Is This Not Absurd???

Graded coins with "+" selling for more money than higher graded coins.

For example, I regularly see coins with MS64+ selling for more than MS65. If I understand things correctly, the plus acts like a half point. So in other words MS64+ is supposed to be the equivalent to MS64.5.

I understand that "+" labels might be rarer (right now), but doesn't it seem silly that the premium on them are so high? Especially when you consider TPG's may have more incentive to grade this way now. They are in business for profit afterall. All they have to do is make sure they don't over do it cause then it could work against them. But by then I'm sure they'll have something else that is new

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

yes it's completely stupid the 0-70 is more than probably what's needed, did you see this on fleabay?
A new 0-100 scale should be introduced but I won't start it and I don't think those with slab's will shine on it.

 

While I agree it's "completely stupid", I think the scale needs to be downsized, not increased. I think 70 different grades is too much. It actually becomes more like your proposed 100 when you start adding +'s and all kinds of different designations. Grades are nearly indistinguishable from the next one. It may even be best to get rid of a numerical scale altogether.

Keep in mind coins don't all wear out the same way. Although there are certain areas that tend to wear out consistently, it's not always identical. Sometimes the obverse has more wear than the reverse (vice versa). So assigning one grade may not only be inaccurate, it also leads to inconsistency. Inconsistencies in not only grading, but in market values.

What I would like to see grading companies do is authentic coins. It would also be nice for them to note details on their label. For example, full bell lines on the Franklin Half Dollar.

 

It's not so absurd if the 64+ has better eye appeal than the 65. From what I understand coins with a "+" grade often have above average eye appeal. Same reason that an AU58 can go for more than an MS60.

 

Although that would make more sense, I'm still for getting rid of the Sheldon scale altogether. Slight differences in grade are too subjective. They should come out with something more scientific.

 

Tried and failed.

Every coin should be evaluated on its own merits. And yes the plus is for 64.9 coins not the 64.5

No not absurd

 

Agreed!

However, this thread has its own share of absurdities. Read on!

Silly?
>Blame it on the bidiots, not the grading services.

Incentive?
>Certainly not for the grading services! They already know how to grade better than most people.
>Maybe it is for the people, not knowing how to grade, who must rely on the insert rather than an examination of the coin.
>Nah! It's probably to let the owner of such a coin know that he/she should submit it to CAC for a gold beanie.

Profit?
>Please explain how the grading services profit, over and above their initial grading fees, from the sale of such a coin.
>Oh! I know! They receive royalties on every sale, in perpetuity!

Overdo it?
>Right! The grading services wouldn't want to offend the owners of "solid 64's" (64.5) thereby precluding them from sending in new business.

Perhaps someone should propose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution guaranteeing everyone the right of factual freedom of speech.

Chris

 

Maybe they were bidding on the coin and not the label?

 

If I had spent a big portion of my life learning the art of grading coins, I would take this comment as a complete slap in the face.

 

That comment was not meant to be a slap in the face to anyone. I think even the person who has spent a lifetime studying grades would admit that grading today is inconsistent. You might not find large inconsistencies with the top two TPGs (PCGS & NGC), but they do have plenty of inconsistencies within a few points. Take my example of MS64+ and MS65.

I'm willing to bet that you could submit the same coin a second time to the same grading company and get a different grade more times than not.

What really makes it absurd is that the price changes (many times exponentially) because of this slight and almost negligible difference in grade.

 

This is exactly my point. They are inconsistent because grading is an art, not a scientific method. They aren't measuring wear with calipers.

A person who has the ability to accurately grade will never worry about the TPG's grading (when buying) because they know they can always pick the best coins regardless of what the piece of paper says inside.

 

If I recall correctly, PCGS has stated that the plus is for coins in the top 15% of the grade. This would mean an MS64+ would be at least MS64.85, which would not make me pay more for an essentially identical coin in an MS65 holder.

 

Wow... what a concept!

As for plus grades, is this really any more absurd than those trying to squeak certain coins into a higher grade holder with the hopes of making it more "valuable"? As an example: would or should the same coin as a low-end 65 really be worth more than if residing in a more conservatively graded 64 or 64+ holder? While I will not argue that there have been certain coins that understandably could/should be upgraded to be more in-line with present market acceptance, I also believe that those who try to upgrade said "squeakers" either for profit or with the belief that X coin is somehow better in X holder are, for the most part, doing a disservice to this hobby. If someone is willing to pay up or just more for a high-end 64 as opposed to buying an iffy 65, especially if there are other aspects of the coin that adds to its desirability, it is a choice nowhere near as absurd as the notion, seemingly espoused by many, that a higher grade automatically equals a “better” coin.

