I'm not sure who "they" refers to since I was talking about the ANA and the TPGs in the post of mine that you quoted. But in the end I guess it doesn't matter. Under ANA standards if an entire issue is known for being especially well struck then that issue is held to a tougher level, a more strict level, of grading standards than other coins of the same series. The TPGs do the same thing in that regard. However, what must be remembered is that TPG standards are looser, more lenient, than ANA standards. For example, a TPG 66 is not the equal of an ANA 66, or a 63 the equal of a 63, etc etc. What the TPGs call a 66, under ANA standards would be a a lower grade, sometimes a much lower grade.
David are you aware that there are coins in PCGS slabs that were actually graded by computer back in the early '90s ? No, there's not a whole lot of them and they are all Morgans, but yes they do exist. However, anybody who has seen these coins graded by computer readily agrees that the system failed miserably. And even PCGS is of the same opinion. Since then others have tried to improve upon the system and if memory serves PCGS even tried it again several years later, but again gave up. And as recently as 2003 one young man even wrote his doctoral dissertation on a computer assisted grading system where the computer is used to get the human graders "close" to what the actual grade should be. But that system has never been adopted by anybody either, and for the same reasons - it doesn't work. The reason is doesn't work is that grading coins is inherently subjective and that subjectivity cannot be removed. And yes I realize that your point is to do away with all of those things and grade coins on a purely technical basis, a basis that can be measured by computer. Well, that is the oldest grading we have, it was the first grading system we had. And it was used for many years. And almost everybody in numismatics, including collectors, dealers, and scholars, agreed that that system failed miserably. And that of course is why market grading was invented, so that those subjective things, quality of strike, quality of luster, and eye appeal, could be accounted for. But accounting for those things is not the problem with today's TPG grading. The problem is two fold. One, that there is no universal grading standard accepted by everybody. The problem is that every TPG has it's own proprietary set of grading standards. And two, that they keep changing those standards, there is no consistency over time because they continually loosen their grading standards. Do away with those things and the market grading system will work just fine.
The idea of split grades (separate grades for obverse and reverse) has been tried by companies in the past. The old ANACS photocertificates are known for this. I am a fan of the idea myself, but the market chose to go with a singe grade. The problem with split grades is that they are too hard to price - What is the difference in price between a 64/65, a 65/65, and a 65/64? Is the 64/65 the same price as the 65/64? The answer is no - because the obverse is considered more important. It is widely acknowledged that in market grading the obverse carries more weight (I'm not entirely sure why - but it does). A strong 65 can pull a 64 reverse up to a 65, whereas the opposite is not true. A 64 obverse with a 65 reverse will usually be graded 64. If I had to weight the importance of the sides, I'd probably go 60/40 in favor of the obverse (according to the TPGs). Again, I'm not saying I agree with this, I'm saying that's how it is. The same is true for toning. A coin with stellar obverse toning is going to sell for much more than a coin with the exact same toning on the reverse.
What you say may well be the case, but I gather that the vast majority of posters here who go to extraodinary lengths to get the highest grading possible accept PCGS and their grading as the be-all and end-all of authorities. I don't see any sales or offers bragging about being ANA graded. It appears that ANA standards apply only to raw coins.
Yes David there are many who think of the TPGs as being the "be-all end-all" of grading authorities. But if they are the be-all end-all of grading, meaning they are always right, then how is it that so many coins get up-graded ? I mean, if they were right the first time, then how can they possibly be right the second time when the coin gets an even higher grade ? And what do you say when the same coin gets upgraded again ? They were wrong two times and right on the third ? Really ? It seems to me that if a grading company is supposed to be the best there is, then when a coin is sent in for grading it will be given the same grade each time it is sent in. Not upgraded the following year and then upgraded again 3 or 4 years later. How good can they be if that is happening ? And there is no doubt, there is no disputing that it does happen - a lot. And no, there are no sales or offers for coins graded by ANA standards. But then there could not be any because no TPG uses or follows ANA standards. You ever wonder why that might be ? For that matter you ever wonder why all of the TPGs each use a different set of grading standards - as opposed to them all using the same set of grading standards ? I mean that one question right there should make everybody wonder - if these guys are really as good as they claim to be, really as good as so many people "think" they are - then why don't they all use the same set of of grading standards ? And if you want to get more specific, if PCGS is as good as some think, then why is that PCGS doesn't even follow their own written and published grading standards ?
Well said Doug , but they're still better than the way it was . We also have to remember that grading is subjective , that and people doing the grading makes for mistakes . Still I wish they'd use the ANA Standard or at least use the standards they have . That's why it's important to learn to grade ourselves so when we see a 64 in a 65 holder or visa versa we can act accordingly . Also I used to be a big PCGS fan , now I really don't care what slab a coin is in as I can always crack it out and resubmit it .
You boys are losing me, now. Let me just ask you this. Is it a matter of who we let dictate our grading standards? In other words, either this dictator, or that dictator, but it's a dictatorship? Really, I want to know. Is that all you think grading standards are?
