [​IMG]
     
  14. mrbrklyn

    mrbrklyn New Member

    Nice exercise of your fair use rights!

    very cool
     
  15. Speedy

    Speedy Researching Coins Supporter

    LOL! You are asking the wrong guy---that should be NGC's job :D :D
    Doug can make claims all day long but doesn't have to prove any of it!

    Speedy
     
  16. Conder101

    Conder101 Numismatist

    GD, I'm glad to finally find someone else besides myself who feels that as a grading guide the PCGS book is garbage. I always cringe when I hear people recommending it to newbies.

    I like in the second paragraph of that "quote" about copper coins when they ask what the numismatist is telling you. What he is telling you is that the grading service is going to call the coin MS even though it isn't and that because of it someone is going to pay more for the coin than he should.
     
  17. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    Conder I have said pretty much the same thing for as long as I have known you, since around 2000, 2001. Maybe I haven't said in quite the same way though.

    As for recommending it to newbies - I think you know I always prefer the ANA guide. But in the real world of coins, they don't use the ANA guide. NGC doesn't even have a guide so the PCGS guide is about all there is left. So if a newbie wants to have even a basic understanding of how the TPG's grade coins, that's what they have to work with.

    I mean face it, if anyone is going to be active in this hobby and buy coins, they need to have some sort of understanding of how the TPG standards work. Problem is, they don't - because few actually read the book.
     
  18. mrbrklyn

    mrbrklyn New Member

    Its not a novel. If you read it you won't remember anything when you need it. YOu'd have to study it, but that a lot to chew off.

    Ruben
     
  19. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    You don;t have to study it to recognize what Conder and I are saying - you just have to read it.
     
  20. mrbrklyn

    mrbrklyn New Member

    Yes - I was being tangential..sorry
     
  21. 900fine

    900fine doggone it people like me

    That is a very, very important point.

    I am one of the 6% who realize that the top TPGs have some very knowledgeable, talented people who are better than I am.

    Do I blindly "buy the slab" ? Absolutely not.

    Do I give some weight to the TPG's expert opinion ? Yes, I do.

    Some of the people buying raw coins are in for a surprise - and not the good kind.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page