Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="GDJMSP, post: 1414124, member: 112"]Well when all we have is a picture to look at, then that's all we can discuss. Yes, I'll readily agree that I have been misled by pictures more than once. But that misleading goes in both directions. But there have been far, far more times that I have guessed a coin's TPG grade correctly, or guessed what a TPG would grade a raw coin, than I have ever been wrong about. Pictures don't always tell a lie Mike, quite often they just tell the truth.  Well, we disagree about that too. The squeaky wheel does get the grease they say. But I'll readily agree that nothing will happen unless we do complain. The TPGs make changes all the time to suit their customers. When the customers complained abut NGC only grading nickels with 6 full steps as FS - they changed. When people complained long enough and loud enough about PCGS not assigning the 70 grade - they changed. When their customers complained about not being able to see the edge of their coin - they changed. There is a long list of things they changed - due to complaints. I think they (the TPGs) are probably the single best thing that ever happened to this hobby. I have said that for as long as there have been coin forums, and long before. And I used to agree with them a whole lot more Mike. But in recent years, yes that has changed. And it has changed because I believe with every fiber in me that the TPGs are over-grading way too many coins now a days. And that's not just based on opinion either, the numbers back it up. And so does the best evidence there is - the coins themselves. Couple of problems there Mike. First of all, and I've said this a hundred times but apparently you've always missed it or you keep forgetting it, the ANA grading standards ARE NOT technical grading. Let me repeat that - the ANA does not use technical grading ! The ANA has not used technical grading since 1986. Furthermore, the market grading system, that the TPGs use, was invented by the ANA. Do I need to repeat that one too ? What's more, the current edition, the 6th published in 2006, of the ANA grading standards says right in the book that this book DOES NOT contain the grading standards established by the ANA. But rather that it merely lists the grading standards currently and widely in use in the market. And they specifically mention NGC, PCGS, ANACS and ICG. You might want read the list of people who all got together and wrote the ANA grading standards Mike. It's a Who's Who of numismatics. People like Dave Bowers, Ken Bressett, Tom DeLorey, Michael Fahey, Bill Fivaz, Ron Gillio, David Hall, JP Martin, James Halperin, Julian Leidman, - the list is huge. And it is comprised of what are considered to be some of the best coin graders there are, or have ever been. But never once have I ever claimed that the TPGs are, in my opinion, over-grading coins based on the ANA grading standards. What I claim Mike is that the TPGs are over-grading coins today based on their own grading standards. The PCGS standards are published, written down. And it is a simple matter to read those standards, then look at the coins that PCGS is grading today and for the past several years, and see that the grades being assigned are NOT based on their own written standards. For if they were, they could not be graded so high. I don't care what grading standards they use Mike. If they want to change them then fine they can change them. What I have a problem with is when they profess to use a certain set of grading standards - and then not follow them. So if they want to change then change. But at least have the guts to step up and admit that they changed. And then tell us what their new grading standards are.[/QUOTE]

Create my FREE Account!

Log in or Sign up

Reply to Thread

Useful Searches