Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Owle, post: 1348801, member: 22004&quot;]&quot;And yet people choose to believe that the TPGs will not, have not changed their grading standards&quot; <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie11" alt=":rolleyes:" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /> </p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Take this coin in an old PCGS holder that I sold at auction last night:&nbsp; <a href="http://www.greatcollections.com/Coin/33385/1907-Liberty-Eagle-PCGS-AU-58-OGH-2nd-Gen" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://www.greatcollections.com/Coin/33385/1907-Liberty-Eagle-PCGS-AU-58-OGH-2nd-Gen" rel="nofollow">http://www.greatcollections.com/Coin/33385/1907-Liberty-Eagle-PCGS-AU-58-OGH-2nd-Gen</a></p><p><br /></p><p>Would it have been worth cracking the coin out and resubmitting, hoping for an MS63 instead of the actual OH AU58?&nbsp; Possibly.&nbsp; Clearly the grading services modify their grades in time.&nbsp; What used to be seen as rub, cabinet friction, etc., gets forgiven and the coin ends up in an MS holder because its merits out weigh the tiny problem.</p><p><br /></p><p>With NGC, they also had similarly tight grading standards where they would not MS a coin that had a little wear or friction, the definition of MS has evolved as understanding of what constitutes an impediment to an MS grade has matured.&nbsp; When gold was trading in the $300s there was less of a stake between the various higher grades.&nbsp; Looking at population figures also helps to see shifts in standards, a statistical analysis at five year intervals from the inception of the TPGs would give concrete backing to the idea of evolving standards.[/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