MS70 collectors, get ready for a beat down

Yeah I remember those days that we have MS 63 and then to MS 65 or like Bu choice BU tgen Gem BU .

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

It was broken since the day they assigned the first 70 grade , b/c there are no such coin.

 

Just to play the devil's advocate here...MS70 should have no discernible flaws at 5x magnification. That sounds measurable to me.

 

A lot of the time you can really tell the difference between a 61,62,63 and on. Base on the person who grades it.

My weakness are telling the really tough fakes that are out now. But grading I am getting a lot better. Still more to learn

 

This is where the problem lies with them B.S. 70 grades...If 70 is a perfect coin then there should not be any distinguish/difference b/t two PR/MS70 coins... In other words..."it means that one of the coin is not perfect"..

 

Who stands to gain from such a happenstance? Are we being 'snookered' again?

 

Don't blame the TPGs b/c the modern collectors are the ones willing to submit coins that are worth less than the holder.

 

YUP!..

 

Why do anything at all? If they do this, doesn't that make the existing MS70 holders the new OGH?

 

The 'hairsplitters' will be 'have ating' it again............

 

Exactly.

 

As brg5658 points out: "Just between NGC and PCGS, more than 60 million coins have been graded with the 70 point system."

They could have only accomplished this if there is a demand to meet the supply. Folks certainly buy PR/MS70 coins in droves. I do agree with you in terms of the hype though, but it is not all about the hype and certainly no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water.

 

So, how many MoF dimes sets you buy?

 

At first I ordered 10 sets, but then decided to cancel 5 sets, b/c I was told that they are back order till Aug.

 

PCGS's grading standard states:

"MS/PR-70 As struck, with full strike"

No where does it say "Perfect". The ONLY folks that say "Perfect" are those "selling" the coin.

Will the TPG's make a move to alter the current numeric scale in hopes of lining their pockets?

I do not believe that they would even consider such a thing as has been pointed out, it would be business suicide.

Folks tend to forget why TPG's came into existence and it wasn't for collectors. It was for dealers. There were no Collectors Clubs or Collectors Societies which enabled us common folks to pay a fee and submit coins for grading. That concept didn't come into existence until the early 2000's.

TPG's were formed for dealers and by dealers so that sight unseen trading/purchasing would have a third party financial guarantee that a dealer was getting what was being paid for.

The Business that the TPG's do directly with collectors is peanuts compared to the Authorized Coin Dealers who submit thousands of coins annually on a regular basis. They know the value of slabs and as such are willing to cough up the necessary funds just to move their products. Changing the grading scale midstream is not an expense that most dealers will do willingly and could very well spell doom for the TPG that moves in that direction.

 

Wait. So you're saying that the TPGs have NOT crossed into "soul-less" territory yet, that they would need to switch the scale to be considered so? Are you new to collecting, new to slabs, or unaware of the fiasco over the gold Kennedys set in motion by the TPGs? On that last example, there was more of a PCGS screwup than NGC, but all soul-less for sure.

 

I am saying, in a simple state, that I am leaning off the boat of commerical graded coins.

 

Did introducing the MS64 grade create "business suicide"? How about + or * designations? Were they "business suicide"? Both are examples of adding new grades that forced people holding old holders to resubmit and pay again in hopes of getting the new higher grade.

Regarding slabbing, I was around when it started. Yes, individuals could not submit directly but that was because you needed a membership to submit. But, never believe for a second slabbing was not seen as a way for dealers to get higher prices from customers. Ultimately slabbing was ONLY for dealers to sell at higher prices to customers. Dealer to dealer sight unseen was a dream that never worked. It was NEVER the main driver of slabbing. From day one, David Hall presented this as a way for dealers to sell their coins for more to collectors.

 

Don't collect anything less than 50 years old.....

 

As long as PCGS and NGC have existed they have used MS64. They didn't suddenly invent it mid-game. Sure, it wasn't used by dealers in the 70's, but it has existed in both of the TPGs for the duration of their grading lives.

The * has nothing to do with numeric grade of a coin. It is an "eye appeal" designation used by NGC, and a coin graded with the * can be low-end for the assigned numeric grade. Not sure what your point was with that example.

The "+" grading was added relatively recently (2010), but no one is forcing people to resubmit their coins in hopes of that little grade modifier. Furthermore, it has gained little traction in actually modifying the prices paid for such designated coins, except when the "+" is assigned to a coin already graded at the absolute top of the population. Again, as someone else already noted, these resubmissions are largely undertaken by dealers, not collectors.

In most (all?) cases, I don't think the dealers are resubmitting coins hoping for a "+" upgrade -- they are looking for the full numeric point upgrade. That's a game that lots of dealers play, but again, that's not a new grading system -- it's a capitalization on the inherent subjectivity of grading coins and the inconsistency of TPGs. Sure the "+" is a marketing tool -- but I think it has not led to any cash windfall of resubmissions hoping for a "+" -- I would guess that regrades have remained quite steady as there were plenty hoping for full point numeric upgrades before they introduced the "half step +" stuff.

So back to the original topic -- you said "MS70 collectors, get ready for a beat down". The argument many of us have made was that the article is somewhat far-fetched in terms of proposing a new grading system. You then give examples of changes to some minuscule grading nuances -- but nothing similar to changing the base-70 system. I'm not following how the introduction of a "+" logically leads to an assumption that TPGs would be willing to introduce MS71 grades. That leap in rationale doesn't compute with me.