NGC Grading Class At CSNS

Learned so much from this thread.

The interplay between collectors, dealers, graders, the companies they work for, and what constitutes "the market", and the effect that value (money) potentially has on all of the above is quite interesting. It shows you the complexity of the socially-constructed nature of "grading coins".

Heck, I thought all I had to do was buy Coin World's Making the Grade and I'd be set, other than getting my eyes on a few more examples.

I'm getting a better idea of how dumb I really am...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

You arent the only one, I just want to see improvements in this hobby that ultimately benefit the ones on whom this hobby was originally built. As a collector we could find plenty of coins to keep us busy either through our buddies, putting out fliers, want ads, circulation etc. The dealers and the graders wouldnt be in business without the collector, and thats a fact Jack!

Now thats not to say each member of this hobby isnt important in their own right, but it sure does seem like the collector gets the short end of the stick more often than the other players involved.

I mean we have the graders who are making a KILLING off of our own stupidity basically, the dealers who all seem to be doing fairly well and who seldom get shafted or at least less than the collector. The auction houses are getting like 50% of the sale price of a coin (20% from buyer and 20% from seller), and then to top it all off the US Mint is somehow always dropping the ball on us small collectors, but MCM, APMEX, Provident, and any other big dealer sure didnt see any delays in their coins arrivals with the HOF and the Enhanced Uncirculated ASE coins.

Id just like to see something finally go our way, and this 'market acceptable' label I keep hearing doesnt seem to be leveling the playing field for the collector, in fact it seems to benefit everyone else again, BUT the collector.

 

Im all for gaining knowledge and we should know the nuances of the series we are interested in, but some things just seem too far skewed in a direction that doesnt seem beneficial to the collector.

From what I can see, and this is key, ALWAYS keep learning and try to get as much in tune or ahead of the curve as you can. Thats the only way, but it will only benefit a few dedicated individuals.

Its an interesting hobby for sure though, and one I love dearly.

 

Just like with so many businesses that are somewhat struggling in one way or the other in today's economy knowledge is power. Best way to get one up on people is know your coins better then they do whether it's being able to grade knowing the strike quality or knowing a rare die variety. Or being able to pick out coins with exceptional eye appeal for the grade you can pick 2 coins both graded ms 63 and one can be leaps and bounds better then the other whether it's strike color surface quality or something unexplainable than one coins "got it" and the other don't

 

Question from a novice: Why is copper so much harder to grade? According to the grader, Copper appears to result in at least 50% fewer coins graded.

I've seen a great disparity in grading of early milled English / British coins, as well as obvious errors.

I am surprised, however, that copper causes such a slowdown in grading.

Thoughts?

guy

 

I understand most of what your wrote Doug, I really do. And for the most part you are wrong in assuming its about the money. It's not about the money, it's about the predatory action of those at the top preying on the uneducated collector base.

You are 100% correct that it is our own fault. You are wrong that the machine stops without a single piece. Case and point on that is theTPGs. We lived 5000 years and collected coins for near as long. They are the new kids on the block in that regard and could easily be done away with. Not saying things would be easier, just that TPGs are the MOST expendable.

I also understand what you are saying about the market being all of us, but two parties CLEARLY have the upper hand.

Dealers and Grading companies.

So how is it they get to determine what we as collectors are supposed to buy? They handle millions of coins or thousands, collectors handle tens maybe hundreds.

So, and again this is according to anecdotal evidence, but the majority of coins are circling through graders and dealers and they get to determine what is market acceptable since they obviously have a vested interest in doing so.

I guess my main point is that market acceptable is nothing more than a fancy sales term and that as collectors you best arm yourselves with a ton of knowledge about coins.

It's funny you think I'm mad about the money, money is a trivial thing, I'm mad about the principle of predatory sales marketing. But in the same vein, I see it clearly, so I can defend against it better. I just want other people to see it for it is.

Out of your whole response Doug, and all of the others, not one person has refuted that 'market acceptable' is a gimmicky term to slide through sub par coins that don't necessarily deserve a clean grade.

Market acceptable is nothing more than saying that this particular item is suitable for the general market, but in my eyes it's being pushed by those who stand to make the money by convincing someone that their hairlined AU coin is actually a problem free XF-45.

Who does such a thing benefit Doug? Unless I'm totally ignorant I don't think collectors in general want sub par coins, and that's exactly what I just described.

Oh and once again, thanks for taking the time to respond Doug. I always welcome your opinion.

