Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;NPCoin, post: 401361, member: 5629&quot;]Not necessarily.&nbsp; They <b>may</b> have changed.&nbsp; This is why I have said before that subjectivity is the key.&nbsp; Grading is subjective.&nbsp; <b>Because</b> grading is subjective, you <b>cannot</b> say that any particular grade attribute is &quot;right&quot; or &quot;wrong&quot;.&nbsp; Deceptive, yes.&nbsp; Right or wrong, no.&nbsp; SGS grades are certainly deceptive.&nbsp; That does not make them &quot;right&quot; or &quot;wrong&quot;, however.&nbsp; If this were the case, then the mere existence of an ANA Standard grade MS60 being labeled as MS70 in an SGS slab would be grounds for some form of legal recourse.&nbsp; But it is not.</p><p><br /></p><p>Does SGS publish their grading standard?&nbsp; No, they do not.&nbsp; So we cannot truly say that SGS has graded their slabs, as horribly deceptive as they are, as wrongly graded.&nbsp; The are most truly wrongly graded in accordance with historical and current ANA Standards, as well as standards published by NGC and PCGS.&nbsp; But this is comparative to standards that most collectors are already familiar with.</p><p><br /></p><p>And I say that to make this point:&nbsp; Grading is subjective and depends upon three main pillars that support the grade...the technical standard, the individual bias, and the current, historic, and forecast market conditions.</p><p><br /></p><p>Let&#039;s simply take the technical standards outlined in the Fifth edition ANA Standards, assume market conditions are stable, have been and will continue to be.&nbsp; Now, let&#039;s take a nice 1941 Walker Half.&nbsp; Let&#039;s say that there is only a trace of wear on the highest points of the devices, and that a trace of wear is noted on the reverse high points, namely the upper portion of the foremost leg.&nbsp; Now take two individuals that may take a look at the coin.&nbsp; Let us assume here that approximately 60% of the luster still shows.&nbsp; The first grader, who is a bit lenient on the eye appeal, especially when the coin is nice and fully struck, with details just standing out at you, decides that the coin should be an AU55.&nbsp; The second grader, on the other hand, demands that the grade be accompanied by the relevant luster, strike, and detail.&nbsp; This Walker, however, is lacking in the 3/4 luster recommendation in the ANA Standards.&nbsp; He therefore grades the coin AU50.</p><p><br /></p><p>So who is right then?&nbsp; The first grader or the second?&nbsp; Because grading is subjective, and individual bias is clear in this example, you cannot possibly say that either is &quot;right&quot; or &quot;wrong&quot;.&nbsp; That being the case, how then can a TPG be said to have changed their standards because coins upgrade (or downgrade) from what the previous slab label indicated?&nbsp; This is making an assumption, though a very valid one when coupled with other indicators and information, that the TPG has changed their standards.</p><p><br /></p><p>And this is just looking at what personal bias...the root of subjectivity...can do to the grade of a coin.&nbsp; This does not even mention the market indicators and influence to the grade.&nbsp; For the standard to truly have &quot;changed&quot;, the technical standard...the TRUE &quot;standard&quot;...has to change.&nbsp; The Buff horn is a prime example of this.</p><p><br /></p><p>And I use SGS simply as the example that subjectivity is exactly that!&nbsp; And why it is important to know what language (standard) you are talking about when talking about grades and grading.&nbsp; But I will always stand on the fact that grading is subjective and there is no &quot;wrong&quot; nor &quot;right&quot; grade, but there are most definitely deceptive grades, especially when one standard is assumed, yet another is actually used.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in