ICG And HSN'S Mike Mezack Part Ways? "There are 3 Major Grading Services"

Me too, and I saved it then and still have it in a 2x2. What I can’t fathom is why anyone has a coin like that graded! You think maybe it’s a case of “you pretend it’s a worthwhile coin, and we’ll pretend to grade it”?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

You mean like archeological digs are? I take formal grading courses and use THAT information. I don’t become a slave to books - ANY book. Not even the book our illustrious (as if..) chief moderator insists is something that the book itself insists it isn’t. That’s not just WRONG, it’s a little bit insane.

But that’s okay. Even CT is entitled to have a crazy uncle in the basement. It could be worse, I guess. At least he’s stuck in only the late 80’s / early 90’s and not imagining the Asian neighbors are Japanese spies.

 

Yeah, you figured out that lots of Asians around town means the LPGA must be in town.

 

I also have a hard time, and not sure why it was even sent in for grading. The only good thing is, I gave 50 cents plus tax. And have used it as an example in my collection.
Grading coins takes time, it takes a lot of effort, reading, and looking at a lot of coins. This seems more like gradeflation than an actual effort to properly grade the coin. This type of grading isn't benefitting anyone in the hobby except the grading company.
If ICG would have put MS64 on this coin I would feel that it is a little excessive, but understandable given the type of grading that plagues our market. A 66 is just plain ridiculous. This is not a gem coin.

 

@Insider I can only imagine that if the company wanted to create in image for the future? There can be 0 Snarking at the market currently available to them, If we keep trying to push away our future collectors, we as a whole could eliminate the future of our coinage. Just as the times have passed, coinage could pass. It is our job to create our future. Therefore figuring that this is worthless coinage, it should have been graded with integrity, and that is what creates an image.


I guess that what I am saying is there could be a market for these coins, Tomorrow is our future.

 

V. Kurt Bellman, posted: "You mean like archeological digs are? I take formal grading courses and use THAT information. I don’t become a slave to books - ANY book. Not even the book our illustrious (as if..) chief moderator insists is something that the book itself insists it isn’t. That’s not just WRONG, it’s a little bit insane."

I think what you are saying is that all books are just a guide - even the ones that are out of date and don't reflect the standards of today, correct?

Pickin and Grinin, posted: "..., and not sure why it was even sent in for grading. The only good thing is, I gave 50 cents plus tax. And have used it as an example in my collection." Collectors like/collect different things. They also have different amounts of money. I've learned to accept it. This particular coin is mo worthy of being graded than the VF 1942 10c, 1956-d 1c in XF brown, 1921 Morgan in F, and on and on...sent in last week.

"Grading coins takes time, it takes a lot of effort, reading, and looking at a lot of coins. This seems more like gradeflation than an actual effort to properly grade the coin. This type of grading isn't benefitting anyone in the hobby except the grading company."

No, it doesn't. Your post sounds very astute and it applies to beginners; yet I'm pretty sure you have developed your skills enough so that your quote does not apply to you.

"If ICG would have put MS64 on this coin I would feel that it is a little excessive, but understandable given the type of grading that plagues our market. A 66 is just plain ridiculous. This is not a gem coin."

We all can agree on that.

"I can only imagine that if the company wanted to create in image for the future? There can be 0 Snarking at the market currently available to them, If we keep trying to push away our future collectors, we as a whole could eliminate the future of our coinage. Just as the times have passed, coinage could pass. It is our job to create our future. Therefore figuring that this is worthless coinage, it should have been graded with integrity, and that is what creates an image."

I agree with you. Grading should be strict for everything. At on time 1853 25c were common change. They would have been treated as modern junk also with no regard to the future. Who would have thought that a 1999 quarter would be so old already? Unfortunately, you are bucking human nature. The coin you posted may have been graded by a rookie for a TV promotion as TPGS don't like to put their best folks grading what they perceive as "modern junk."

"I guess that what I am saying is there could be a market for these coins, Tomorrow is our future."

So true but we'll be long gone.

 

Very interesting thread

 

Thank you. Always willing to learn.

 

What I am saying is anyone who uses a book, ANY BOOK, as their sole source for grading is a fool.

 

I disagree (sort of) using a book or even (photograde online) is just fine for circulated coinage. Those grades are pretty cut and dry.
Its when you get up into the mint state grades that those books are pretty useless. So for someone, who's say, a metal detectorist, that book is just fine if they wanna try and value some of their finds.
Just me humble opinion. Plus i like to stir the pot occasionally

 

I’ll not comment on your first longer paragraph because I agree with all that. Where I disagree, and I fear we’ll ALWAYS disagree on this part, is your fetish for immutability. Standards not only MAY change over time, they very nearly MUST. Why? Because we learn things as a hobby and industry. We improve. We learn our old ways are no longer adequate, if they ever were. Any grading system in which a fundamentally more desirable coin has a lower grade (within a particular issue, of course) is inherently inadequate. And yet that is BOTH the status quo ante and the status quo. Yes, that means not only do I think PAST changes in standards are justified, but that additional ones are needed, ... BADLY!

A grade needs to MEAN SOMETHING, something far more useful than “mark counting”. Oh, and “monstercam” is right. This is mostly an MS range problem. But I’d expand it to the upper half of AU as well. I am in favor of the ABSOLUTE ELIMINATION of any grading analysis that has this sentence structure: “It can’t be a Grade X because it doesn’t have Attribute Y”. That is merely intellectual laziness.

 

No where in the definition of a standard is that it doesn't ever change. Standards change in many fields over time as more knowledge becomes available.

 

Like in gymnastics or figure skating? Medicine? Law? [full disclosure: I work where changing standards in law is kind of our whole purpose.] Heck, even judging standards of numismatic exhibiting have changed and are changing. So would I support a date accompanying a coin grade? Yup.

Oh, my 1959 Red Book has three grades for most series: Good, Fine, and Unc. Why did we change? Actually I do get it. Whatever Doug wants must be what is. That’s evident from his attitude here and it has become ubiquitous in his noggin.

 

Anything in science, really every single standard when you think about it. There isn't a single standard today that didn't evolve and/or change over time. If standards were never allowed to change we would still all be living in Europe thinking the sun revolves around the earth and that we would fall off the edge if we sailed to the horizon.

 

So very true. I remember when the county decided to expand services and finally connect to the internet. It didn't take long before they were hacked.

 

When I go back and re-read Doug’s post above, I can’t shake the image of someone who goes to a production of Les Miserables and roots for Javert.

 

Yes, Kurt, I'd like to know where else can we find the standards used by TPGs. Or do they hire only those who have seen thousands of coins? Me, I'm going to use the ANAC guide until I have the time and money to attend a grading course. Oh, wait, they have to have a standard for me to follow, don't they?

 

My big question to Doug (@GDJMSP) is that if grading is never ever ever supposed to change, than how can he justify grading the way he does? He's behind the times with grading, but he still grades differently than they did in the 1700s, 1800s, and the generations before him.

I don't understand how he can try and argue grading is supposed to never change, yet the way he grades is evidence that grading does in fact change over time.