Is it really possible that only PCGS and NGC get it right?

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Perfect example we're discussing right now:

https://www.cointalk.com/threads/gtg-1884-cc-morgan.269692/

 

Mixing apples and oranges again O' Great one. I'm not talking about a coin graded in the past that is raised...happens all the time. Dealers who know the market/how each service grades each type/etc. can still do it with recently graded coins. Back in the early 90's NGC and PGGS were too strict on 3c & 5c nickels for a time. All those coins were candidates for upgrade. I wrote someplace befor about some Proof Franklins I have that were graded MS-64 or MS-65 in 1987 by one of the "Big two." According to a TPG who has seen them, a these coins would go up 2 - 3 grades today. I'm leaving them as is for an example of "grade evolution" becoming more liberal. As you have written before: There was a time when NO TRACE OF WEAR was even the norm for PCGS.

Now, I want to see the evidence. Show us the slab. With the number on the label, a TPGS can tell who graded the coin, who sent it in, and when all this took place. SOME TPGS are able to track the number, grade, and TPGS of the slab the coin was crossed out of! Oh, and when you send the same a coin in XXX times and finally get an upgrade...They know that too I have heard that one well -known numismatist has said something like: "If a coin is worth sending in once, it is worth sending in several times."

I want evidence of a NGC or PCGS MS-64 coin going to an MS-66! Otherwise, lets all of us try not to cloud the thread with "old news."

 

Just looked. My personal MS-64. If I worked at NGC I should have entered MS-65. If I kept undergrading (coin sent out as MS-66) then I would have been told: "Look old man, MS-65 is not the top grade anymore." There are FIVE more levels above that for Unc coins ANYWAY, not an example of a two point jump.

 

Just curious if anyone knows...how many graders see a coin before it goes into a slab?

 

I'm not sure that's a good analogy.

While I understand the technical aspects of grading, in which I believe a computer program could help, there is also the subjective aspect in which only the programmer's opinion will matter.

 

I think it's 3 than a finalizer.

 

I am the OP of that coin. I returned, because it was not a 66. The thread was filled with people saying it was 64 or even 63, and comparing it to blurry photos and what I think are altered photos of other coins that were accurate for their respective grade. The only photos they saw of the coin were the ones I posted, which were very unflattering. But I don't see how it could be considered a 64. I found the seller's original photos, which were taken with a wider field. It really doesn't look like a 64. There are scattered marks but there are no big hits. This photo also hides the rich luster this coin possessed. This is compared to today's grading standards, which are obviously more lenient than in the 80s.

My whole point is we are scrutinizing coins based on photos which adds another layer of obfuscation.

 

I have heard at least 2 or 3 + the finalizer; however, there are exceptions. It probably depends on the tier value and the TPGS policy and how busy the place is. Think about it. A person such as a David Hall (at least in the old days when PCGS was started & swamped with coins) + (and I don't really know if he is a finalizer or full-time grader anymore) could just assign grades w/o any one else giving an opinion. Not saying it ever happened. After all, what do any of us know for sure unless we once worked for PCGS - the TPGS in my example.

 

Newbie needs to know what's an OP. Original Purchaser?

 

Original poster.......

 

Sean,

IMO, this is a better photo than on the original www. whatever place I first saw it. Now, the coin is not even close to a MS-63 or MS-64. My personal grade is MS-65. I think I should still have put MS-65 into the computer if I were an NGC grader.

You can't grade a coin by photos but you can come close or exact when you can blow them up at the PCGS Coin Facts web sight. Heritage auction Photos are a good place to learn grading too.

 

I cannot wait until I have something to share as an OP! Right now, all I am is a "Buttinskie."

 

I think you have valuable contributions, keep up the good work.

 

You've posed some interesting questions.

 

Huh?

The ability to fly has nothing to do with subjectivity.

 

"Accuracy", IMO, has more to do with right or wrong than it does with "opinion" and grading is nothing more than an opinion which can change due to outside influence (hence we are not able to communicate with graders), environment, or even others opinions.

Computers, on the other hand, are black and white. It either is or it isn't.

Additionally, I of the opinion that digital photography has NOT gotten better since the images are all subject to exposure, lighting, and presentation. What digital photography HAS become, is easier to use, easier to purchase, and easier to share.
It has really only become easier.

As for computers comparing photographs? That would be an incredibly HUGE program since computers do not SEE photographs. All that they have access to are numbers for comparative purposes. Not only that but the photographs all have to be taken under the exact same circumstances so that the number might "possibly" line up for comparative purposes.

I believe that such an undertaking would be more expensive and time consuming than simply spending 6 seconds or so grading a coin.

But those are just my opinions based on the fact the "photograde" (which was supposed to be the answer to everything grading wise) fell flat on its face as a real grading tool.

 

You had me right up to that last statement.