JA didn’t sticker it, so now I must sell it …

I don‘t think anybody is obsessed with wear. It seems you simply don‘t agree with the way TPGS grade coins and that’s ok. Is the current system perfect? Likely not, but it‘s quite well defined and it works for most of us. It doesn‘t really matter how other collectibles are graded. Regarding your comments on wear… well… I‘ll have to disagree again. A circulated coin is not damaged because there’s visible wear. A coin which is scratched, cleaned or otherwise impaired is damaged.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Expert= some one who knows it all about some thing. If you don't think so just ask them. 65 to 58 edited.

 

Yes I'm glad you brought that up, because I should have clarified on this point. When I say damage here I'm not talking about problem coins. I am talking about damage that does not detail a coin, and this absolutely includes wear. Let's be real here, rubbing a coin down to basal state through wear is 100% a type of damage. It's just "acceptable" damage. The grading scale from 1-58 measures the amount of damage that has been done to a coin through wear.

I absolutely do see it as an obsession with wear, since so many call out wear as being special above other types of damage when it's really not. A coin just has an overall appearance. Eye appeal, strike, amount of detail remaining (whether removed by wear or other means), amount of luster, originality, etc. Now don't get me wrong, understanding wear is an important part of understanding a coin's state. I just think we can do a lot better with a grading scale created from scratch for the sole purpose of assigning relative market value.

Regarding your comment that the grading system is well defined and works for most of us. Yes likely most people are okay with it because it's what's being used already. I would say the TPG grading standards as they are actually being applied are not well defined, and that quite a lot of people take issue with that.

 

I can get behind the ideas you mention. I've somewhat shifted my position over the years as I do think there is a benefit to "reranking" certain coins (like the almost flawless 58s being rewarded over the beat up 60s).

Implementing this new grading scale using quality would be where I think issues would arise. The TPGs would definitely be happy since many coins would be resubmitted. However, would more collectors drop out due to the frustration of believing they need to regrade their coins? Also, what would happen with all the old MS 60 and higher coins that would drop grades in the new system? There would certainly not be many who would send those coins back in. Would the TPGs buy those coins back or offer some compensation to help take them off the market?

Overall, is the problem serious enough in the current environment that we would want to reinvent the whole system? I get the argument that it is hard to explain to newer entrants (and some long timers as well) that a 58 can be priced above a 63, but don't enough of us understand it already (and the newer collectors eventually learn it too)? Otherwise, we would not have the auction results where 58s already sell for more than some 60-63s.

 

Fair points, but we also commonly accept that certain older NGC, PCGS, and soap bar ANACS coins are undergraded by today's standards and can frequently benefit from resubmission. And this is because the grading standards have already changed. Every year some TPG tightens up on such and such or loosens up on something else. I don't think it will be total chaos. I think people are used to it.

 

There are older holders that upgrade because standards change every so often, but that seems less monumental than changing the entire grading scale. The current amount of slabs that are cracked for upgrades would pale in comparison to the amount of slabs that would need to be regraded in the new system.

What I have always wanted was more consistency in the grading room (something that would prevent these periods of tight or loose grading). Unfortunately that is an even less likely scenario for the graders than your idea.

 

Are you familuar with the term, "Population Bias"?

 

Agreed with cplradar!!

Looks nice and original, something a lot of early 19th century silver coins can't say . I've found, in my experience (maybe you disagree) but high quality AU coins often seem more lustrous than low MS. I don't buy MS coins typically from MS-60 to MS-63. Just a preference.

 

That being said, I do feel like that one would benefit from a re-eval. I understand fully why this coin would be on the hotlist!

 

Ha, dwhiz is how I am when i buy. I have bought a lot of slab coins for the same price as a raw one. All were MS.

 

I'll post just to follow the thread, but I really can't see why someone can't understand that "uncirculated" has gotten the definition of "no trace of wear"!

