The "Peter Principle" for Slabbing Coins

The sixth edition of the ANA "grading standards" makes reference to changing standards. Now we must realize that the ANA is beholden to the TPG's and other dealers in a number of ways including the sale of their endorsement, so of course they will tread lightly in this area. However they do spell out at least one issue where the standards have changed, AND THEY SPECIFICALLY POINT OUT THAT THESE ARE NOT ANA STANDARDS BUT A REPORTING OF WHAT IS GOING ON IN THE MARKETPLACE which means that the ANA standards prior to the sixth edition no longer apply.

Didn't somone recently post that the reason for that DH letter to his comrades was in response to a change in ANA grading standards? That letter was dated 2 years after P was started, so what standards was P using the first two years, and if P was using their own standards, why even bother writing that letter to introduce their "new" standards. It doesn't add up.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

GDJ, the subject wasn't changed in the least bit. As I'm sure you and others know CLCT is the parent company of PCGS, PSA/DNA, etc.

When revenue drops something has to be done and since it's a publically traded company. Trust me there are holders of this position who wouldn't know the difference between a 1952 Mickey Mantle and an 1836 Capped Bust Half. All they are concerned with is making money and Price Per Share (PPS); in order to start making money again, then (just maybe) a radical change in grading coins and cards MUST be established since the current system has been milked dry.

If you can't improve the coin, then improve the system...


Take Care
Ben

 

OK GD, I will concede that I can't pinpoint when I noticed that certain Buffalo Nickels were being graded VF with a half horn or less. The time frame for that change isn't something that stuck in my mind. So in the case of P&N, I will accept your contention that they have been grading them the same from the start. Albeit overgraded IMO.

However, I recall a comment from my favorite TPGER about changes in grading that went something like "they have evolved over time". That plus what the ANA stated in the sixth edition plus my own experience plus all the cracking out that has taken place sure makes the case that standards have changed over time.

It's a tough case to otherwise prove so I'll leave it at that.

 

that one exists too along with an a b c system. you keep saying shut up but there was a lot of money to be made via BENT

 

Please read my first post in this thread. When the coin is maxed out grade-wise and the submitter sees no further options, then the TPGs will provide/make/create opportunities. They aren't cheap, but they are there for the intrepid who seek the best for their collection, be that NGC, PCGS, ANACS, ICG, PCI, etc., on downwards...

Heck, you yourself admitted that ANACS standards had changed. They still wave that ANACS flag and it's still considered by many a TOP Three company no matter what you say.

Take Care
Ben

 

That happens in all businesses but we can only speculate what those opportunities may be new grading system/ new standards/ new technology for slabs or something totally new and different

 

You're correct old Spockster, and I mentioned the fact that possibly radical ideas were (more than likely) being tossed back and forth in the Board Room.

Take Care
Ben

 

if they couldnt toss the ideas they wouldnt be in the boardroom spock would be

 

But Doug, the fact of the matter is (I suspect) we are about to see some changes within the hobby. This row is just about hoed out of weeds, time to move onto another idea to separate the coin collector from their funds I guess.

I won't lie and say "what a shame" when it happens because the abuse (seen daily on internet) has only been amplified by the BIG Names involved and the apologists who condone the actions as being in the best interest of the uninformed...

Take Care
Ben

 

I'll agree with that, I'm biased against any Third Party Entity (TPE) who carves a niche for a service which is based solely upon perceived hype. The ideal process (IMHO) is Coin -- B&M/Internet Dealer -- Collector. But since the counterfeiters and other dishonest individuals have tainted the hobby, knowing about what you're purchasing is all that more important. It's really pretty simple...

Third/Four/Five party entities aren't REALLY necessary now are they?

Take Care
Ben

 

"To be replaced with the days of over-grading by unscrupulous corporations known as TPGs."



To me, the above summarizes the whole jest of this thread.

However, in my view of things, I believe that the word "subjective" has lost its meaning to quite a few involved in coins. I keep seeing, not just here, but everywhere I read numismatics forums, about "right" and "wrong" grading. It just boggles the mind. Grading of coins is based upon a technical standard utilized by an individual (the grader) to determine the condition of the coin in accordance with the grader's own bias, know as his subjectivity.

