Technical v. Market Grading

When put that way, yes I would have to admit that they have loosened, but certainly not drastically or intentionally. I think that one of the major adjustments that has not yet been discussed is the stoppage of grade limiters. I don't know if you remember but I started a thread a few years ago about marks in the focal area of a coin.

Read more: http://www.cointalk.com/t110657/#ixzz1vMe37aKj

IMO, that is one of the very best threads in the history of this forum and should be required reading for all aspiring numismatists. Doug pointed out that in the TPG grading standards for an MS65 coin:

MS65: Gem Uncirculated There may be some scattered marks, hairlines, or other minor defects. If the flaws are in a main focal area, they must be minor and few. Hidden marks and hairlines can be larger. On dime-type and smaller, they almost always must be in the devices or must be very minor if they are in the fields. On larger coins, there can be marks/hailines in the fields and in the devices, but no major ones.

The general consensus in the thread is that the standard is ambiguous and allows for multiple interpretations. Doug views them quite differently and sees absolutely no ambiguity. Now let's look at the coin that I used in that thread again.



Doug's strict interpretation of that standard requires that the coin be graded no higher than MS64. And I believe that in the beginning, the TPG's followed that standard in much the same way that Doug does. The problem is that the coin in question would be MS66 quality save that lone mark on the cheek. As the TPG's evolved they realized that the strict interpretation was causing there to be too much of a disparity with coins of the same grade. After all, the coin shown above looks much better than most MS64's and the MS67 Morgan Dollar posted by Raider in that thread looks better than any MS65 I have ever seen.

I firmly believe that the TPG's stopped following the practice of grade limiting features including marks, strike, or luster (too a lesser extent). And based upon the remarks made by both Mark Feld and Tom Bush in that thread, the market accepts holistic grading because it applies more fairly to a greater range of coins than a strict interpretation of the grading standards. So the TPG's have made adjustments over the years in order to ensure that the exceptions to the rules were graded fairly. The problem is that such grading bothers the purists like Doug and gives the perception that the grading standards have changed.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

To my knowledge, the TV hucksters sold mostly ICG and ANACS. What I am saying is that the popularity of the state quarter program in combination with the explosion of registries is a more likely cause of the change in those population reports than a change in grading standard. If a change in grading standard was the cause and the number of submissions is not the cause, then you would have to examine the populations of the MS68 & PF68 coins as well.

All those numbers show is that a whole bunch of proof sets were submitted for grading in 2003. That in itself does not prove that a change in grading standards is what caused the drastic increase in submissions. In today's market, you get many large submissions of moderns with the expectation that the MS70's and PF70's pay for the venture. This data seems to suggest that 2003 was the start of that strategy.

But again, I don't really care about the modern market or the grading standards for modern coins. As far as I am concerned, they are all widgets.

 

I have to agree with Paul on the ultra high end moderns , it is weird that they rose so much especially in just the one year , but it could be caused by increased mass submissions in '04 . I really would have thought the #s had risen in regular classic collector coins .

 

Well, I hate to admit it publicly, but at one time I worked for one of those tv used car salesmen coin shows. I hope you can accept my sincere apology. They used NGC and submitted coins by the truckload, literally.

 

Hey you had to eat , it's not your fault you worked for some con artists . No appology needed . Now from your ex boss , no apology accepted . Hope he loses his house .

 

LOVE THIS THREAD!
Though i do like slabbed coins, i prefer to stand by the grades that i make based on the condition and quality of the coin.
Raw coins are almost always better in my opinion.

 

Okay, I stand corrected. Like I said, I don't know much about the modern market. All I know is when I see them on TV, I see ICG and ANACS. It still doesn't prove that grading standards caused the increase in populations.

 

Paul , the ones I usually see have PCGS and NGC almost exclusively .

 

They send tons of coins to PCGS and NGC for grading, but they only slab coins that are PR-69/70 or MS-69/70. Anything lower stays raw. This has to be one of the factors that led to the population hike at those grade levels, but can not possibly be the only factor.

 

Problem with your numbers Doug. You hit one of those Heritage (I assume that is where you got them) mistakes like I pointed out in another thread. According to NGC;

1813 MS65 today 9 with 8 higher

1814 MS65 today 21 with 10 higher

1829 MS64 today 70, with 40 higher

1830 small O MS64 today 126, with 43 higher

1833 MS64 today 83, with 38 higher

 

I don't have to, simply look at post #68 in this thread:

No, I am claiming that those population reports do not prove that grading standards changed for moderns, only that submissions increased for other reasons.

Now we are getting somewhere. Can you provide me with the total number of mint state coins for each date/mm in both 2003 and today?

 

Subscribe

 

Sorry, but I don't have access to PCGS. I use Heritage also, but I am beginning to wonder about their numbers.

 

Dick , I'm curious to your thoughts about how the standards have changed with Lincolns , surely you have slabs from rattlers to the new secured . Notice any changes ?

 

I have no idea how they get their numbers, but when I found they had doubled most Lincoln populations in less than 1 month, you tried to tell me they they actually had doubled - due to gradeflation. See http://www.cointalk.com/t155410/. I finally convinced Heritage that their numbers were really wrong and they have since returned them to what they should be - or at least the ones I have checked.

 

Sorry, but I have not been into the slabs long enough to give you a good answer and the population of older slabs that were either more conservatively graded and/or just the better ones of the time have mostly since been regraded so polling today's slabs is meaningless.