Thread ATS about "rampant gradeflation"

Are you planning to start another semantics war similar to that about the die polish/die condition lines? I use the term roll/cabinet friction to describe any high point friction on uncirculated coins. The fact that this friction occurred in sealed bags as opposed to actual paper rolls is immaterial to the discussion.

We have had the argument about the validity and truth of PCGS statement in the past. I even went so far as to inquire with some collectors who specialize in Saints on the PCGS forum if the statement is true. They all said that it was true. The reason it gets very little support on this forum is because there are so few people on this forum who actually collect Saints.

But for those who do collect Saints on this forum, they also agreed with the PCGS statement. Here are some quotes from the other thread.

If forced to choose whom to believe, I will choose PCGS, Saintguru (et al CU forum), Leadfoot, and Kirkuleez over you.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I don't think coin collecting has to only cater to the OCD personality, the obsessive or rigidly strict. It can be enjoyed by anyone in any way they wish. When I was a kid, coins were about trading with my grandpa, and chatting with the dealer down the road, and getting a new Redbook, and buying my annual ASE for $7.50. I miss those days. Pretty sure we all do.

 

Lehigh, that proposition, "wear is wear," is how collectors graded coins from the beginning of time. Ask Doug, he was here back then (lol). There's where you don't seem to understand. You seem to think I'm making this up or imposing my standards on a hobby that's been reluctant to accept them. Not so. Enter market grading. That's where the cornerstone of this "hobby" dropped out. State of preservation is at the cornerstone in every single grading system including numismatics until the ANA went off on a frolic of its own with this market grading monkey business. What was the consequence? It was that now in coin clubs all across the country instead of evaluating a coin on its state of preservation we're sitting there looking across the room at one another arguing whether and to what degree it's eye appealing or deserves a star or a plus or a sticker and if so a green one or a gold one. That's what we're good at, now. Oh, and whether it's AT, NT, QT, let's not forget that. A monkey can grade coins that way. If not, an orangutan, I'm sure one of those can.

 

Stars, plusses, stickers and toning have nothing to do with this conversation. The fact is that everyone but you and a handful of other old timers has realized the error in the long established grading standard that "wear is wear". They have realized the error, allowed an exception to your precious rule, thereby improving the overall grading system. Call it progress, advancement, wisdom, or learning, the numismatic community's break up with the "wear is wear" philosophy is logical and was inevitable.

On a tangential subject, do you own a smart phone?

 

I did that's why she went down the road

 

Call it whatever you want that may keep you in your comfort zone but the reality is the coin is in an inferior state of preservation for it and to overlook that reality is to play head games with the condition of the coin.

Look, maybe you and the Morgandudester misunderstand. I'm not trying to hold back these coins with wear from their place in the market. Call the Saint with the AU58 wear AU64 and at least you're giving the unsuspecting public an honest shake of the dice for their money by informing them of the reality there's wear on that coin. You call it MS64, you're deceiving that bunch. You don't know where any wear came from, anyway, let's address and get that out of the way. In addition, to judge the coin's grade as though you do know is antithetical to another fundamental principle of grading, that being to take all your bearings strictly off the face of the coin. Extrinsic evidence isn't how you grade. You grade coins with your eyes, not with your mind's eye. When grades start depending on the credibility of witnesses (i.e., it's cabinet friction because I say so; it's NT because I say so), that's a pretty darn pretentious road to go down for one's money, as it's always open to impeachment.

Look, I'm getting tired of this. Tell me about this tangent of yours. Let's go there, why do you want to know?

 

Tin hat on.......

Eddie? We've got to watch some good Buster Keaton movies.......

 

What you call pretentious, I call an expert opinion. The fact is that coins exist with high point friction that have never been in circulation. Rather than condemn all these coins to AU status, I am willing to trust that expert graders will make a judgement call based on experience and knowledge of the series. Have you ever seen a Roosevelt dime with high point friction in an MS holder? The standard that the TPGs employ is one that requires field impairment on series that are plagued by high point friction. Undoubtedly, this will result in a small number of actual AU coins that get graded MS. I am willing to accept this if it means that a larger number of coins are accurately graded.

Don't think that I don't understand your point as it relates to this issue. The fact that they can't be certain about source of the friction will lead to inconsistency and mistakes. For example, NGC graded this coin both AU58 and MS62 within a 3 month period.





