Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;calcol, post: 3885885, member: 77639&quot;]It doesn&#039;t prove anything about grading standards.&nbsp;&nbsp; There&#039;s no way to know the condition of the raw coins that were submitted and that may have changed from year to year.&nbsp; And I presume the data is raw submissions (some of which would have been crack-outs) and reconsideration/regrading/crossover submissions.&nbsp; Is there any way to know the proportions?</p><p><br /></p><p>In addition, annual variation in the distribution of coin types and years can affect grades.&nbsp; An influx to a TPG of recently minted coins compared to an earlier year or month might, not surprisingly, result in a greater proportion receiving higher grades.&nbsp; My speculation is that&#039;s what happened between Oct 2003 and Apr 2006.&nbsp; The TPGs do run specials from time to time that encourage submission of certain types of coins.&nbsp; Then too, the mintages of modern coins can vary quite a bit between years.</p><p><br /></p><p>I&#039;m not disagreeing that there has been a loosening of standards, which is only part of gradeflation.&nbsp; I feel it&#039;s occurred.&nbsp; But I haven&#039;t seen objective proof.&nbsp;&nbsp; A large change in the distribution of assigned grades in different years&nbsp; would be proof only if:</p><p><br /></p><p>1.&nbsp; the data is for&nbsp; raw coins,</p><p><br /></p><p>and</p><p><br /></p><p>2. the distribution of the conditions of the raw coins was the same in the years being compared.</p><p><br /></p><p>Information on no. 1. above may be available; no. 2. above is unknowable.</p><p><br /></p><p>Cal[/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