NGC Grading Class At CSNS

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Was this a free class?

 

I think this is a great response...and I completely agree with that you are saying as far as the accuracy of the information. That said, part of me is a little torn on this issue (and I always have been). Not that it really matters, my opinions aren't going to change anything...so I must just accept this as how it is and live with it. That said, half of me really likes this "fact" of grading because it does take into consideration all the nuances of a particular date/MM in a series...but the other half of me wishes that grading was a little more "consistent" (for lack of a better word).

The first part of me understands completely the differences between strike quality due to striking pressure and how certain mints tended to strike with more pressure. However, the second part of me doesn't really think this should make that big of a difference. Here is why. We all know the 1881-S Morgan Dollar is among the finest struck in the series consistently...while the 1892-O is among the worst. We lower our standards for grading with the 1892-O just because it's not as "good." To me, this is almost like lowering education standards so the "dumb" kids can pass. I'd rather hold all the coins to the same standard and allow the truly exceptional examples of the 1892-O to stand out. Now, I know this is my opinion only and doesn't really make any difference...but that's just how I feel.

All that said, I think where grading should be altered is when it comes to design changes. Obviously the 1921 Peace Dollar and all the other (intended for circulation) Peace Dollars are of a very different design. The same can be said for many other dates in many other series'. Because these coins have different design features (not due to the production process, but due to the design on the die)...I think they should be graded by their own unique standards. Of course, designs are constantly having minor changes made...so I suppose that would put us right back at where we started. With many different grading standards for a series depending on the date/MM.

 

No, I think it was $150... But it was worth it to me.

 

That sounds like a bargain to me.

 

It couldn't be. You are right...there would be very few high grade 1892-O Morgans simply because they were never made.

What I don't understand is...why is that a bad thing? If the coins of a certain grade simply don't exist...why do we need to adjust our grading to make them exist?

 

Because that is what the market wants....

 

Yeah...I know that actual reason, lol.

I guess I wasn't really asking that in a literal sense.

 

But...you can compare red delicious apples to braeburns.

 

Who is the 'market'? I was just going on about this in another thread.

Is it the collectors? Is it the dealers? Or is it the TPGs

To me it should be the collectors. Without them, the other two wouldn't exist, so who is dictating what the 'market' standards are? I know who it is, the ones who stand to make a dollar off of sub par coins being graded as if they don't have an issue. That would be the TPGs and the dealers.

Every time I hear market this or market that, all I keep hearing is a buzz word to be able to push junk on the collectors.

Screw the market, either the coin is solid for the grade or it's not.

A coin is an inanimate object. Either it meets a certain standard or it doesn't.

 

Don't forget the auction companies.

 

I consider them dealers too. Moving coins for a profit as part of your business cycle.

And now obviously not all dealers operate like this. There are several dealers with a ton of integrity, but someone out there in a position of influence is pushing this market acceptable crap.

I just dont see how being lenient on grading coins is particularly beneficial to anyone other than the folks making the money off of selling it. The collector rarely makes money, we pay retail and usually try to hold the coins for awhile before any appreciable return on investment.

I think like Cam said, if a coin doesnt meet the criteria for a set grade, then it just doesnt make it, and it makes the coins who truly do all that much more appealing.

 

While that seems like a very easy solution to the problem, I promise you that it is not. The problem is complex and both sides have valid arguments. Your argument is that every coin of a given series should be graded against the same standard, especially for strike, regardless of variations in procedures employed by the different mints from year to year.

As a result, coins like the one Doug posted earlier would not qualify for an MS65 grade because the strike compared to the intended design is too weak. The coin shown below is the same coin Doug posted, but I have shown the slab photo rather than the beauty shot.



Therefore this coin would have to reside in an MS64 holder. But by limiting this coin to MS64 you effectively increase the range of quality for all MS64 1892-O Morgan Dollars because many will have MS65/66 surfaces but simply be limited to the MS64 grade due to the strike. A strike issue that plagues almost all of the coins issued that year by that mint. The result is that the coin shown above will be graded the same as the 1892-O MS64 Morgan Dollar shown below, a coin with clearly inferior surfaces.