 

You are right...the TPGs are new and they could be done away with. The way that is done...that uneducated collector base that you believe is being preyed upon needs to get educated. The TPGs exist to allow those who don't want to learn the finer details of coin collecting (grading and evaluation) an easy way out. From what I have seen, the majority of those people don't want or don't care about learning to do it themselves. They would rather pay someone else to do it.

If every collector made it their priority to learn about the coins they collect...to know them inside and out before they put their money down for one, the TPGs would not have a market. I just don't see the collector doing that anytime soon.

 

I see what you are saying though, Doug, and how this hinges on education at the collector level.

If we all rejected those 'market acceptable' coins then maybe they would disappear or the TPGs would respond by altering their standards to exclude such coins.

Alas, the collector base just seems to like getting screwed for the most part.

Also, let's not forget that the TPGs do grade many, MANY coins to an agreeable level. I'm mainly just focused on the few that fall into a market acceptable range, these would be mostly 'slider' type coins. MS-63s that should be AU-58s, XF-45s that should be AU or XF Details, etc.

I know I make a big deal about things and have the tendency to focus in on one tiny flaw, so just so everyone understands this isn't an all out assault rebellion on TPGs, I'm just arguing in terms of Market Grading and trying to understand this 'market' a little better.

Sorry for being confrontational in my methods.

 

Read my post below yours, I was typing the same idea. Lol.

I guess it's just a tough pill to swallow. I also get that I'm the 'new guy' (as an official collector and forum member) and have a lot to learn still, and I do that best by asking questions and debating a stance so I can see what the other side has to say.

That's what makes this site so great, you can always learn something new no matter where you are at in the hobby.

 

I think it's kind of a double edge sword. Remember, the TPGs are privately held companies with a product they sell for profit. Their product must be tailored to their client base in order to maximize sales. Based on that, they must do what their clients want...which is why this whole "market grading" issue has happened.

If people didn't want "slider" coins graded the way they are...their profits would decline and they would stop doing it. But, as long as people want that (and they show that by buying them)...this trend will continue. It's not the TPGs that have cause this...the TPGs are just responding to it.

 

I'm saying that the market could be misrepresented though.

That of course the dealers want these slider coins, to sell. If they submitted an AU-58, don't you think they would rather see it as an MS-63?

Who does that benefit? The graders and the dealers, not the collector. The collector winds up with an AU coin for MS money, but the dealer made the extra $$$, and then he just sent in all his other sliders to hope for similar results, thus leading to TPGs with more money. Who submits more coins, btw? Collectors? or Dealers?

Far too few collectors would be able to distinguish if that coin was really an AU, case and point there is Doug, HE knows grading like no other, where as I've seen many argue against him and typically they were wrong. His point is usually always solid though, if it circulated there's no way it could ever be labeled MS.

This falls on the collector though to reject those inferior coins priced wrong.

I merely wanted to point out that we as collectors should question any time we hear something being talked about as 'market acceptable', that is not a term that is beneficial to us, and is an area people should study up on not to get burned.

 

This is the key though...in the end, it is the collector that ends up with the coin. It may be traded around amongst dealers for a while...but eventually a collector will grab it up. If those coins didn't sell, if the profit wasn't there...then the TPGs would alter their ways. From what I have seen, it's the minority of collectors who reject these coins. Until that changes, the market will be there...no matter who submits the coins.

For me, the only time I really consider the idea of "market acceptable" is when it comes to toning...which I feel is a much more complicated situation. When it comes to grading, I try to assess the coin myself and only pay what I think it is worth. If I can't get it for that price, then I move on.

 

Same here. It doesn't effect me much personally, but I do think its a topic worth educating yourself on. I could seriously envision a class about market acceptability.

As for toning, that's a whole nother monster

 

Let me see if I understand your point. You think that the dealers & graders engage in predatory behavior against collectors and your solution is to eliminate the TPGs all together?

Do you have any idea how predatory the coin business was before the inception of the TPGs? Collectors sold coins to dealers and they were AU. The dealer would then sell those same coins as GEM BU.

The creation of the TPGs was the single most important event in the protection of numismatic collectors. The very fact that you have chosen to demonize the TPGs leads me to believe that your argument is based on an emotional response to an anecdotal experience in your life and not based on logical thought.

If you want to focus on the TPG practice of silent net grading what you think should be problem coins, then do so. But don't throw the baby out with the bath water and demonize the entire system of third party grading. In the end, what you are complaining about affects a very very small percentage of the coins graded by the TPGs.

