The Gradeflation Thread

No, there is no such thing as gradeflation.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I like this topic to just see what others think. I think it does exist at times on some of the cracked out coins and newer submissions. Some of them are just worth the cost of cracking and submitting to see what happens. I just do not think the tpgs are as consistent as they used to be - both NGC and PCGS. So it may seem like gradeflation. As some of the one of kinds - it does not really matter because the cost is going to be decided by the buyers.

All I know is if in a tab hold(don't care NGC or PCGS) it requires closer inspection. Not that I do not do the same for the older holders - just more careful. Some of the new coins making it into full grade holders are problem coins in my opinion(at least what I collect).

Also the same for coins with a well know collectors name on the slab. These also require closer inspection. One of the reasons I have not bought some of the coins from some of the bigger collections, not just the premium, but the coins were over graded and not worth the bump in cost.

Of course the bottom line is if I think the coin is worth the cost. Keep in mind I do not pretend to be smarter or know more than the TPG's but I think I know what I want a coin to look like for a certain grade. Just a humble opinion.

 

I'm not going to have any examples of cracked out coins that were resent to a TPG, but, isn't this thread a good example how the TPGs keep one another in check when it comes to grading...

https://www.cointalk.com/threads/bean-wars-cac.254721/

 

As promised, here is the roll friction gradeflation example: 1924 SLQ





Those in the "wear is wear" camp will obviously think this coin should reside in the AU58 holder. I knew that the coin had no friction in the fields and would grade MS upon resubmission. Where do you stand?

 

I feel as though 58's and 62's are commonly switched upon resubmission. Just a person observation. Made by anyone else?

 

My opinion of the Jefferson nickel is that NGC graded the coin too harshly, according to their own standards, when it was graded as MS65. I realize that I am only looking at images of the coin, but my interpretation of those images is inconsistent with my recollection of how NGC graded in the early-to-mid 1990s. They really valued and rewarded original coins back then, even to a fault, and this nickel seems to fall into that category. The incomplete strike on the portrait would not have been mistaken for post-mint marks.

 

Nice coin. It makes me think of when I was a kid, before TPGs. I was always hanging out in the coin shop.
The older folks were always arguing AU and UNC. Don't think that will ever change.