Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="GDJMSP, post: 352765, member: 112"]Then you should back up and present the true picture instead of your opinion of what that picture was. Yes Abe Kosoff was in charge of the committee that designed the system. Why ? Because he was asked to head up that committe by the ANA President Virginia Culver in 1973, in other words he was given an assignment - a job to do. He was given that job because, and I quote - "Our goal was to standardize grading by defining significant degrees of wear and establishing guide lines so that the various grades may be easily identified." "Now, after four years of effort on the part of many, there is an easy to use and officailly approved set of standards which everyone can apply to the grading of United States coins. Now the confusion in grading caused by multiple systems and biased private opinions should be eliminated." Sounds amazingly like what I was saying earlier.   Again you are voicing your opinions as to why the system was created. That's fine, everyone is entitled to their opinions. But you try to make it sound like it was some vast conspiracy by the ANA and large, well known coin dealers to take advantage of collectors. Nothing could be farther from the truth.  Again, your opinion. But the most widely held opinion is that the problem of overgrading or incorrect grading was pervasive - everybody did it. Why ? Because there were no standards for them to grade by. Again, look at their stated goal.  Contrary to your opinion, it did come about because of demands made by coin collectors. Yes, dealers were involved too and they also made demands. The collectors did so because they wanted consistent grades given by the dealers and the dealers wanted to give consistent grades based on one set of standards so that they could make collectors happy and thus increase their business. And who exactly was it that had this lust for the almighty dollar, who were the grade chasers ? I'll tell you who it was - it was us the collectors. We were the ones demanding these things because we were sick and tired of always losing money when we sold our coins. We wanted a system that leveled the playing field, making grades on a coin the same when we sold that coin as it was when we bought it. We were tired of dealers selling us coins as XF and then buying them from us as VF. And the ANA did not sell their grading business until 2002, long after the TPG's came into existence. And why did they sell it ? Because they were money hand over fist - they couldn't afford to keep it. And why were they losing money ? Because the collectors, the people who were submitting the coins to be graded, preferred to use the TPG's. Simply put, the ANA could no longer compete.   Again, your opinion.   You need to get your facts straight. The letter you refer to was written by David Hall in 1988, 2 years after the creation of PCGS and one year after the creation of NGC. And the letter in no way referred to any actions or the business practices of PCGS itself. It specifically referred to the actions and business practices of coin dealers for 10 years prior to the creation of PCGS. Why ? Easy, because he was hyping coins up as investments. And according to the current SEC regulations of the time he was not allowed to do that. It had nothing to do with the grades of the coins or anything else, it had to do with the investment aspect only.  Again your opinion. Of course those higher prices you mention, they are only for the dealers right ? Collectors never get those higher prices when they sell their coins - no of course not. That fixed supply of classic coins that you mentioned earlier, that didn't apply to collectors huh ? Well where do you suppose those dealers making all this money got those coins of fixed supply if not from collectors ?  Yeah, the ANA asked for bids from 11 diiferent grading companies. But they didn't do it in order to try and generate more money. They did it because the other grading companies screamed and shouted and complained that they were being left out of the process. That they wanted their fair chance just like PCGS and NGC. So the ANA obliged them and asked for bids from them. Of course at the same time that the ANA asked for those bids they also asked the bidding companies to submit coins they had graded along with a copy of their grading standards so that the ANA could judge those standards and coins and see if they measured up the ethics and standards of the ANA. Kind of funny though, of those 11 grading companies, only PCGS and NGC were willing to comply with that request. Wonder why that was ?   Yeah there's confusion. Because just like I said earlier, there is bad information and misinformation being provided. But present the truth and it all becomes clear. And the truth is, as you said earlier, that market grading is defined by what the market will accept. The key to that being is that we are the market.   On this we do agree. We do need one pervasive set of grading standards that is followed by each and every one of us and every single TPG there is. But that will never happen until we the collectors demand that it happens. Just like we did back in 1973 when we demanded the first set of standards be created. We did it then, we can do it now. All we have to do is do it.  Market grading has been in existence since 1986 when PCGS was created. Of course at the same time the ANA also recognized the need for a refinement to the grading system and issued their new standards in 1987. Why ? Because those in the numismatic community recognized that there is more involved in determining the grade of a coin than just the number of marks on it or whether or not it has wear. Because things like quality of strike, luster and eye appeal matter when determing the grade of a coin.[/QUOTE]

Create my FREE Account!

Log in or Sign up

Reply to Thread

Useful Searches