Thread ATS about "rampant gradeflation"

The links are to high relief SG's which are graded to a different standard than the regular relief issues under discussion. personally, I could not see anything in the images that would lead me to believe that those coins are anything other than mint state.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

That's right. That's what all MS is, when judging by condition. Just don't get hung up on "Uncirculated," as it's a term of art. Just keep your eyes on the coin. If there's wear on the coin, judge the condition grade based on the degree of it. If there's no wear on the coin, judge the condition grade based on the luster and marks, as that's the MS criteria.

 

The first one is a 1907 HR Saint graded MS-65. The pics do not go large enough to tell but it appears that the coin is undergraded. IOTW, based on the coins and grades we've been kicking around here, it looks (again, the pictures may be hiding nicks and marks) more like an MS-67 or even MS-68.

The second one is another 1907 HR Saint graded MS-65. Bigger/better pics, again, compared to the coins earlier appears to be deserving of a higher grade.

The third one is another 1907 HR Saint also graded MS-65. Again, like #2, you can see closeups of the fields and see bag marks and little scratches.

IMRich, it looks like the 1st coin -- based on what we can see from the non-closeup photos -- could be undergraded but the other 2 look OK for the grade. I could see #2 and #3 maybe getting up to MS-66 and/or CAC. JMHO, as I admit I am a novice at grading (though Saints are my relative strong point ).

 

Why are HR Saints graded to a different status ? Because the high relief should lead to less damage in the fields and/or more wear on the devices ? Is this formal TPG or ANA guidelines ?

 

In regards to gradflation I think that the system makes it appear as though standards changed when they might in fact be the same. Any coin with a nice grade spread will be submitted until it gets the highest grade that coin could. Over time this would make it appear as though grades have slipped as many coins would appear one point "overgraded", the highest grade they got on a good day. However this is a system logic issue, not necessarily a problem with the grades themselves changing. With the advent of pcgs secure they know if that is the exact same coin submitted and now the tpgs have a tool they can use to combat resubmission. I'm not saying they will do that, I'm just saying this problem could become self limiting.

 

1 grade higher is understandable, esp. if you ignore the "*" and "+" stuff.

2 grades should be very rare over time.

If a coin goes up by 3 grades, then it means that the initial graders were either incompetent or just rushed the job (a problem I believe is a result of the vast quantity of submissions for all the TPGs and PCGS' public stock standing).

 

So refreshing to see someone else say this rather than to blindly accept the notion that the TPGs deliberately loosen standards in order to boost submissions. Gradeflation is the logical result of two important factors: the subjectivity of grading combined with the financial incentive to achieve a higher grade. If the financial disparity is large enough, people will continue to resubmit PQ coins until they achieve the upgrade. As a result, the number of PQ coins diminishes and the amount of dreck increases. Combine that will the grading evolution and what you get is the appearance that the TPGs have loosened standards. When I speak of grading evolution, I am referring to subjects exactly like the one that is being debated here, allowing for roll friction when assigning mint state grades.

 

OOOoooo....."system logic issue." I like the sound of that.

As Kenny Bania said to Jerry Seinfeld on the word "puke"....can I use that ?

 

This is a really good quantitative and logical explanation of what has happened over the last 30 years. Great post.

 

If people want to complain about the way PCGS grades coins, that is fine. If they think that market grading is horrible and wish that the old antiquated ANA standards were still used, that is their prerogative. But what you can't do is claim that PCGS does not follow their own standards. They have published a book called THE PCGS OFFICIAL GUIDE TO COIN GRADING AND COUNTERFEIT DETECTION that clearly defines their standards. The relevant section of the book that applies to our current conversation can be found in Chapter 5: ELEMENT OF A COIN'S GRADE, in the first section which addresses the issue of wear. The relevant quotes are shown below.

For everyone who claims that PCGS states that the dividing point between circulated and uncirculated is the presence of wear, you are wrong. Despite the fact that there may be slight inconsistencies within the text as it relates to the specific rules by grade & series, this portion of the text comes first an firmly establishes the exception to the rule that "wear is wear." PCGS also addresses the specific topic of roll/bag friction on the next page and here is the relevant quote.

This defines the market grading procedure that PCGS uses to determine whether or not a Saint is uncirculated since virtually all of them show some measure of high point friction. It is clear that any wear in the fields will relegate the coin to AU status. If there is no wear in the fields, then PCGS looks for the wear to display a brown grayish look that does not "roll" under a light source. Absent this, they will grade the Saint as a mint state coin. Furthermore, PCGS decided that this point was so important that they included a photo diagram that encompasses almost an entire page (see below).



The PCGS standards are clear. What I have never seen are the written standards relating to roll/bag friction published by the ANA since I don't have a published copy of the ANA standards. Perhaps one of you nice gentleman who revere the ANA grading standards can show us what the policy is.

 

I believe your objective statements are well presented, and much appreciated. The published A.N.A. believed legally acceptable standard isn't complete as you've stated, and a published addendum to that standard, unrefuted, would be an acceptable adjunct to previous standards applying to professed "standard bearer" TPG.

JMHO

 

yes. the high points often did not strike up very well and it can be hard to tell poor strike vs wear. reading between the lines, I think that pcgs (from their guide) tends to lean more towards weak strike in grading these. The recessed fields tend not to show friction until AU50-53 according to pcgs. Marks on the broad rims are more acceptable as well. IOW, these coins seem to be given a bit more slack in grading due to the design.

 

Thanks for posting those quotes from the PCGS guide, Paul. That states very clearly, I think, what we have been trying to get at here.

 

One must differentiate luster breaks due to coin-to-coin contact in Mint bags from wear. One observes the former the most prominently in the larger precious metal alloyed series, such as the Morgan Silver Dollars series. PCGS makes a big deal of same in their grading standards, but it's not as complex as the TPG would have one believe. It's most certainly not wear, or, a deterioration of the design, but luster breaks due to coin-to-coin contact in Mint bags. Go over to http://coins.ha.com/, punch in virtually any Morgan Silver Dollar, and observe these luster breaks for yourself. What you'll be observing is exactly what's happening on the high points on these Saints. The greater the precious metal content, i.e., the "softer" the coin, the greater the likelihood of the afflictions, which, again, aren't wear.

 

Is this post sincere, or an attempt at patronization?

 

Game, Set, Match....awesome post Lehigh.

 

I just ordered the ANA 7th Edition, hope I didn't wast $15 !!??

 

Ugg....it looks OK, but the ratings are not in 1-grade differences. So you have to guestimate from MS-65 to MS-66 as it's 1/2 way to their description of an MS-67.

 

I wonder if we can engage in a little less cheerleading and a little more debate on the issue. At this point it seems pretty clear to me where the two positions diverge. Doug and I on the one hand are saying Lehigh and Morgandude on the other hand were simply fed a bill of goods by the TPGs and swallowed it. They don't have the first clue for it on how to grade coins. They're mixed up in the marketing, and, like the TPGs, need to make excuses for their grades so they can feel good about them. Their grades are held up on pretentious rationalizations, nothing better. When the wear on a coin is smack up against one's nose and one can't call it that and evaluate the condition of the coin, accordingly, but is rather obliged to fiddle around with semantics, that's what that means.

Shall we continue the great debate? Let's pick it up from there...

 

The debate is over, you were absent as usual. Here is a recap for ya!

Back to your corner!