I have noted a number of posts that opine the lowering of grading standards from the inception of the TPGs and down through the years. Of course, many of the coins in old slabs that would be upgraded by today's standards have been picked through, broken out and re-submitted. What are your thoughts for those of us that still own many of these coins that have been in slabs for 20-25 years? As a general rule, will 50% of them upgrade? 25%? Along these same lines, what % would you estimate would sticker with CAC. I realize this is speculation, just getting your collective opinions.
The odds are better if you have owned them for 20-25 years. If they have been floating around for that many years, your odds go down.
I understand, very well, that every coin needs to be graded on its own merits, despite the slabbed numerical grade. My inquiry was based upon generalities for coins that I (and others) have owned for a long time. Those have not been cherry picked already for that period of time.
I would say this: the coin aside, an older holder becomes slightly more desirable in its own right as time passes to those that like that kind of thing. I would say because of this, you are more likely to find an under graded coin in an older holder than in a newer one because the community at large is less likely to break it out and submit again, and sacrifice the novelty of the older holder. The thread about the 1st gen NGC holder is a perfect example. No one would crack out that half dollar in the hopes of a two point upgrade because the intrinsic value of the holder is so high. Grading standards do fluctuate over time and tend to be influenced by the market and what is deemed to be acceptable within different grade levels. What was circulation ten years ago may be cabinet friction today, making an AU58 into an MS62. Familiarity with a design may also help, for example. Some might have a weak strike that was viewed as wear. This isn't to say that grading has become more lax over time. I would argue that the TPS are all cracking down on details coins, making it harder to get a problem free grade on a questionable coin.
It doesn't matter that you have owned it a long time or not. Some of the coins in the older slabs were graded accurately and some were not. If you think your specimen is undergraded, then you have to decide for yourself whether it would be worth it to resubmit or not. Chris
I would say that if you have two groups of coins, one graded 25 years ago, one graded yesterday, and the old group hasn't been culled for upgrades, and you crack out and resubmit all the coins for grading, those cracked from old holders will more likely grade differently from those cracked from new holders. This is simply a reflection of the fact that market grading standards evolve over time. If half of those grading differently go up in grade, then more of the older ones will go up in grade (half of the larger number is still greater than half of the smaller number). The evolution doesn't necessarily manifest itself as a linear shift in grades from one time to another, and is typically far more complex. A 1991-graded Morgan dollar might typically grade the same today unless it was graded DMPL, in which case many of the DMPL coins would lose that designation. Meanwhile, an old XF $5 Liberty may have a great shot at AU, while an old MS61 might as well.
I agree. Details grading has become quite strict. In some cases, I (and others I consult) truly cannot find what they, apparently, see as a problem or issue. On the other hand, on less frequent occasions, I notice obvious problem coins that are given a grade. I also have noted errors in the adjectives used in the details grade..for example, the improper use of "whizzing". As far as numerical grades, grade inflation has been the case for a number years of late. Sum it up, grading is, and always will be, subjective to an extent.