 

Whoa whoa whoa Paul, I never said throw out the TPGs, I merely pointed out this particular practice and the problem it creates. I NEVER said throw out the TPGs.

What I said was that the hobby would survive without them. That is a fact. Thats not even like up for debate, because it is a reality. We survived before them, we survived when many have gone under, and we (as collectors) will survive when the leading TPGs change hands and the quality deteriorates to the status of basement slabbers. No one here is advocating doing away with the TPG services, just merely addressing the fact that 'market acceptable' is a term created by the people who have a vested interest in pushing sub par coins. Its not hard to see and its not hard to acknowledge, but for some reason many people flat out refuse to question what the TPGs sometimes put on the slab.

I am picking on this one focal point, not the whole TPGs modus operandi.

Also, I made the point about CAC validating the grades. Thats a step in the right direction because at that point you have 5 independent opinions basically. You have the 3 graders at the TPG, CAC, and the collector. The problem with that scenario is that CAC doesnt indicate if a coin has been there if it fails to sticker, you also have to consider if CAC got it wrong.

Anyway I do not have the answer, I merely wish to let folks know that here is yet another reason to educate yourself. That the term Market Acceptable is a sales gimmick, and that the people who put forth such a system all have something to gain by doing so.

Its like the term 'insurgent' to me. Its just a BS term to hide behind while we were killing innocent men, women, and children in Iraq. The word didnt change the reality of what was happening, just like here. Net Grading and Market Acceptable simply mean to me that its ok to pass junk off because of the coins status and not its physical merits.

I do NOT advocate for getting rid of the TPGs.

I am NOT concerned about the money we 'collectors' are losing.

I AM concerned about people not realizing they could possibly be being taken advantage of by a fancy word that has somehow won a positive connotation, when in reality its like I described.

Yes, I am aware that this effects a relatively small portion of coins.

Yes, I realize I drone on and zoom in on pin-point subjects.

 

Your darn right its based on emotional experiences. I dont like seeing problem coins in problem free slabs, from the experts. The same experts who have something to gain by claiming that the market supports the way they do things, and the end user not realizing its a gimmick against them.

Yeah I am all for educating people on fallacies. This is one of them. It doesnt demonize the whole TPG system, it merely is to demonstrate that people NEED to educate themselves so they dont get taken advantage of in certain situations. I am sure I am not the only one who feels that way. I am simply just shining a light into a crevice.

Its like counterfeit detection or learning to grade coins properly. You want to make sure you are getting the best coin for your money and that you wont lose money.

Let me ask you this, what happens when the market changes and these slider coins are no longer accepted? What if there isnt an NGC or PCGS around to follow through with their guarantee. Would you be happy knowing you bought an MS-63 and it turned out to be an AU-58 40 years down the road, because the market shifted and started rejecting those coins?

Methinks, people should know this information so they dont get hosed on their coins down the road. How can they prepare themselves if they dont know to look out for that sneaky 'market acceptable' coin lurking with true coins that are solid for the grade? I am just saying >HEY LOOK AT THIS, IT MIGHT BE IMPORTANT< Anything further than that and you have read too much into it.

PS, I have a good chance of being around 50 years from now, so these are things I MUST think about when throwing my money at coins. Where will the market be in 50 years? Who knows. But at least I can say I tried to educate myself and help others not to get hosed.

 

The argument that I made about strike can easily be made about high point friction. Almost all St Gaudens double eagles exhibit friction on the high points of the design. Without allowing for roll friction, the TPGs would be forced to grade every coin an AU coin. The result would be that this coin:





would be graded the same as this coin:





The TPGs need to be able to differentiate coins of different quality. When rules are made that limit the grade of coins, it inhibits their ability to differentiate quality and necessitates the need for exceptions to the rule. Roll friction is an exception to the rule that wear relegates a coin to an AU grade. In practice, the TPGs look for friction in the fields of a coin in order to deem a coin AU. High point wear does not condemn a coin to AU status. Now you might not like it, but if you collected Saints, you might be very quick to change your mind.

 

I get it Paul, I really do, but this isnt an example of what I am talking about. I am talking true AU coins that get a pass to MS-63/4 level due to its 'rarity'. Or again, XF-45s that are clearly over cleaned, but net graded to XF-45 instead of AU-Details, because its 'rare'. Thats using the status to overrule the physical merits