Upcoming episode of The Coin Show -- market grading

Discussion in 'Coin Chat' started by sshafer11, Nov 3, 2014.

Page 2 of 2
  1. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    Well Paul when you claim that you do not do something, when you actually do, do it, to me that's double talk. But you can call it whatever ya want.

    And when coins that were previously 63's suddenly become 64's - if that's not changing grading standards ......, well I'm sorry but it sounds like it is to me. But you can that whatever ya want too.
     
    GDJMSP, Nov 4, 2014
    #21 + Quote Reply
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. Lehigh96

    Lehigh96 Toning Enthusiast

    If you don't understand that there is a difference between expanding market grading principles that result in higher grades and actually changing the standards for what constitutes a specific numerical grade, then I don't know how to help you.

    My point is that what the TPG's have not made a deliberate change to what MS65 or and other numerical grade means for a given series. But they have greatly expanded the principles of market grading: eg. allowances for roll friction, grade bumps for exceptional eye appeal, net grading coins with grade disparity between obverse/reverse, abandoning grade limiting principles such as a single mark in focal areas etc. All of these have contributed to the overall rise in grades. But that doesn't mean that every coin graded 25 years ago is undergraded by today's standards. As I have stated many times, some of the most leniently graded Jefferson Nickels I have ever seen reside in old fatty NGC slabs.
     
    Lehigh96, Nov 4, 2014
    #22 + Quote Reply
  4. longnine009

    longnine009 Darwin has to eat too. Supporter

    ANACS was doing that on the back side of their last hurrah certificates-1986. Unfortunately, PCGS was coming up from behind for the sack.
     
    longnine009, Nov 4, 2014
    #23 + Quote Reply
  5. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    Paul, I understand all to well that deciding to net grade coins is indeed different than rewriting the grading criteria for a given grade. But the end result is the same, a 63 still becomes a 64.

    Net grading is a company policy just like saying 5 unbroken steps on a nickel make it a full step nickel, even though the nickel is supposed to have 6 unbroken steps is a company policy. The TPGs each have many company policies. With some of them being different from the other TPGs company policies.

    But is the combination of company policies and grading criteria for each given grade that make up grading standards. So when you change either one of those and the result is a coin becoming a higher grade than it would have been before that change - then any way you want to look at it that is changing grading standards. But like I said, you can call it whatever you want.
     
    GDJMSP, Nov 5, 2014
    #24 + Quote Reply
  6. Lehigh96

    Lehigh96 Toning Enthusiast

    I don't think that anybody disputes that there have been changes to the TPG grading standards over the years. But typically, it is characterized as a deliberate loosening of standards with regards to numerical grades. That is what I have a problem with. I have no problem admitting that adjustments to TPG market grading principles have resulted in higher grades for some coins.

    And some of these points are further examples of the TPGs responding to the market Like LostDutchman mentioned a few days ago. While NGC may have started with a requirement for 6 full steps for the FS (full step designation), PCGS only ever required 5 full steps. The market accepted that 5 full steps was adequate for the strike designation. NGC had no choice but to amend their standard to conform to the market lest risk loosing all Jefferson Nickel business to PCGS. And contrary to your accusation, that specific change in policy was published publicly by NGC in 2004.

    NGC DISTINGUISHES JEFFERSON NICKEL STEPS

    That said, I do think we have made a major breakthrough in our impasse regarding this topic.
     
    Lehigh96, Nov 5, 2014
    #25 + Quote Reply
  7. geekpryde

    geekpryde Husband and Father Moderator

    Pretty coin. But saying "at best" seems a bit harsh. I would say the Obverse is a solid 63, no way it dropping into MS60-62 territory from what I can see. That doesn't change you point, of course.
     
    geekpryde, Nov 5, 2014
    #26 + Quote Reply
  8. Lehigh96

    Lehigh96 Toning Enthusiast

    My point of saying "at best" was to indicate that it was not close to MS64. I did not intend to say that the coin might be MS62 on the obverse, though I don't think some graders on this forum would mind that grade.;)
     
    Lehigh96, Nov 5, 2014
    #27 + Quote Reply
    geekpryde likes this.
Page 2 of 2
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page