 

There has been so much introduced into this thread proving why the very simple act of describing a coin's condition of preservation from the time it was struck has become a complicated mess tied up with ignorance , commercial value , shifting non- standards , and the prevailing whims of eye appeal and fashion. Nevertheless, it would be a great start if one member would stop incorrectly using the word "technical" in place of "conservative" when discussing grades.

Unfortunately, it will take a few hours of typing (I hunt and peck) and adding emojis to enter this discussion right now so my comments on some posts will need to wait until sometime later. For now, I thank the OP and other posters here for the inspiration to write my next grading column on this coin and your comments.

 

No. Dumbing down grading where a VF45 coin could be graded as a MS61 and an AU58 is a MS67 isn't the answer, nor should it ever be. Progress isn't always a good thing. Sometimes it's trying to fix things that ain't broken and it's usually done to benefit one party or another, not for the greater good of all involved. Dozens of grading companies folded over the years for giving people what they want instead of giving the actual grade of the coin, they lost their integrity and credibility doing it by making their own grading standards that, while making their customers happy, when the customers went to sell their coins at those grades they struggled to get anyone to agree with the grade.

Grading is subjective. Theres no way around that. Its an opinion, it's not the be all end all final say.. However there is acceptable opinion, then there is clearly freaking wrong. And in this instance it was done clearly freaking wrong.
The whole point of CAC and why they are in business is a quality assurance that the coin is nice or exceptional for the grade given to it. It's not so AU sliders can be seen as top quality coins it's so AU sliders are never seen as top quality coins UNLESS they are graded as AU.

I'm not a fan of any of these services but until you or someone else comes up with a better grading system than the adjusted Sheldon Scale, that actually makes it better, I'll stick to the adjusted Sheldon Scale and so will everyone else in the hobby because that is what works.
You can call your coins whatever you like. A F20 can be a MS70 if you like but that doesn't make it any truer than PCGS calling an AU58 a MS64 which is wrong also. Now you might get someone to agree with you but that doesn't make it true either. It's all opinion. A third party grader is just a third party opinion of someone not buying or selling the coin.

If PCGS starts grading every AU58 as a MS64 they will destroy their reputation as surely as everyone else has in the past. Mistakes happen though but they should be exceptions, not the standard.

 

I like the grading services and CAC/JA to a point but I'm not going to dump a coin just because they did not like it. My collection is based on coins that I like and not others.

 

I think the tpg’s have lost their way, while I’ve lost quite a bit of confidence in “the blind” grading of coins hitting the grading room.

 

I've read through the posts here and on CU forum. I find it hard to believe that John Albanese is calling a customer about a $150 quarter. In the 64 grade it is one of many. The OP says there was a 1927 ms65 nickel also in the submission but wasn't part of the issue. Mr Albanese is a very busy person. I find it hard to believe that there was any communication with him, at least by telephone.

 

Really hard to argue against this logic. I'm pegging it for best answer. Lol why I didn't think of this in the first place is beyond me but its a reasonable question to ask and to use to doubt the entire premise of the discussion.

Well done!

 

I just need to correct this so it is legible:
[correction]
Your suggestion would render the Bust Nuts at the John Reich Society all idiots because they look at imperfect coins and then dive deeply into die states and grade accordingly. They can discern when defects are die varieties, or wear, or just worn dies. Try doing that with just a little bit of observational practice...or whatever you called it.

Your proposal depends on two flawed hypothesis... 1) that we can get agreement without the existence of strong criteria based on experience, and 2) that amateurs with minimal training can determine coin quality...which they absolutely can't.

This is like when we were kids and made fun at Rothko paintings. We thought we were the experts on art.
[/correction]

 

Just to finish this thought... population bias is when, in statisitics, your selected population of study doesn't match your objective criteria of analysis. In this case, people are sending in weakly graded coin back to the TPGer in the hopes of getting upgraded. In fact, they are guaranteed by Anacs not to be downgraded because you can ask them to not crack them out if the grade would go down. That results in a rising number of higher grades, and that feeds gradeflation. It has NOTHING to do with the grading system per see. It is 100% about the manipulation of the system and it would happen with any grading system you use.