 

It is entirely possible that an MS64+ you could easily have better eye appeal than an average MS65 thus explaining the higher sale price. In addition the + designation does not equal MS64.5, it is supposed to represent a PQ coin for the assigned grade equalling MS64.8 or MS64.9.

You are correct that you can submit the exact same coin to a grading company and get different results. And I submit that both grades can be correct. For example, the coin that you are talking about in the OP is graded MS64+. I submit that this coin can be viewed subjectively by some collectors as a high end MS64 and as a low end MS65 by others. Due to the subjectivity inherent in the grading process, both are right, it simply depends upon your view.

I don't really know how to answer your concern about prices. Are you suggesting that higher quality (higher graded) coins should not demand a higher price? If you are upset about extreme price differences from one grade to the next, the solution is simple, avoid conditional rarities.

 

If it was just an occasional thing I can see eye appeal being the reason. However, I am noticing the lower grade with + consistently selling for more. I will explain why I think they are down below.

I know what you are saying, but that helps make my point that grades are unnecessary. Or at least grades where the difference between one grade and the next is marginal. I am of the opinion that the more grade levels that exist, the more subjectivity becomes a part of grading. Perhaps the grading scale should be downsized so there isn't as much contradiction between different grades.

As for the market in general, it does not agree that both grades are correct. Put the same coin in two different slabs with a different grade and one will consistently sell for more money.

I wouldn't say I'm upset. It's not something to get upset about. I'm just pointing out the flaws - as I see them. I just believe there is a better way to go about "grading" then the current way. I think the current way invites too much subjectivity. Not that it's a bad thing in and of itself, but the market is increasingly putting more reliance on TPG grades. I think it's absurd for prices to be mostly determined by a number in a piece of plastic.

Going back to why I believe + grades are selling for more...

Population Reports

TPG's publicly display how many coins have been graded a particular grade. For some reason + grades are less abundant. Correct me if I'm wrong, but perhaps it's just a newer concept. ??? Regardless of the reason, I think it's absurd. I especially think it's absurd for dealers/sellers to ask higher prices for them simply because there are less of them on population reports. If subjectivity and grading inconsistencies are already high with Sheldon 70 scale, how are sub-levels (+'s) supposed to make things better? The whole thing seems like a gimmick to me.

 

It wasn't my intention to start this thread to pitch a new grading scale, but since I am criticizing the current scale I might as well propose a solution. Otherwise my criticizing is just ranting.

So here's what I've come up with...





As you can see it's only 4 different grade levels. Very simple. I also placed the Sheldon scale next to it to for reference on which old levels they equate with. The terminology is also simple and in line with common dialect. No more confusing terms like "very good" which actually means bad. No more "about uncirculated" which is actually circulated! To the seasoned collector the old terminology is already understood, but have you ever spoken with a non-collector and had to consciously explain things while avoiding terms like "very good"? Of course you have. We all have. With the new scale and wording there is no need for possible confusion.

Now I know what some of you are thinking...

There are different types of uncirculated condition. This is true. However, now you get to determine how high the grade is within the general grade and consequently how much it is worth to you. No more depending on a stupid label to tell (or influence) you on how much of a mint state the coin is, or how much it is worth. In other words, the new 4 level grading scale is more like a guide.

Thoughts?

 

So what your saying is... the current system takes a lot of effort and hard work to understand it correctly and apply it. Lets dumb it down so it will be easier for me and anyone else who does not want to take the time to learn how to grade coins.

The people who "depend on a stupid label" will either learn how to grade or will always "depend" on someone else to grade it for them. A smaller scale would actually make it more difficult for those people.

 

I think you have solved 1 problem while creating 1,000 more.

 

So, what would be the point of grading if there are only four levels?
That wouldn't provide much information to the average consumer who would now be left to distinguish between all the levels of MS on their own, whereas now they get an expert's opinion on the label.

 

The ideal situation is that everyone can grade like the best of them. That will never happen though. A 4 point grading scale is more similar to European grading I believe, where collectors rely more on the coin than on a specific number (though I believe that has been changing lately). Ancient coins are graded on a 5 point scale, but on three separate aspects... so really like a 15 point scale. And you know the old adage; opinions are like ......, everybody has at least one.