Has Grading Gone to Far?

People say that grading complexities are driving potential new collectors from the hobby. I have been a collector for over 60 years, and I am pretty much out of the U.S. coin market because of CAC. He and his minions have cast such a stigma over the market with his stickers that the U.S. coin market has ceased to be much fun for me.

If every coin that you buy or keep in your collection has to be approved by one man, why bother any more? I prefer to collect material that is not under his thumb.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

That may have been the intent, but just as any type of advice or opinion is. If it's not failing at it's objective then there is no need for the secondary service. The primary and objective so called service began calling 63 and 64's 65's. This is no simple step in we were wrong, this is an outright saying of, we haven't completed the scale yet, it's gonna be a wild ride to the top, but hang on were gonna give you another so called authority to complete the justification.

It didn't take me long after learning the basics of grading to see that the services were only there to make a buck. And nowadays that means anything to keep the dollar coming in!

 

As opposed to what?

 

Using the standard that was given them, I am ok with having 60 to 70 as long as they could figure a way to stick to it. Nothing against the services but it is the worst business model ever to not have "change or projection" in the subject of the future money's. It is easy to see that the companies have run out of fresh examples to grade, and have relied on old services to keep the model running.

 

Just to correct this is no one else has, the gold bean isn't breaking down a grade in anyway shape or form as it is saying the coin is basically grossly undergraded.

The initial scale was just dumb in all honesty. To have a 70 point scale and ignore so many grades of it and then the real issue is that it's not a scale at all rather two scales on top of each other with the idea of a hard line at 60 regardless of the fact that 55s are even better than true 60s and 58s sure are without question.

 

We kind of do already with the plus grades, but there just comes a point where the difference is so minimal that it wouldn't do any good. The MS grades have differences and any new grade turns the market on it's head a bit at this point. 50 to 53 there's not really a value added or a differential for a 51 or 52, you could make arguments for a F 18 type between the 15 and VF and maybe one or two more but for the most part the difference between many of them can be so small like a VG 8 and 10 that adding a 9 would do more harm than good.

 

Grade-flatiron has become the way to keep TPGs “relevant.” If you give previously graded coins a point up, you will get more crack-outs, re-submissions and cross-overs. Gimmicks with modern coins, like labels, “first strike,” autographed holders and issue specific holders, like “Baltimore coin show” help, but upgrades keep coming for the “real money.”

At the very beginning, PCGS was not happy with CAC, but then they saw the marketing possibilities and accepted it.

 

lol

 

Maybe someone can answer this: How many “examiners” does CAC have judging whether a coin will get a sticker?

 

JA is the finalizer.
He has Bill Wetzler, Bill Shamhart & Steve Blum working with him.
Not sure what they do.

I wouldn't put too much stock in stickers or plastic.
For example, BOTH of these are 67+
One got a bean and the other was submitted to CAC & denied.
You guess....

 

Howdy all!
TD

 

Thanks for posting, great read.

 

You know I still don't understand why CAC will not accept from ICG or ANACS. If their reason to be a company is to validate grades why not open your business up to make more money and than we could see just how bad or good the other two are. I guess if JA has financial interest in NGC and PCGS I guess that answers the question.
Do you think he gives PCGS coins preference over NGC?

 

Since ICG and ANACs use the same 1-70 scale as NGC and PCGS, I see no reason why he shouldn't accept them for submission.

But it's his company.

 

I agree but it would be nice if he did. Quality coins are just that, quality coins no matter the plastic.

 

Because of the market. You can't say this is our PCGS or NGC price but this is our ANACS/ICG price. CAC was made for high end coins where there are huge gaps price wise for the different companies, it's collectors that have brought it to lower priced coins

 

Because modern coin collecting has become a pissing contest based on the minutiae of numbers. Collectors like having precise numbers to gauge where their coins rank among others. Then they can use this ranking to create a precise value stratification where the holder is the end-all be-all determination of value.

Now knowledgable collectors with a discerning eye like @Lehigh96 and @physics-fan3.14 are very much the exception. Their opinions of a coin’s quality and value exist outside of the slab. But they are in the minority.

I am a huge advocate of getting rid of numbers altogether. Who cares if it is VF-30 or 35? Just call it Choice VF. Same with VG-8 and 10. Just call it VG. And if it is between two levels (lots of gray between 35 and 40), call it borderline.

 

Same scale, different standards.

Which is exactly what it was back in 1977 before ANA came out with their grading guide and adopted the abandoned Sheldon Pricing numbers.

 

That's basically just saying get rid of grading. Theres a huge difference between a 20 and a 35, or just saying it's MS because there's no numbers anymore.

You could get rid of the letters and it wouldn't make a difference and maybe would even make it less confusing for some people but it is impossible to get rid of the numbers

 

Nothing is impossible. Yet, I hear your point.