Think of how many gem + grade 1892-O Morgan Dollars would be relegated to an MS64 grade despite the condition of their surfaces or luster which can vary greatly. Under your proposed system, you would have a large number of coins with the same numerical grade but with a wide range of quality in that grade. The "market", which is both collectors and dealers, would demand that the higher quality pieces trade at higher prices. The TPG's decision to take strike out of the equation for coins like the 1892-O Morgan Dollar effectively solves that problem.

But that system creates another problem. What happens to the 1892-O Morgan Dollars that had a good enough strike to meet the criteria for gem grade? Under your proposed system, these coins would be conditional rarities and become very valuable because so few would meet the criteria. The coin shown below has a good strike for an 1892-O and would probably be good enough for gem grade.



The TPGs decision to market grade all 1892-O Morgan Dollars with regards to strike drastically increases the population of MS65 examples and would decrease the value of this coin considerably. But ask yourself this question: does this coin deserve to sell at a much higher price than the coin that Doug posted(1st one I posted)? If your answer is no, then I submit that you must agree with the TPG's decision to market grade these coins based on inherent strike weakness.

Paul

 

I'm driving so I will clarify quickly. My issue is less with strike conditions, that is a mechanical issue. My issue is with 'net' grading coins because they are rare an letting it pass as problem free because it's market acceptable. That's baloney

 

I'm not in love with it either. As far as I'm concerned...if the coin was never minted at a certain quality level (or is extremely scarce)...we shouldn't lower our standards for it. That is sort of what conditional rarities are in my mind.

That said, this is a "law" within this hobby and it has been for longer than I have been alive. It's just the way it is. It's like speed limits, we may not like them or agree with them...but we gotta follow them.

 

Like I said, I dont mind if the coins striking quality is taken into account for a grade. That does make sense and holds merit. What I disagree with is like what I said earlier, taking say an AU 1893-S with some hairlines that were obviously from an old cleaning and passing that coin as an XF-45 because the coin is deemed 'rare'. Its shouldnt be an XF-45, it should be genuine CLEANED. This is what I mean when I refer to 'market acceptability'. Who is buying that coin as an XF-45? And who is providing the most disservice in with this coin?

To me, the fault lies with the TPGs, they should call the coin for what it is, but they get to hide under the 'market acceptable' gimmick and grade a problem coin as problem free. Well, if anything, they are the experts and should be shining the light on the fact that this coin is trouble. Not slabbing it anyway and then a collector getting hosed, or a future relative disappointed in something that was sold as something it truly wasnt. Like I said a coin is an inanimate object, they dont just up and change, the problem thats there today with be there tomorrow.

Now some of us were discussing how at shows the majority of business is from dealer to dealer, so they WANT to see borderline coins in slabs. If its a clean XF-45 it will sell for more than an AU Details almost always. So I see a huge conflict of interest in this and cant help but question who and what is setting this 'market' that everyone throws at collectors. I dont know of any collector who WANTS a sub par coin for their collection unless thats the grade they settled on for a series, or specialize in sub par coins for some odd reason.

Another thing I dont agree with on this and what pushes me to this being a gimmick by the TPGs is how 10 years ago coins were graded more harshly. For instance, and we talk about this all the time too, the OGH from PCGS were somewhat notorious for this. Many of them supposedly upgraded the last few years, and thats another pet peeve of mine. How can they say the 'market' has changed and now grade what was a 64 10 years ago as a 65 today? The only people that benefited were again the TPGs by re-submission frenzies and the dealers who got the top grade and then sold at the new higher grades price level. Again the majority of collectors got screwed out of money. So how is the 'market' not manipulated by the ones standing to make the most financial gain by playing these games?

 

I want to see your point, but the answer to the problem you presented is the price tag put on the coin. It can still be a superb 64 and command a significant premium over what is accepted as a 'normal' 64.

Its literally as simple as that. Collectors will pay above retail or price guide or whatever if the coin is an exceptional coin. I dont need a number grade higher to tell me that, (which is also misleading in the other direction, i wouldnt pay premium prices for a 65 if I can find a better looking 64). If the coin is a 64, then its a 64.

Trust me, I see what you are saying about the range within a given grade, I just dont see how adding a single point fixes the problem, just price the coin according to its eye appeal and marks. Simple to me.