Do we know for certain that the friction on the leg is from circulation wear? No, do we know for certain that it is related to roll friction? Of course not. But when you see a coin from a series that is known for high point friction and there are no other signs of circulation wear, the logical conclusion is to assume that the coin is uncirculated and assign the grade accordingly.

Regarding my tangential question, I find that most of my older friends (of which I have many) who are rigid in their thinking also tend resist advances in modern technology. Most of my friends in their 60's & 70's won't even consider getting a smart phone, and those that do have one have no idea how to use it.

 

That's a damn good point.

2-for-2 !!

Good points...so they consider that gold and/or higher-content gold coins are softer than other metals and that the same amount of wear or rub should not count as much on gold as say on a harder metal, right ?

You wonder if they used the terms 'uncirculated' 50+ years ago with the expectation that circulated coins would show definite signs of wear-and-rub and that uncirculated coins would be pristine, instead of the overlap we sometimes see today (and are arguing about here).

 

Regarding your tangential question, you got me on that one. Luddite, here, and that's just the way I am, and there's nothing anybody can do about it. I actually have a black rotary-dial phone in my home, it's the truth. So, stereotype away. But, don't forget, I can go soft-headed on you like that, too. I can stereotype you, too. You're buried in these toners and have no choice but to play ball. I shan't, however, out of respect for the issue.

On that, the issue, all precious medals are inclined to wear by reason of improper storage, not just gold. I'm Italian and I have blue eyes and most Italians are inclined to have brown eyes but that doesn't mean my blue eyes are brown. I don't care what these Saints are inclined to do, wear is wear. You want to deny that to advance your market imperatives, you're playing head games.

Bottom-line, that's your prerogative. You want to collect by third and fourth-party opinions, that's your business. I collect coins. You want to look at a coin that has wear and collect an opinion on whether you have permission to call that wear cabinet friction, that's your business. You want to look at a coin that has toning and collect an opinion on whether you have permission to call that toning NT, AT, or QT, that's your business. You want to look at a coin that's cleaned and collect an opinion on whether you have permission to call that cleaning conservation, that's your business. It's not my business. I don't collect permissions. I grade coins by my eyes, not third and fourth-party's eyes.

In this day and age of ready-made grades, I wholeheartedly concede, that makes me an odd old bone. We'll let that go at, there are two types of collectors, the type that fights the idea of being pushed into and consumed by the marketing, and the other type.

 

Just because someone has adapted to and accepted the market grading principles employed by the TPGs, it does not mean that they are less of a coin collector than you are. Furthermore, I have no idea what you are talking about with respect to your other comments. Advancing my market imperatives? What is that supposed to mean? I don't even collect Saints, but anyone who employs any logic can see that a coin plucked directly from a sealed mint bag should not be graded AU.

Regarding toners, and being buried, I would like an explanation. Are you insinuating that I foolishly spent and lost a lot of money buying toned coins?

 

The coins that circulated through the US Banks were for the most part, turned into the government and melted. The overwhelming majority of mint state Saint Gaudens Double Eagles that exist today came from sealed mint bags that survived in foreign banks.

 

This thread made me think of the Wells Fargo Hoard, 19,900 NM 1908 SAints brought back from Europe to the US in the 1990's. According to Gillio, the coins were a payment made in 1917, and the coins sat in the vault in the original bags until the 1960's, when the coins were removed from the rotting bags and put into new canvas ones. Until the bags were opened for Gillio, that was the ONLY time the coins were moved since 1917. Eventually, about 7000 of the coins graded 66 or higher (up to 69) by 1990's standards. There were many thousand 65 gems.
Looking at the auction records for 1908 MS saints, at Heritage, ogling a number of the WF hoard coins, I just don't see high point friction. I just don't. I did not look at every one (there are thousands). Now suppose those coins had been removed and stacked and counted every few years, or put in cashier's drawers and then back in the bag for storage, or just held and thumb rubbed by a teller who thought they were pretty? That behavior, otherwise known as handling, will lead to high point friction, and as far as I am concerned that makes for an AU coin, period. I don't think certain series should be given a "by" in the grading room just because they are "friction prone." (should we call them "differently abled coins?")
Graders are humans and subject to variation in their behavior. They are also not immune to markets, perceptions of demand, etc, and with the tendency of TPG's to "value grade" coins it does not surprise me that there is a general slackening of standards. Recently I was sent an attractive seated coin on approval, it was in a new pcgs holder graded au 58. I was surprised that no more than about 30% of the mint luster was present, and yet the devices showed no discernible wear. The only conclusion I could come to was that the fields had been polished for some reason. My point is that as collectors it very important for us to study the coins before we buy them and not to rely on the the slab grade, or even the tpg's opinion that the coin has not been "improved upon." Discerning collectors are the best protection the hobby has against overgrading/overpricing. Take a look at auction results sometime, I'm sure there will be a coin or 2 that will make you say "boy, that went cheap" or "wow, that sold for over twice what I would expect." Most of the time these unexpected prices realized are because someone knew that the coin had a hidden problem, or that it was really choice for the assigned grade.
Studying those can be educational. (of course sometimes it's just 'buyer error' but I think those cases are in the minority.)

