I am sure most of you know what the resubmission game is. If not, it is when an individual repeatedly submits a coin to a TPG in hopes of getting a higher grade, which can be sold at a substantial profit. The practice is less-than-ethical at best. So, let's take the Sunnywood 1881 S Morgan Dollar. It was graded by PCGS as MS-67. It was resubmitted over 40 times, while maintaining the same grade. PCGS even sent a letter saying that the coin did not meet their standards for an MS-68. But it eventually got into an MS-68 holder, and was sold for thousands of dollars in profit. This happens a lot, and the population reports are screwed up as a result (higher number of examples in a grade than there are actually). I have read about it happening to rarities (early US), popular coins (key dates), and conditional rarities (top pops). Between each resubmission, the coin does not change. The coin repeatedly merits the qualifications of the lower grade. But then it finally gets the grade bump the owner was wanting. Was it because the standards changed? Was it a mistake? Or were the graders tired of seeing it (biased opinion)? The coin stayed the same. Prior to the MS-68 designation, the Sunnywood 1881 S was valued in the thousands. Afterward, it was worth tens of thousands. All because of a single point bump in grade. This is my question: The same coin brings two different prices depending on the holder it is in, and the coin consistently got the lower grade. At what point is the coin's value solely dictated by the holder it is in instead of the coin itself? Is there such a point? Yell at me all you want about my bias against the TPGs, but this is a topic worthy of discussion. Maybe I will learn something.
Your post is based on some fallicies. The sunnywood coin is vividly toned, the majority of its value is in the toning. The grade bump probably did little to its final sale price, that coin was going to sell for a large premium in either grade. You also just can't keep resubmitting something over and over and over and it will eventually upgrade that just isn't how it works despite what a lot of people on the internet want us to believe. Using the sunnywood as an example what likely changed is that eye appeal is becoming a bigger part of a coins grade, that coin is spectacular in either grade and obviously quite a few people thought it should have been a 68 from the start. Labels are a reflection of the coin in the holder. Whether or not everyone agrees with every single one doesn't matter, it's not the label that makes the coin the coin makes the label. The honest truth is that most people aren't as good at grading as they think and certainly aren't experts in every series. They may just have different standards as well and there is nothing wrong with that, but they need to understand how their standards are different and not just bash everything for not using their personal standard. Grading is an art with subjectivity anyway, it shouldn't be treated like a math problem that only has one correct answer. Also though there is nothing unethical about reaubmissions. That would only be unethical if a coin was doctored inbetween.
@Peter T Davis We already have the "Like" button. Why can't you add a "Sour Grapes" button as well? Chris
This is the question: The same coin brings two different prices depending on the holder it is in, and the coin consistently got the lower grade. At what point is the coin's value solely dictated by the holder it is in instead of the coin itself? Is there such a point? One member's answer: I'll call that point - the point of no return. Unfortunately, the collecting community reached it long ago. Whether raw or slabbed, any coin will always be "worth" the price that the last owner thought it was worth and paid. What anyone else thinks about that value or grade is irrelevant. Therefore, a grade on a label is only a very good opinion of its value. Anyone can agree or disagree with that opinion, but what they think may or may not be correct to both the new owner and a majority of people who are qualified to grade any coin whether they are professionals or not. Additionally, that value may go up or down in the future as the grade has done. However, if we had an IDEAL GRADING SYSTEM its actual "technical" grade would never change, only its value. There are many reasons a coin is upgraded by a TPGS. I suspect in many of the cases it is done to reflect the changing "commercial" value of the item over time. This can easily be seen with extremely rare and desirable coins. The fact a major TPGS graded the same coin forty times and even sent a letter giving the reason (if all true), is either pathetic or a reflection of changing values. Some who don't like TPGS's may even suggest other reasons. ADDED EDIT: Baseball replied as I was writing. He answered the question much better and with a better understanding of the commercial coin market. He gave reasons I never even thought of. Thanks!
So I think what you've actually said here is that you can't just keep resubmitting and count on an eventual upgrade -- unless something changes. And then you explained what likely has changed. My own take probably isn't worth much, because I still haven't had much practice distinguishing MS grades or submitting to TPGs. But my guess would be that, as you run the same coin past multiple graders (or the same grader) again and again, assigned grades would fall onto some sort of distribution -- for the coin in question, mostly 67, but maybe occasionally 66+ or 67+, or maybe even 66 or 68. You wouldn't often get a grade other than a 67, perhaps, and maybe you'd only get the 68 one time in a hundred. But, yes, it would eventually upgrade. There's your recipe for getting people to resubmit 100 times. And that would surely be a TPG's very favorite recipe. Yum! Or maybe I'm wrong, and grading repeatability is better than that. In that case, how will TPGs get people to resubmit, if the chances of a random upgrade are vanishingly small? Well, one way would be to change standards -- say, by making eye appeal "a bigger part of a coin's grade". Then, when you see coins not as nice as yours getting the same or a higher grade, the obvious response is to resubmit yours, so it's in a slab that more accurately reflects its value relative to its inferiors. I suppose TPGs might decide that increasing their revenue isn't as important as supporting an unchanging, objective, and completely repeatable grading process. But that's not what I seem to see in the discussions here.
@jeffB there is some true to a distribution of grades on a decent number of things where the values are similar. Same would happen to any of us if we graded the same coin blindly over long periods of time multiple times. The exception would be where big value jumps and top pops occur. The TPGs draw hard lines where big value jumps are in the next grade or where something would be a top pop. A lot of people would be surprised how consistent they are around these lines. The TPGs really don't need to play any games to get resubmission. Everyone grades differently and everyone sees different upgrade potential in different coins, obviously some people are a lot more successful then others. Things can and do upgrade sometimes but I don't believe the lower grade was always the right one like the assumption often is. That said it is a lot harder to successfully do then a lot of threads make it sound
This thread is not about whether or not one agrees with the TPG. It is about why the resubmission game can end in success given that it is the same coin being submitted again and again. You have answered my question in saying that it was the standards that had changed to make the upgrades happen. So thank you. Yes, and a premium is rightly justified for that coin. It is one of the nicest Morgans in existence. Just out of curiosity, what did the Sunnywood 1881 S sell for when it was PCGS MS-67? Since the owner made thousands when he sold it in a MS-68 slab, I presume that he bought it for significantly less in the MS-67 slab. I got all of this information from @C-B-D and @SuperDave. I trust that they are correct with their facts.
It is a fallacy to presuppose that the TPG grading process is consistent and monolithic; it isn't. It's been a moving target all along. Standards have changed, and grades are different depending upon the grader involved at any specific pint in time. This particular case, however, is pretty egregious. It's not like there are dozens of Sunnywood 1881-S's kicking around; there's no doubt the TPG knew what coin they were regrading with such regularity. Even giving the most possible benefit of the doubt for the subjectivity of grading, I cannot come up with any justification for handing the coin a 68 after so many tries.
