Guess the Grade-----1941-S Jefferson Nickel NGC

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I've seen some real early American coins that looked closer to XF than MS, at least to me.

 

But of course when selling your unslabbed MS coins that you took years and years of work to acquire the grading skills necessary to grade them properly, the dealer looks at them and calls them XF to AU 99% of the time.

 

It would make sense if I didn't own the coin. But since I do and have the opportunity to view it in hand, I am inclined to say it is MS. While there are flat areas on the devices that look like wear, there is no discernable friction in the fields. The coin is certainly not XF. Based on the accounts of Nagengast and the previous examples I have seen in slabs, the coin is mint state.

Furthermore, I don't believe that the TPG's are purposefully pushing the limits in order to change grading standards. Their success as a company is dependent upon consumer confidence in their grading. If they constantly push the limits, they will erode that confidence. You realize they collect the grading fee no matter what grade they assign don't you?

 

FYI, your use of the term market acceptability applied to the numerical grade is going to confuse a whole lot of people. My answer to your question is that gradeflation is a result of statistical probabilities and has nothing to do with a conscious effort on the part of the TPG's to push the limits.

The crackout artists will always resubmit PQ coins that they think they can get into a higher graded holder. If the price difference is $500 between grades, the crackout artist only really needs a 10% chance that the coin will upgrade in order for it to be profitable. The grading process is such that the same coin can be submitted several times and the grade can (and does) change. Gradeflation is much more a product of the submitters persistence than the intentions of the graders. In fact, I submit that the intention of the graders is consistency but it is just an impossible feat and can only be accomplished a certain % of the time. The crackout artists know this and use the inherent inconsistency of the grading process to accomplish their goal.

In that respect, I applaud PCGS and their new innovation to stop gradeflation. But Doug, you want me to believe that the TPG's are purposefully market grading AU Jefferson Nickels to BU. In my mind, that seems ludicrous. The 1941-S Large S variety may be scarce, but it is not so scarce that the TPG's need to market grade the extant population.

 

That's one of the best posts I've read in a long time. BRAVO! :smile

 

Doug,

I am not going to argue this topic with you. You have your opinion, I have mine. My only remaining question is why would the TPG's ever make a concerted effort to loosen or tighten grading standards when they get paid no matter what grade they assign?

 

Are you saying that TPG's are consciously loosening grading standards in order to profit from submissions?

 

If that is true, then the public statements by David Hall (PCGS) about stopping gradeflation are nothing more than theater as they secretly want gradeflation to continue in order to boost revenues.

I wonder if anyone has statistics as to the percentage of revenues based on source for the TPG's. I am willing to bet that the largest source is moderns, followed by classics, and that resubmissions are a very small percentage of their overall revenue.

And under my theory, the TPG's don't need to modify their standards at all in order to capture the resubmission market. The crackout artists will resubmit coins based on the potential profit of an upgrade relying on the inherent incosistencies of the grading process. Your theory basically states that the TPG's are willing to sacrifice their consumer confidence in order to increase their revenues of one of their smallest sources. I am not buying that!

If you had said they loosen their standards in order to steal market share from their competitors, I could see that happening. Personally, I think that is a terrible long term decision because as soon as you get the reputation as being more liberal with your grading standards than the other guy, your prices will start to fall, and you will lose customers in droves to the competition.

Again, it is my firm belief that gradeflation is a natural result of the inherent inconsistencies of the grading process. I am not disputing that the TPG's dont make minor changes to grading standards for particular series from time to time. However, I do not believe that they intentionally loosen standards to boost revenues.

 

lol

but dear gd they are driving us out of money dont u think?

 

PCGS also claims that you can crossover an NGC coin into a PCGS holder. If you ask anyone who has ever tried to cross an NGC coin to PCGS you know how difficult it is. You also know that your chance at a cross increases dramatically if you simply crack the coin from it's NGC holder prior to submission. Of course the PCGS guys are going to claim publicly that the secure plus service does not always lock in the grade. But just try to get a plus coin upgraded without cracking it. Guess what, it ain't gonna happen and I don't care what they say. Do you really think it is in the PCGS business plan to erode their own consumer confidence by changing grades of coins they have previously graded?

We both know that the plus designation was intended to get collectors to resubmit their coins. Fighting gradeflation is a convenient selling point that the TPG's can use for the service. However, introducing the plus designation is not proof that the TPG's purposefully loosen their grading standards. I admit that they are taking steps to increase their resubmission revenues but "pushing the limits" of their grading standards is not one of those steps. But nice little spin job you did on that one.

 

Someone should do a poll - agree with Doug, agree with Paul, both have some truth I agree with. Those would be the options. I do like the discussion between the two of you all.

 

Doug,

It is hard for me to dispute that gradeflation exists as a function of looser grading standards. What I don't believe is that the TPG's deliberately loosen their standards to increase revenues for either the regular market or resubmission market. At this point, you have not provided any proof that they are guilty of doing so.

My confidence in the TPG's is not blind. However, they are more accurate and more consistent than almost all of the collectors & dealers as well as some of the so called experts and industry leaders. Think about it! When someone disagrees with the assigned grade, what is their course of action. The send the coin back to get a different grade. That action in itself proves that the TPG grading opinion is the only one that matters. Resubmissions are caused not only by gradeflation but also by initial misgrading. Let's face it, sometimes they do make a mistake, and when they are low, someone profits from their mistake in the form of a crackout resubmission. When they are wrong high, they are forced to issue compensation.

That is the key to why they should hate gradeflation. If gradeflation goes unchecked for a long period of time, it becomes impossible for them to adjust because it will make them liable for huge sums of money under the grade guarantee. For this reason, I don't think we will ever see a return to the grading standards that you refer to. However, I think that the TPG's finally see the danger in gradeflation and understand that it represents a signficant financial danger and promoting it by "pushing the limits" in order to increase revenues of a shrinking revenue source is suicide. The plus designation is an ingenious idea that allows them to seek those revenues while not suffering the danger of gradeflation. I am not saying the plus designation will end gradeflation, but it surely will slow it down. Kinda like putting a toned coin in proper storage.