 

Lehigh, I'm not insinuating anything. I'm saying I could, were I wanting to stereotype, as you did from the fact I don't have an iPhone.

As to your top paragraph, when you're advocating these spurious market grading standards, you're advancing market imperatives.

Here's where you can be persuasive. What are you comparing these Saints to? How do you know for a fact that isn't how they were when they were struck? Don't make me sorry for asking that by telling me you're relying on the testimony of "experts."

 

The first 3 coins I looked at from the Wells Fargo Hoard all had high point friction. Eg.



As I have stated before, many of the mint state Saints that exist today, came from foreign banks just like the Wells Fargo hoard. When coins are handled by human hands they will show disturbance in the fields as well as the high points. To hypothesize that all of the MS Saints in existence were handled by bank cashiers and then returned to their bags is simply not consistent with reality.

 

But don't you see you're going off the coin to say that? Stick to the coin. What does the coin reveal? That's all. There's nothing else.

BTW, excellent coin.

 

Stop beating around the bush. If you have something to say, say it. I deduced that you don't have a cellphone because your philosophy with regards to coin grading is rigid & antiquated. Given your personality and age, it was logical to assume that you would also resist progress in other areas of life, including technological advances. You call it stereotyping, but that is just a meager attempt to prey upon the political correctness of others who don't want to be guilty of "stereotyping" as if it was more evil than the most heinous crime. What you should do is try to understand why I was able to deduce that you don't have a cellphone and what it says about you!

The only one who thinks that market grading standards are spurious is you. That is the whole point of this conversation. The grading process has evolved from the black and white rendition that you love so much. Instead of adapting to the new and improved standards, you just cry about them incessantly. And it is tiresome, so very tiresome.

As for the Saints, I don't understand your question. They certainly were not struck with high point friction. The friction is the result of coin to coin contact within the bags. I have only ever owned one Saint in my life. And believe it or not, it was an MS63 with rainbow toning. This coin had high point friction on both the breast and knee. The TPGs deemed that the coin was mint state because there were no traces of wear in the fields of the coin. That is their standard, and the standard that has been accepted by the rest of the numismatic community, whether you like it or not.

 

If you foolishly spend a lot of money buying toned coins, then I am part of that club. If you are crazy, I guess I must plead guilty as charged as well. Basically, one can accuse TPGs of any malfeasance they want, and it is the "Voice of one crying in the wilderness." I do understand that there are some irregularities and inconsistencies grading coins by third parties. After all, it isn't totally scientific--it is not as like the acceleration due to gravity of a falling object is 32 feet per second squared, and is quantitatively measured. That is set in stone.

A certain element of subjectivity is built into grading, despite the Sheldon Scale, and rubrics for grading such as Photograde by PCGS. However, I will still maintain that TPGSs get it RIGHT a vast majority of the time, and make occasional mistakes. The average collector (not necessarily the expert collector, but the average coin buyer) will get it right much less than the very experienced third party. It is their business to be correct, and for the most part, I cast my lot with them. HOWEVER, and this the caveat--NOBODY should buy a coin that they don't like, and suspect is not accurately graded--with or without the Sheldon Scale or PCGS, it would be sheer foolishness to do so.

 

The coin has high point friction on the knee and it spent its entire existence in a bank bag. That is not an AU coin! Under your system of grading, these two coins would bear the same grade:




You might not have a problem with both of these coin being graded AU58, but pretty much everyone else does. Your system of "wear is wear" takes the entire range of mint state quality Saints and relegates them to one single grade, AU58, even though the disparity in quality is plainly evident for everyone to see!