Destiny of a 1952 Jefferson Nickel

I understand all of that Paul, but that doesn't make it right. And if there is one major problem with the TPG's, I would say that this a good example of it.

Now don't misunderstand what I mean by that. It has nothing to do with Jeffs per se, in fact it pertains to all coins. What it has to do with is that the TPG's have caused the collectiing public to become, I guess blind would be the word, to many of the very basic points of grading a coin. It's the stuff that is never discussed any more because it has been forgotten about.

Well, maybe forgotten isn't the right word, it might well be that the majority of the collecting public never even knew it to begin with because it is old school, Brown and Dunn old school. The stuff I have been talking about like planchet flaws, the coin being well centered and die cracks. Those were the kind of things that you learned to look at first before you ever even began to look for contact marks or to judge the quality of luster or the eye appeal of a coin.

I guess what I am trying to say is that the repeated and routine ignoring of these things by the TPG's has caused to public to become so used to them being ignored that they the public have become used to it. Used to it to the point that even those who know about it don't think about it anymore. And they should think about it. For these are the things that are the very foundation of the grading of coins.

 

Maybe because they are not as old as you seem to think. And no it was not last used in the '80s. The same things I have mentioned are still listed as part of the standards in the ANA guide which is only 4 years old - 2005. Same thing for the PCGS standards, about the same age.

What I'm saying is Mike that you shouldn't throw out part of the standards, especially a very important part that has to do with establishing the true and overall quality (grade) of a coin.

You know what it seems like to me - it seems like an excuse. It has nothing to do with establishing prices, it's an excuse being used to find a reason to assign a grade that is higher than a coin really deserves. Why do they do it ? They do it to make people, their customers, happy. And the only reason they get away with it is becuae there are not enough people out there who care about honesty in grading. All they care about is getting higher grades so they can sell their coins for more money or have more bragging rights.

The coins could be graded honestly with no problem at all. And the prices would be there just the same. But if they had to consider things like being well centered and planchet flaws there would not be as many coins like this Jeff graded this high because they don't deserve it.

And what are ya gonna say Mike if they decide to throw out luster saying that it doesn't count any more ? That they can't grade enough coins MS67 or MS68 if they have to count luster as part of the grade just so they can have more of them that get the high prices.

Yes Mike I agree the old standards of technical grading did not work well. And that's why market grading was developed. But there is more to market grading than just setting a price for a coin. For first the coin has to be worthy of that price. For to get the highest grades the coin has to have a certain quality. And an important part of that quality is established by the coin being well centered, having no planchet flaws, having superb luster, being well struck for the date/mint, having superior eye appeal, having few minor contact marks or hairlines.

Each and every one of these things is required for a coin to be worthy of the highest grades. To throw any of them out is to cheat yourself, fool yourself into believing that you have something that you don't really have.

 

Mike - when you are finally going to get into your head that the ANA are the ones who invented market grading ? The ANA has not practiced technical grading since before the TPG's even existed ! ANA grading is market grading !!

And one of these days you might do well to actually look at who it was that wrote the ANA standards. It was people like David Hall, David Lange, Rick Montgomery, Guth, Garret - the list goes on & on. And of course all of those people also just happen to be all big shots at the TPG's.

A big part of the reason that you always take the side in this discussion that do is because you are laboring under false information. You always seem to think that the ANA uses technical grading standards - they do not and have not since 1985.

You seem to think that standards written by the very people you support, and written only 4 years ago, have not been used in over 15 to 20 years. With all due respect, that is just ludicrous. That is why the standards were re-written to begin with, to keep up with the changing market. And contrary to what you think, those very standards were broadly used in the marketplace only 4 years ago. Which supports my opinion that it has only been in the past couple of years that what we see today in grading has been happening.

So grading coins that have numerous, and very distracting planchet flaws, in prime focal areas, as MS67's is your definition of doing a better job ? You can't really believe that now do ya ?

That's a weak rationalization, IMO. The TPGs in the early days met with the most resistance from the dealers, not the collectors. It was done to help reign in the vast differences in grades between dealers (who, incidentally, claimed to adhere to the ANA standards). The TPGs gained traction for one reason -- they provided a valuable service by removing grading from the dealers' hands.

Now you can argue that lots of things have changed since then (for instance gradeflation), but I don't think it's fair to conclude the TPG-backed market grading was done out of a lack of desire for honesty when it was precisely the opposite that caused the TPG revolution. [/quote]

No, and I don't even think it was done for that reason. I truly believe it was done for the very reason you mention.

But I'm not talking about what was done 23 years ago. I'm talking about what is going on right now ! I am saying that they, the TPG's, have changed from what they were just a few years ago. I am saying that their customers, those who submit coins, have changed from what they were just a few years ago. Just a few years ago you wouldn't have seen a coin like this in an MS67 holder, it didn't happen.

Again, your msitaken beliefs are coming into play. Nobody is talking about technical grading. You need to understand that once and for all.

Now that, I guess that speaks volumes.

Of course a coin has to be worth the price/grade it assigned.

Yeah, I agree. I am in the minority. But that is because I have a sense of integrity that a very large part of the market seems to have lost. As I said above, they don't care anymore if the coin is graded correctly or not. They only care about the number on the plastic slab because that is what determines the number of dollars they get to put in their pocket. And "they", they are the collectors and dealers out there who are accepting this garbage and allowing it to happen. And it disgusts me.