You cannot say that Grader X, who utilizes "5th Edition" ANA Standards, detests corrosion of any form, and prefers a true full strike where the technical standard requires a full strike, is "wrong" placing an MS65 grade to a coin while Grader Y, who utilizes the current PCGS Standards, gets giddy over rainbow tones, and believes that the market will still accept a weakly struck coin as MS70 (even though such a grade truly does not exist), is right for grading it MS67.

To do such is to compare two separate standards used by two individuals with two varying biases. You will not see agreement between them. This is what grading is all about. It is about subjectivity.

To oversimplify things, grading has three main forces that influence it: technical standard, individual bias, and market conditions. If you take a coin graded by a specific company and a particular grader within that company, when the coin is selling red hot on the market, it may be attributed as MS67. Take that very same coin, apply it to a different standard OR a different grader OR if the market conditions change and the coin sleeps, you very well may receive that very same coin one or two points lower.

This is why the very same TPG very well may regrade the same coin either way on the spectrum. Because grading is subjective. You may/will disagree (this is not directed to you, GD), but in my world, where the sky is pink, the clouds are purple, and birds sing all day long, there is no "right" or "wrong" grade for a coin.

This is why, in my opinion, the TPGs are destined to fail from the very start. There are too many "standards", too many biases, too many fluctuations in the market, to say that a coin is X grade, or a coin is Y grade, and have that grade reflective of the coin throughout the long run. This is also why there is no replacement for sight-seen, fully disclosed interaction between a seller and a buyer.

This is also why you will not be able to pick up ten slabs from the same company of any coin graded at the same grade and be able to find more than two or three that are comparable to each other. Each coin is distinct and different. Each coin has varying defects and detractions. Each person has their own bias as to what is acceptable to them regarding these defects and detractions.

Subjectivity. It's something that I do not even really see when people give their grade opinions. Why do you say it's a certain grade? Is it because the first reply gave an unqualified opinion, so you jumped on his bandwagon? Is it because eighteen of the last twenty posters said MS-63, and you don't want to look "uneducated"? Do collectors really even know what they like anymore in their coins, or is this just plain and simple mob mentality at play?

Subjectivity is synonymous with bias, which implies an inherent individuality, which denotes differences, that will eventually bring out each one's uniqueness. There is no "right" or "wrong" when it comes to grading.*





*The above statements do not apply to frauds and scum-scams, whether obvious or not, especially first party slabbers who misattribute the origins of their coins and slabs, or eBay sellers with names like Coin+Professional, or similar, who make statements along the lines of: "I don't grade coins, but this is certainly at least MSXX", "A friend of mine wanted me to sell this coin, but I have no idea what it is", or "WOWZERS! MUST HAVE! MS70+++!!!"

 

maybe the "new" radical idea is the CAC green sticker of approval. Maybe the market will not accept this attempt to create a buzz around "validating" the slabbed grades, maybe the market will be smarter and realize that the CAC sticker is no more or less a valid opinion than the slab itself, and that we (as collectors) don't need the validation from this new company in order to be more secure in our belief that the coin grades what it says on the slab. Maybe the smart ones will start (or have already started) to ignore TPGs all together and learn to grade for themselves well enough so they can be secure in what THEY grade the coin and the value of said coin based on their OWN grade.

and NPC... I disagree that there is no right or wrong grade, but we're talking calling an XF coin an MS coin, not calling an MS-63 coin an MS-64.

 

The problem with grading coins based on the temperature of the market is that once they get into a slab at that grade, there they live happily ever after.

 

btw... just curious...

has anyone seen any slabs OTHER than PCGS and NGC with CAC stickers on them? I never have, but I have never seen a 1933 double eagle, yet I know that they exist.

 

I have seen ten 1933 Double Eagles. (Saw them at the ANA World's Fair of Money in Denver a couple of years ago. The coins were under the watchful eyes of several armed Mint Police.)