Does this Jefferson Deserve Full Steps?

PCGS has a published Guide to their standards:

http://www.amazon.com/Official-Grad...&qid=1394469570&sr=8-1&keywords=PCGS+Guide+to

and NGC claims to use the ANA standards:

http://www.amazon.com/Official-Stan...ana+grading+standards+for+united+states+coins

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

That PCGS guide was published in 2004 (if memory serves) and even then they didn't seem to follow it 100%...their standards have changed over the last decade. As for NGC using the ANA guidelines...I too have used the ANA guidelines to grade coins and I rarely get the same result as NGC. I don't believe they are using the published ANA guidelines.

 

Richie, I'm sorry but you are just parroting Doug's misinformation on this subject. I have never heard any other collector or dealer make the claim that PCGS does not follow their published standards other than Doug. At least now I know why he has been using the year 2004 for his claim that the TPG's drastically changed their grading standards.

When you and Doug say that they don't follow their own standards 100%, what exactly do you mean? The fact is that grading coins is subjective and there are way too many variables involved in grading to create a set of hard and fast rules that will apply to every coin. This is why the grading rules are intentionally ambiguous. The more specific you make the rules, the more exceptions you will need to make to those rules to ensure grading accuracy.

Furthermore, people like Doug love to quote the PCGS grading standards as proof that they don't follow their own rules. For example, in Chapter 1 they write that they use the Sheldon scale of grading (1-70) and then proceed to show the ANA's version of the Sheldon scale including the definitions for each grade. Once you reach the grades of MS60-MS62, it shows the words "No Wear". This would seem to indicate that PCGS agrees that an uncirculated coin can't show traces of wear/friction. But when you reach Chapter 5 (Elements of a Coin's Grade), PCGS addresses the subject of wear. The first thing they do in this section is address the difference between circulation wear, incomplete strike, roll/bag friction, album slide marks, and cabinet friction. My point is that in order to understand the PCGS standards, one must read the entire book and view the subject matter holistically. Coincidentally, this is how one needs to grade coins when employing market grading, holistically.

To my knowledge NGC has never published their grading standards, other than those for modern coins. But since the same guy founded both companies, I would expect both TPGs to have very similar grading standards overall with some notable differences for particular series of coins.

Paul

 

Who started market grading? I'm wondering why only the coin collecting hobby took that hair-brained turn. Put me in the room. Whose idea was that? In every other hobby--notes, comics, stamps, cards, pocket watches, etc.--collectors still have the brains enough to connect the grade with condition. In market grading, it's anything that pumps up the market, turns it on. At least when the coin grades were tied to condition there was some degree of logic behind the grades. The ANA didn't make up those conditional standards, it rather just classified them for us, based on the various condition-levels. Today, for example, can one really hold a TPG to a grade as meaningless as a market grade? Don't forget about the pretty color. Don't forget about the status, the pedigree. Who messed up this hobby like that? Did you ever wonder at that? I'll bet they became the TPGs. It's just a theory I have. I know it wasn't from popular demand. Really, what coin collectors would demand grading standards as frivolous as eye appeal?

 

What I mean is...grading is subjective. I had seen PCGS graded coins from then that didn't seem to match their standards (on both ends of the spectrum, some too conservative and some too loose). But, for the most part it was fairly accurate. That said, over the last 10 years PCGS has changed their standards to reflect a changing market. I have not seen an updated version of their standards released. That's all I'm saying. Their guide when it originally came out was fine IMHO...it wasn't 100% perfect but no guide is. Based on what I have personally seen, those standards are no longer what they go by.

As for the ANA guide...since no TPG seems to use it, it's hard to say if it's right or wrong. We have no "graded" coins to compare to the guide.

 

Why does it matter? When you buy a coin you have to look and decide for yourself.

 

Doug, you got that across to me years ago. It took some doing, if I recall, but, trust me, it sunk into this thick skull of mine. At bottom, this is how I now understand it. The ANA ostensibly opened the door to taking grading off strictly condition. There's the plausible denial. It's not the TPGs' standards, but the ANA's standards. Sure, the TPGs since have loosened up on the standards. But, this was the TPGs, all the way, from ground zero. In my humble opinion.

