I accept that without reservation. Yes, I saw that; thanks. Either I'm totally lost on this or I hear this saying "market grades" are whatever the market says they are, which basically boils down to whatever the TPGs say, for the coins that are in the TPG holders. I think what's happening, here, is, they're perpetuating a myth they know many of their submitters need to believe...that myth being, that their grades are, indeed, immutable.
Very interesting thread...I know very little about the coin grading practices of the major TPGs and the variety of opinions here are very informative. Just a few quick questions (if this is off topic, please just ignore them)... 1) Do you think "gradeflation" may have been the result of increased competition for new business in the "Bull Market"? 2) Do you think "volume of business" with a particular customer affects grade? 3) Do you think grades were more accurate in 2002 than are today...or vice versa? 4) What part does "strike" play in the grading process? In other words, with everything else being equal, how does a 1953-s Franklin (with a known "mushy" strike) compare with a 1953-d (with a much sharper strike)...gradewise?
Don't you find it interesting though that when the ANA says that they only report what is happening in the numismatic community in regard to grading and that grading standards are bound to change - that PCGS says that standards will never change, that a 65 will always be a 65 ? Then of course, with an understanding of the above claims made by the two organizations - can anybody explain to me why the grading standards that PCGS uses are so very, very, different from what the ANA standards says those standards are ?
Personally, no I do not. As was said earlier in the thread, gradeflation has been occurring for a long time. But I do think that the value aspect of grading sharply increased during the course of the bull market. Now what that means is this. Say you have a coin that was graded MS63 and was worth $300. Over the course of a period of time the value of that coin increased to $900. Well, if you took that same coin and re-submitted it, it would now come back graded as MS65. Now that's just an example, but it's pretty much what happened IMO. No, not at all. I know there are many who believe that is true, but I have seen too many big dealers who do a huge volume of business with the TPG's complain just as much, if not more, about their coins being under-graded than the collector who sends in 10 coins a year. Yes, I do think they were more accurate in 2002. Strike always plays a part in grading. But the example you use is not a good one because with coins where the majority of the mintage is known to have been weakly struck, allowances are made for the weak strike when grading those coins. However, if you compare two coins from the same date and mint, and all other things are equal except quality of strike, then the coin with the better strike will sometimes grade higher than the other coin. But this typically only happens in the higher grades and usually only when the quality of strike is signifcantly better.
Doug, If you really want more examples I can post them for you. The reason I posted this one is because it is one that I own. I was purchasing rainbow toned coins in 2002, and I promise you that if they were cheap, I would have won many more than I did. I do recall that toned commemoratives did not command the premiums that they do today. Paul
Thank you so much for taking the time to answer my questions. I stopped collecting in the mid-1970's and just started again in 2005. There's so much about modern coin collecting that I have yet to learn. In the example given above, won't there eventually be a "day of reckoning" ...assuming the top grade remains MS70? If the ANA sets the standard, shouldn't all the TPGs support periodic, independent ANA reviews?
I've always thought the obverse was more important as well...but what if you have a coin for example that has an XF45 obverse, but the reverse has even more detail, alot more detail in fact, around AU53 instead of XF, maybe even AU55. Which side do you go on then?
I think this either came from here or collectors universe forum. Thought it was pretty interesting reading, although a bit dated.
I have seen many coins with inconsistent wear, comparing the obverse to the reverse, and from what I have seen usually the reverse looks better in those cases. I think it may be due to being in those folders that showed only one side of the coin, the obverse with the date being the side that would have fingers touching them.
paul Thanks for posting that attachment on the grading course -- very interesting. I am going to print it out. Although I have heard a lot of the author's points about market grading and other idiosyncrasies of slab grading, I can relate to some of the author's frustrations! (I also wondered if Mark Feld was the former grader at one of the services who stopped by to provide a few thoughts...some of the points sound consistent with some of the things he has said here).
I don't think what the top grade is has anything to do with it. But the problem with the value aspect of grading is this - if the price drops, so will the grade. It works both ways. The ANA does not set the standard. More than a few people believe that it does, or that it should - but the truth is that it doesn't. Only the TPG's themselves set the standard. The problem is, at least in my opinion, they don't follow the standards they set. Instead we are supposed to accept that grading standards are in a constant state of flux - always changing. Now this is of a huge benefit to the TPG's for it permits them to sidestep any accountability for their actions when it comes to assigning grades.
Ahhhh...so the idea is to only submit "hot" coins for grading? I guess that's where I've been getting lost...I thought the ANA set grading standards for all the TPG. I was wondering how NGC could call themselves "The Official Grading Service of the ANA".
I'm not sure what you mean by "hot" coins You're not alone, there are a whole lot of people who think that. But that is because they don't actually read the book. Instead they make assumptions, incorrect assumptions. And many rely on inaccurate information that has been posted either on coin forums or various web sites. But the internet is literally buried with inaccurate information. Many people think that just because they can find something posted on a web site someplace, whether that be in the form of an article or just some forum posting, that means that info is true. Well, a good example would be that you can find it posted on a web site that the earth is flat. And the fact of the matter is that with pretty much any subject you care to mention, and this is especially true on the subject of coins, if you do a careful comparison what you find out there, is that out of say 20 different web sites containing specific information, 18 of them have copied what they have on their site, word for word from 1 single site. And nobody takes the time to find out if the info is even correct. Copyright infringement and plagarism is rampant on the internet. Well that's easy. It's because they pay the ANA for the right to do so. Every 5 years or so the ANA accepts offers from the various TPG's to buy the right to call themselves the "Offical" TPG of the ANA. The highest bidder wins that right. It's usually in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Currently, NGC owns the contract. That's all.