That is simply untrue. I could post hundreds of pictures of weakly struck coins, with great surface preservation, super eye appeal, and no distracting marks that have graded 65, 66,67, and even 68. This is Doug's grading standard, not any professional one I've ever seen. Of course, strike is a component of grade, but plenty of beautiful coins that have below average strikes are appropriately graded much higher than 64.
Actually it's in the PCGS grading book that a weakly struck coin shall not grade higher than 64 . But they do make allowances for coins like the '21-P Peace dollar where just about all the coins are weakly struck . Now if you could show me a 1917-P SLQ that is weakly struck and grades higher than a 64 or any other usually well struck coin that is weakly struck grading over a 66 , then I'd listen .
I could easily show you either that is not the best strike and grades over 66. I'd be way over the photo limit, here. I think you've consumed a bit of Doug's Kool-Aid here; while strike is obviously important, there are no hard and fast rules regarding strike preventing a gem grade--unless one is a member of DCGS---Doug's Coin Grading Service. Be glad to show you some New Orleans Morgans that would knock your socks off, and are generally poorly struck, but grade as high end gem coins.
Untrue? Doug said this. "Under ANA standards no weakly struck coin can grade higher than 64." Are you saying that's not the ANA standard?
Sorry Dave, but it is true. All you have to do is read the book to see it. As for your other comments - I guess you must have missed it when I said this - I dunno Dave, but it sounds to me like you are the one drinking the Koolaid, not me. 'Course, there's nothing unusual in that.
Your last comment was personal. Up until then, you might have credibility as a collector and moderator. But that is an AD Hominem attack. Are you going to punish yourself, the same way you'd punish someone else who made a statement that was personal against you? No, of course you won't. I stand by my support of TPGs, as they are far more accurate than most collectors, and dealers. The "wild old days" were incredibly hectic and much misrepresentation of the condition of coins was made on both sides. I have often told of the fact that people would buy BU coins, and then try to sell the same coins to the same dealer, and all of a sudden, they were "AU." Most of the horror stories we read on Cointalk are from people buying raw coins, and being misled about grades, or getting coins that are damaged and not able to be graded at all. We read of endless details coins that are raw. Yes, one should absolutely learn to grade, but it is still no replacement for TPG assurance of a grade--it is not "just an opinion," but a professional opinion. Here is an example: Your hand is red, swollen, throbbing, and hot. You have a fever. Opinion from friend or family member--You probably have an infection. Professional evaluation, based on facts--The doctor says "In my medical experience, you have an infection. Take 250MG of Doxycycline twice a day for 10 days." One is predicated upon experience, expertise, and a semblance of science, based on years of training. The other is an opinion. This is obviously just an analogy, but seems pretty true. Any collector can give an opinion of grade (we all know what people say about opinions, and all of them stinking.). However, the TPG gives an opinion, backed by a certification, and a guarantee.
I didn't get personal or insulting. You did-- if you want to speak collector to collector, do it without personal attacks, if you can do so. I spoke of the need for TPG grading, and the way they interpret strike as one single component of the grade. You intimated that only a well- struck coin could be a high grade coin, which is simply not accurate. Having no viable argument to support your point, you did resort to name-calling, Doug. You often do so, when confronted with the fact that TPGs generally are pretty accurate in grading.
I find all of the above accurate but would add that TPG and ANA standards are both looser than EAC standards.
Re your first two paragraphs: Which is exactly why I said As for the rest: Then why bother mentioning ANA standards? If the TPGs have their own standards and are actually producing products (graded coins) while the ANA sits on a pedestal doing nothing but pontificating, then the ANA "standards" mean little in the real world. This chase for the elusive MS70, or splitting hairs over a 64, 65, 66, 67, 67, 68 or 69 is ridiculous. My collection consists of coins I can look at and enjoy the beauty of. I have XF and AU coins that are a whole lot better looking than many MS examples I have seen of the same coins. I don't need someone else's validation that any of my coins are any better than someone else's. What I conclude is that each collector should grade his own coins and let the market decide if he is right or wrong.
Sure they make allowances for New Orleans graded Morgans that are usually weakly struck , so a weakly struck 67 should be easy to find . But do show me a weakly struck '17-P SLQ that grades higher than a 65 . I do agree that the tpgs are better than the old days of everyone having their own system so we're in agreement there . Still grading is subjective and done by humans so mistakes will be made as we all seen coins that are over graded and undergraded and sent back in for a review and their grades raised , this is to be expected and like we said before better than the old ways .
The ANA is just paying the price now for having corrupted our grading standards for the TPGs. The TPGs needed the ANA to bring collectors around to the concept of market grading in advance of the TPGs forming and building a business around same. Now that the TPGs got what they want, i.e., a market for their market grades, who needs the ANA?
Hmmmm, please tell me how this, said by you - - is any different than this, said by me - C'mon Dave, tell me how they are different.