 

You see it that way because you only see black and white and are incapable of seeing all of the shades of grey in between. It really doesn't matter if the TPGs gained control of the grading market by through forced acquiescence or genuine support, the fact is that NGC & PCGS control the grading arena. This explains why I consider your method of grading the "lunatic fringe." Even if a collector wanted to adopt your grading methods, they would not be able to do so unless they restricted themselves to the raw coin market. And even then, they would limit themselves to dealing with the unknowledgeable.

I have challenged you in the past to provide evidence that the TPGs have consciously or intentionally loosened their grading standards over the years. You have never been able to provide a smidgeon of evidence that this is true. Yet, the leaders of the numismatic community have discussed gradeflation and the apparent loosening of standards over the years and provided rational explanations. Here is a quote from Mark Salzberg on the subject:

An Interview With Mark Salzberg

MR: In the next rip-roaring bull market, would you be under pressure to tighten grading?

MS: I’ll tell you this I’m losing business on a regular basis on generic gold coins because I refuse to change our standards. We have competition which is so liberal on these coins —the $5 to $20 pieces— it is absurd, it’s so ridiculous. Everyone knows it. It’s at least a point and a half in many areas and has affected the marketplace. Premiums have come down on generic gold and they continue to stay down. We’ve stuck to our standard and won’t deviate, bull or bear market.

Now you can claim that his answer is disingenuous because he is protecting his company and their profits. But I for one will believe a man with his numismatic resume over your amateur opinion any day of the week. You claim that you were once in the middle group but that changed about 10 years ago. The fact is that the grading standards that you employ on this forum are not consistent with the TPG grades prior to 2004 either. Your standards are still punitively conservative.

Did the TPGs make adjustments to their grading standards? They sure did. They made more exceptions for weak strikes and roll friction. They allowed grade bumps for toned coins. But these exceptions that you call "loosening" Salzberg refers to as a "learning curve." What that means is he is admitting that their original opinions of some coins were overly conservative. In other words, he is admitting that they were wrong. So while I everyone else grows and learns, you are stuck in the 3rd grade with the ability to see only black and white.

There are many people who believe that the TPGs have loosened their standards since the early days. But even those collectors don't believe that grading standards have been loosening for the last 10 years. It is widely accepted that if anything, the TPGs actually became more conservative in their grading after the inception of the CAC and "+" grading in 2008. I have given my opinion on gradeflation many times over the years and will not reiterate it again. That said, my chosen series is Jefferson Nickels. Some of the most egregiously overgraded Jefferson Nickels that I have encountered reside in NGC old fatty slabs from the 90's. I see no discernable difference in the numerical grading of Jefferson Nickels by either TPG over the last 25 years.

I don't expect to change your opinion on the subject as we have been having this same debate for almost 5 years. But I would like to know about your supporters. All of those collectors and dealers who you claim agree with you and employ similar grading standards as you. Where are they? Do they not have fingers? Are they unable to share their support on a public forum? In fact, the only people I have ever encountered who believed that your grading standards are right are those that you have indoctrinated on this very forum.

 

I get it, Doug. That holds me, anyway, for now. But while one can rate the "market grades" of the TPGs as against the ANA's market grading standards, are those ANA standards any the more rational? I don't know that they are. Technical grading, grading relative to condition, is rational. "Eye appeal" grading? That's pretentious, at best. Thus, PCGS wants this toned coin that technical grades AU58 in it its plastic at MS64, who, based on eye appeal, is to question that as a "mistake?" It may be different, but how is it any the less legit?

 

Correct me if I'm wrong...but my understanding is this is not accurate. My understanding is a green bean is indicative of a coin that's solid or even high end of its grade. You yourself have stated in the past (and quite correctly) that there is a whole spectrum within a given grade. Let's say the coin in question is graded MS64. Is that coin a lower end MS64 (call it MS64.2) or is it a solid (call it MS64.5) or is it excellent (call it MS64.8). My understanding is the green bean is designed for coins that CAC sees as "MS64.5-64.9." Correctly graded within the grade...but on the solid to premium side of that spectrum. So, if a coin fails to get a green bean...it doesn't mean it's overgraded, it just means it's at the lower end of that grade's spectrum. They COULD be overgraded...but the lack of a green bean doesn't mean they are for sure.

