Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;GDJMSP, post: 1597913, member: 112&quot;]Brandon - </p><p><br /></p><p>First of all I readily agree that there is no single standard of grading followed by everybody, least of all the TPGs. Each TPG has their own set of standards that they follow. Secondly, I do not grade coins based on standards established before the TPGs existed. I grade coins based on ANA standards, and as I am sure you are aware their latest book came out in 2006. And that book is basically unchanged from the edition written in 1986 and published in 1987. The same two years that PCGS and NGC were established. Thirdly, prior to 2004 it was a rare occasion when I would disagree with a grade assigned by either NGC or PCGS. And lastly, contrary to what you believe, although I understand why you believe it since you have only been reading my posts for 2 years, I have no problem grading coins 65 and up when that coin is worthy of that grade. </p><p><br /></p><p>What you don&#039;t realize Brandon is that before 2004 I used to be able to look at a raw coin in hand and about 90% of the time be able to predict what the TPG would grade that coin. And yes, I could even differentiate between NGC and PCGS. That is not only consistency, that is also accuracy. And I was pretty good at making the same predictions based on pictures of the coins, as long as the pictures were of decent quality.</p><p><br /></p><p>In 2004 all of that went out the window. And it sure wasn&#039;t because I changed. I grade coins today exactly as I did back then. And as much as it may surprise you, back then it was not all that uncommon for some to think I was over-grading a coin when I predicted what the TPG would say. Yeah, imagine that ! But, most of the time I was right. And yes, that includes coins that the TPGs graded 65, 66, and even 67.[/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