Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Lehigh96, post: 3882863, member: 15309&quot;]This basically mirrors my long standing view on the issue.&nbsp; I feel compelled to warn you that this is a very unpopular opinion, and that pretty much everybody else has resigned themselves to the conclusion that the TPG&#039;s change their grading standards on a cyclical basis, both loosening and tightening them, in order to drive resubmissions.&nbsp; They are so convinced that this is the reason for gradeflation that they usually won&#039;t consider an alternative theory like you and I hold, despite the fact that if they are correct in their theory, the TPGs are perpetrating a fraud on the general public.&nbsp; You can&#039;t offer a grade guaranty and then secretly and routinely change the grading standards without committing fraud.</p><p><br /></p><p>You mention TPG &quot;reconsideration&quot; and &quot;regrading&quot; as an avenue for gradeflation.&nbsp; I have only every submitted two coins in this fashion and both came back with the same grade.&nbsp; I&#039;m aware that my sample size is insignificant, and my point isn&#039;t that upgrades couldn&#039;t happen, only that I don&#039;t think that enough people are using these services and getting upgrades to move the needle on gradeflation.</p><p><br /></p><p>Crackouts and crossovers are the more likely source of the resubmissions that account for gradeflation.&nbsp; The real problem is that over time it creates a disproportionate amount of coins that are low end for the assigned grade which then can lead to the market perceiving those coins as &quot;representative&quot; for the assigned grade.&nbsp; But that effect essentially created the opportunity for CAC to enter the marketplace with their business model.&nbsp; They basically separate the wheat from the chaff, and the coins that truly deserve the assigned grade are restored in value (somewhat).</p><p><br /></p><p>I consistently hear that grading was more strict in the 90&#039;s and that coins that reside in older holders will be more conservatively graded than coins graded today.&nbsp; I didn&#039;t start submitting coins until 2001, and didn&#039;t submit Jefferson Nickels until a decade after that, but to my eye and anecdotal experience, I actually see the opposite.&nbsp; I find that many of the Jefferson Nickels, especially war nickels, that reside in old fatty NGC MS67 holders are of a much lower quality than what I see getting MS67 today.</p><p><br /></p><p>IMO, the reason for gradeflation is a combination of the inherent subjectivity in grading and greed.&nbsp; We have all graded coins and been on the fence as to the grade.&nbsp; Is it a high end MS64 or a low end MS65?&nbsp; Our determinations vary based on how we rank and prioritize the different elements of grading.&nbsp; But it is entirely possible to find a coin where the initial graders all think the coin is MS64, but upon resubmission, all of the new graders think the coin is MS65.&nbsp; Once we admit that this is possible (or even probable), it only takes a financial incentive to start seeing coins be cracked, resubmitted, and MS64s turning into MS65s.&nbsp; This is especially true of conditional rarities where the jump in price is huge compared to the cost of the grading fee.&nbsp; For example, if the price jump from one grade to the next is $1K, and the grading fee is $50, the crackout artist is basically getting 20 to 1 odds to resubmit the coin.&nbsp; If he knows the market and knows he has only has a 10% chance at an upgrade, he can still submit the coin 10 times and make a tidy profit.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in