 

We were led to believe CAC is here because the TPGs got loose with their grading standards, so I think I'm seeing Doug's comment as pretty much, well, on the bean.

 

That's not what CAC says on their website.

 

Evidence would be you providing a link to an article that anyone of those industry leaders wrote that supports your claim. Your paraphrasing of a Laura Sperber article is not in any way evidence. Futhermore, I read all of Laura's reports and for the most part they have very little to do with gradeflation or overgrading. In fact, I can think of no other major dealer who is more proud of obtaining high grades from PCGS for the ultra rarities that she handles. Every coin offered by Legend is CAC approved and every coin is "super high end" for the assigned grade. Part of their marketing strategy is to hype their coins while casting doubt on the coins handled by any high end firm. Go ahead, try to dispute that!

And if you are going to quote me, then do it right. I said there are explanations for the "apparent loosening" of grading standards. That means that they didn't actually loosen their standards, but it appears that they did.

Gradeflation is real, and is a problem. My view on the cause of gradeflation is well known; it is directly related to the subjectivity inherent in grading. Your opinion (not fact) on the subject is that the TPGs have DELIBERATELY LOOSENED their grading standards. However, you have never provided evidence that this has actually happened. All you have done is leave a long trail of conjecture and misinformation on the subject. You claim that all of these other people agree with you but never provide any proof that they actually agree with you. Since you referenced an article by Laura Sperber, why don't you provide a link to what she actually wrote, rather than forcing us to swallow your interpretation of her comments.

Do you remember when I said that you do things to intentionally damage the credibility of those you challenge you on this forum? Including a paragraph in your post claiming that I don't have an open mind that prohibits me from accepting or understanding the view of others is exactly that. It is my sincere hope that the members of this forum will recognize that comment for what it is, a low brow tactic employed by a desperate individual. It is ironic because you are the most closed minded person I have ever encountered on any internet forum. And yes, that includes people like TomCorona and the other loons over on the PRWE forum.

With regards to the CAC issue, I would expect that there are more coins that don't sticker than do sticker. That is the entire point of the CAC, to separate the good for the grade from the low end coins that resulted from gradeflation. But that does not inherently mean that the coins are overgraded, and JA admits this on his website. Now Doug, pay attention. I am going to quote John Albanese and provide a link to the source that I quoted. This is how things are done in the real world, maybe you should give this a try sometime.

CAC FAQs

3. If a coin doesn’t receive a CAC sticker, does this mean CAC believes the coin is over-graded?
Absolutely not. There are many coins that are certified accurately for their grade. Unfortunately, it is an inescapable reality that many are at the lower end of the quality range for the assigned grade. CAC’s rejection of a coin does not necessarily mean that CAC believes the coin has been over-graded. It simply means that there are other coins with CAC stickers that are of higher quality for the grade. CAC will eventually reject tens of thousands of accurately graded coins. Many of these rejected coins will be acceptable to numerous dealers and collectors and will continue to be available in the marketplace. For quality-conscious collectors and dealers, a coin with a CAC sticker will have significant meaning.

But your post is very telling Doug. You asked me and I quote: "And if they didn't get that green bean then those coins were over-graded by the TPGs - weren't they ?" The answer is NO, they were not overgraded and you don't need to accept it from me, simply read JA's answer to that question shown above. You seem to pride yourself on reading articles by industry leaders but you have never even read the CAC website. Hmmm...interesting. The fact is Doug that I read 3 coin forums, the Numismatist, and other coin related press releases on a regular basis. There are plenty of times that I disagree with something written by someone in the coin world. That said, very few of the important people in the coin world are active on the coin forums. So please don't take the fact that I disagree with you personally, you are here, they are not.

It seems that all of this is just a diversionary discussion. This all spawned from my comment that your grading methods place you in the "lunatic fringe" with regards to grading. When you are forced to admit that even the people who think many coins are overgraded also don't subscribe to your grading methods, that is tantamount to an admission that you are indeed the "lunatic fringe" of grading.

 

Who exactly led you to believe that? JA recognized that gradeflation was a problem and discovered that he could provide a solution to help combat that problem while generating a profit at the same time. Gradeflation is not "the TPGs getting loose with their grading standards" as you say.