Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="brg5658, post: 1320962, member: 29751"]I agree that grading standards can change over time.  As is evidenced by your story of the change in grading on non-circulation coins as Proof 70 or MS70 (for commems and bullion).  BUT, I don't agree with you that in 2005 something happened that loosened standards in general for grading circulation and mint set U.S. coins.  The evidence in the series I know best (the SAC dollars) simply doesn't support that "observation".  Indeed, more than 90% of all of the MS69 graded coins from 2000-2003 were graded by the end of 2004.  The populations reflected this at that time.  If what you claim were true, then I would expect a large influx of MS69 graded coins starting in 2005 for these older years, and that's simply not the case for the SAC series.  I base my opinions on evidence, not on "gut feel" or coin forum rants. ------------------------------------------ There are several things that may be muddying one's ability to assess the change clearly.  Firstly, "making" top population coins has become a livelihood for some.  For example, for ultra modern coins, Mark DiLauro (datentype on eBay) is phenomenal at cherry picking superb coins and making top population coins.  The point being, just because Mark can find an MS69RD 1992 Lincoln in 2011, doesn't mean that it's over graded...it simply means he came across it.  One cannot infer a causal link between the time it was graded and the grade received without a LOT of hand waving.  Second, other approaches have come into use that also yield higher numbers of ultra-high grade coins (mass submissions of onced-over mint sets, which is the method I believe John Maben Rare Coins uses -- moderncoinmart.com online).  More coins graded leads to more ultra-high grade examples (assuming they exist at all). Lastly, because the US Mint is not very forthcoming with the details of improvements to the minting processes, it is simply not the case that a circulation strike coin from the mid-1980s is the same beast as a circulation strike coin from 2011.  Think Jefferson Nickels.  In some of the 1980s years, full steps are the exception and quite rare.  In 2011 finding a nickel in a mint set without full steps is the exception -- and if it doesn't quality it is usually because of a nick or bag mark, not because the design is mushy.  1881-S and 1880-S were good years for Morgan dollars.  Ask any collector, they will agree.  This is reflected by their abundance of high graded examples.  Well, 2005 was a good year for Lincoln Cents (business strike).  Ask any serious collector and they will agree.  This is reflected by their abundance of high graded examples. A combination of the issues above can explain both an increase in post-2005 coins grading MS69, but can also explain why you feel some of the pre-2005 years now have an "abundance" of MS69 examples (which were graded post-2005).  For some "data", consider that NGC has graded 50,555 Lincoln Cents dated 1959-1999.  Of those, a total of 47 coins have been given the MS69 grade.  Unless you know of someone who has been tracking the NGC pops for the past 20 years, there is no way to determine when those 47 coins were assigned their grades.  But, in my mind less than one coin in 1000 submitted attaining the MS69 grade for modern issues isn't really outside the realm of possibility.  For comparison, 1 in every 500 of the 1880-S Morgan $1 grades MS68 or better. In summary, this topic has been beaten to death by the two of us.  I do collect coins in this time frame, and I have been for many years.  I have dozens of coins graded both before and after 2005, and there is nothing in my mind that stands out as a "difference" between them.  I have specific evidence from the SAC $1 series, which actually doesn't fit at all your argument.  In short, we will have to agree to disagree that 2005 was some "special" anchor year in the loosening of grading standards.[/QUOTE]

Create my FREE Account!

Log in or Sign up

Reply to Thread

Useful Searches