Grading? Why bother?

They do routinely overgrade coins. It is just a routine that happens seldomly.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

This is probably the best post in this entire thread, and looks like it was widely ignored. A logical perspective of the TPGs and the virtues that they bring to the numismatic marketplace.

 

This is one of the only two reasons why I appreciate slabs.

The population game is a dangerous path. The more coins that get sent in, the lower the value becomes. I have a raw 1964 Kennedy that probably could grade MS-66, but I have no intentions of sending it in.

This is the other reason why I appreciate the TPGs.

Most people view these “common” coins as not worth the fee, regardless of how nice they are.

Laziness and fear of losing money by taking the risk of sending it in. I don’t send in a lot of coins because I don’t want to wait 1-2 months for the TPGs blessing. That is a good way to tie up money.

 

Says the guy who just two pages ago accused them of undergrading his coin!

It seems to me that you have a keen eye for coins, but you dabble in an area of coins that I don't. My experience is mostly with late 19th century and 20th century mint state coins. You deal mostly with early American coinage that is in the circulate range. In that regard, I can't really attest to their consistency related to circulated coinage.

Personally, I find grading early circulated coinage much more difficult. Authentication is the first step that can be excluded with most 20th century mint state coins. Cleanings and other problems are much more difficult to recognize, and wear patterns often deviate from the standards based on the original strike quality of the coin.

 

They also routinely undergrade coins. It is also a seldom routine.

I’m not sure what your point is. I can easily find overgraded and undergraded coins in TPG slabs. So can you. That does not mean that most of the coins are over/undergraded. It just means that it happens on a regular (though not often) basis.

 

And that is why I recommend an objective technical grade plus a subjective grade. Even if doing so hinders their existence, it gives us, the collector, a more realistic idea of the condition of the coin, better than what you can see from a photo. Besides, does a TPG serve us or themselves?

 

And this goes to my contention for two grades: one objective and technical, the other appearance and subjective. Your MS65 would have low marks on both technical and appearance, and the MS62 would get high marks on both. You could then decide what was most important to you based on that.

 

Here's another reason why I believe there should be a technical and separate subjective grade: toning, or most other distractions from the coin surface, wouldn't hide dings or wear from a computer assessment of those items. This is mentioned in the Bowers book. I'm just taking it a step further in trying to get around the many controversies over TPG grading issues.

 

You know I bought this same book back when it came out in the '90s and still have it. It's still a pretty refreshing read today. I do agree with most of your comments.

 

Can I get a amen?

 

This isn't one coin, I see many coins that I feel are over graded and it would be a waste of thread space to point even the most recent seen on CT.

I do get to tell a dealer what I think, who are you to tell me I can't.
I thoroughly understand how the TPGS grade coins that dose not mean that I have to agree with them. Yes as stated previously in this thread I grade conservatively. Do Doug and I have the same standards.? I am not sure but they are close.

It is likely that this coin was not as dark as it is when it was slabbed.. And could have been an attractive coin.

I have said it before I do not mind TPG's. And I do think that they do a certain good in the market place. They have made the selling of coins by photo a reality. They also have kept many a dealer honest. Lets not forget have protected many an buyer that do not care to learn how to grade.

Lets put it this way. I am definitely building more of a bias towards the top two TPG's. As they need to build revenue, They tweak there standards, it might be slight, each time. But tweaked none the less.
This has gotten them away from the business model they started with. And has resulted in overgrading.
You can't tell me different, and I do side with Doug on this. A coin years ago that was a 65 or even 66 is now put into a plus or has hit the next grade or two. Pile on CAC and now the problem has gotten even worse.

 

They serve themselves otherwise we wouldn't be having these discussions.
There motto is to get anybody and everybody to send coins. It's the only way they can make money.

 

But wouldn't it be better for us if they gave a more realistic grade? It would be better for them, too, since more collectors would be willing to submit their coins knowing they would be accurately graded. And only a TPG would have the equipment to do that.

 

Don't fall for all the anti grading garbage you read. Most of those people have little to no experience with the TPGs, and most vastly over estimate their own ability.

The information you get on forums from a lot of people is worth exactly what you paid for it, nothing

 

And you know that's true, because someone just said it on a forum!

 

I can only challenge you to look at a lot of coins in hand. If you pick a series that intrigues you. Use "All" the TPGS to get an assessment of the coin.
Then buy the coin that makes you happy, Upgrade it if you feel that it isn't satisfactory to your tastes.

And be open to opinion's.

 

Ancients are graded by NGC similarly:
1-5/5 for Strike
1-5/5 for Surface
1-5/5 for Style

 

Coins like this are priced in the Blue Sheet for sight unseen coins.

 

I don't have a problem with the TPGS, but I've seen many cases where the grade they give is challenged or people crack out a coin to get a better grade. I'm just saying there may be a way to grade that is consistent and a lot more objective than it is now. I'm all for grading coins, but even Bowers says it's more an art than a science. And I'm saying it could be more scientific.

And this is the only forum I read, so you're saying...?