@Wabbit2313 said:
If all you high-end coin holders are so worried about gradeflation, why not crack them all out and send them back in right now. I PROMISE you they will not come back the same, they will be lower. Put your money where your mouth is and make us all proud of you.
See my other thread
In Texas, one of my old holder 65 CAC's went down to 63. Not an 1880-S Morgan either!
That is a win. You can get a CAC gold now and the coin will be worth more than the Mona Lisa.
TPG's need to think outside the box to get that revenue stream flowing. Instead of assigning a numerical grade, they should just assign a price. An old dealer once told me "I don't grade 'em, I just price 'em".
Vern l It's not having what you want, it's wanting what you've got.
The current grading standard does have problems relating grade and value. In the collector world, we would prefer that grade and value were more inter related. I sometimes wonder if the ANA grading standard is the basis of TPG grading. And obviously TPG's have established their own grading standard that reflects market value, but still does not represent values outside the scope of the ANA standard. Attractive vs Unattractive toning is a HUGE missing attribution in the ANA standard. This needs to be updated by the ANA, not the TPG's.
Grading quality of toning is much more important than further defining miniscule rub that defines a coin on the margin.
@Cougar1978 said:
Circulated coins are such and not worth MS money period. The 64 designation is for coins superb choice Unc. See the ANA grading standards.
Hmmmm. I once cracked a late 30s WLH out of an AU58 rattler and it was regraded 65. Was well worth the value
He who talks in absolutes simply doesn’t have enough experience...
I believe it was over ten years ago while attending an NGC luncheon that Mark Salzburg NGC president said we will grade coins with light cabinet friction/rub, clean fields, and good luster, low grade mint state (60-62). You can't get much more out in the open than that, and that is exactly what they did and still do.
What I don't understand is why both major TPG's still define MS-60 and above coins as having "No trace of wear". Why not modify their written definitions of mint state coins to accurately reflect the way they are grading?
PCGS MS62 with obvious friction across the knee. Some would call it a slider, AU62, UNC, or MS. Either way I am happy with her as is but would never tell someone it has no wear. But I am a collector.
It is not that life is short, but that you are dead for so very long.
I can appreciate your point but, "Attractive vs Unattractive" is so subjective that it would be difficult to create a standard for it.
This is so true. Another person may prefer a certain style/color of toning than me. Why would I pay a certain price or accept a given grade if he or she likes it. It’s my money and my coin.
Someone may prefer a Picasso over a Monet. That’s fine, but it should dictate whether or not it is an attractive painting to my eyes.
We've been dealing with this for decades, especially with CBH's and early copper, and we've had many threads on it. TDN's suggestion isn't the worst idea I've seen. How do YOU explain the issue to a new collector? I can't. It's funny when you read articles showing the pick-up points for wear on certain coins and as fastfreddie showed...Yup, there's wear...wait it's MS...Oh, the humanity!!!
We all agree I think that Seated Coins and older are graded MS with cabinet friction. Why not just add a little caption on the holder MS whatever "Cabinet Friction"?
@amwldcoin said:
We all agree I think that Seated Coins and older are graded MS with cabinet friction. Why not just add a little caption on the holder MS whatever "Cabinet Friction"?
I'm sure that the submitter would just love that and it would do wonders for the value.
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
@Cougar1978 said:
Circulated coins are such and not worth MS money period. The 64 designation is for coins superb choice Unc. See the ANA grading standards.
Hmmmm. I once cracked a late 30s WLH out of an AU58 rattler and it was regraded 65. Was well worth the value
He who talks in absolutes simply doesn’t have enough experience...
This is just a case of misgrading. It was graded incorrectly one of those times. And the last time IS NOT necessarily the correct time.
I can see TDN's point, and am kinda on the fence about it and it makes me think about the other side of the question, which is for example, I have quite a few rolls of 50's nickels that are BU, these years are known for extremely worn dies, dark planchets and so on, just cruddy looking MS coins, never the less THEY ARE MS coins and I'd say MS60 PERIOD, however if I threw them in my pocket for a day or two and gave em a little rub and friction would they be graded AU58 by ANYONE...............Hayeell NO.............they might get a VF 25 (if you were lucky) so should these be graded say MS25, MS25+. MS25*
Technical grading works with the circ vs unc concepts. Market grading does not. Since the TPGs are market grading it is obvious they should move to a simple point system and drop all verbiage. Just make a 64 a 64 and forget about AU/MS.
My personal preference would be for the TPGs to technically grade only and let the market handle the market grade (value). This would do more to end gradeflation than anything. But market grading (moving target) is way more profitable for the TPGs so with that in mind TDN is probably correct here.
Joseph J. Singleton - First Superintendent of the U.S. Branch Mint in Dahlonega Georgia
I've also noticed that many of the detractors simply state their opposition and then follow up by stating that it is because it must be (which is no explanation at all!).
Folks tend not to like change, so they will resist simply for the sake of maintaining the status quo. Also, folks tend to think linearly which is why change comes slowly.
@tradedollarnut said:
It makes more sense than putting obviously circulated coins in MS64 holders...
Said coins should be in 58 or 58+ holders. Why make up grades just to make up for mistakes made by graders.
No they shouldn’t. The grade of a coin should reflect its value. Many coins with a bit of rub sell for MS64 money. The idea their grade maxes out at 58 has come and gone. May as well acknowledge it openly
Actually, the "grade" and the other markings on the slab insert paper will describe the Quality of the coin (overall state of preservation and any relevent specifics) along with the Identity (date, mint, variety, etc), any notable provenance or other history, and implicit representation of authenticity.
These aspects together form the basis for the value (which is obviously determined in each transaction between willing buyers and sellers, as has been helpfully pointed out over and over.) Still, the slab is intended to evaluate the piece.
I simply disagree that TPG grading and encapsulation of coins isn't or shouldn't be an appraisal at all.
Rather, appraisal of Quality seems to be (like it or not)
the main purpose.
And it is silly for coins of overall higher quality to grade a lower number.
I agree with the concept of just putting a numerical grade on the slab with no VF, XF, AU, MS, etc. Each and every coin is unique and has its own value, if the TPG's are going to market grade (i.e. place value by assigning a grade), then just put the numeric grade on it, period.
Acknowledge that some AU coins can be graded as high as 64 by openly creating the AU 60-64 grades.
Well, I kind of like the AU prices that are attached to coins to that are AU60-64. Secondly, an AU60-61 would probably look like sh&& and there is no real difference between AU60-61 and ms60-61. A few molecules of rub never bothered me any.
@cameonut2011 said:
P.S. I think you're going to give poor @specialist a heart attack when she realizes her business partner is encouraging grade inflation.
It's actually grade deflation, and there's almost no financial incentive on anyone's part for that. Imagine taking all the MS66 Saints and downgrading half of them to AU66. Oh, the horror..
@tradedollarnut said: The grade of a coin should reflect its value. Many coins with a bit of rub sell for MS64 money.
What is the basis of your premise? Values change, but the technical merits of a coin should not change if encapsulated and stored properly. Grading is more useful IMHO when it provides a static technical description of a coin and provides information that bidders and the market can use to price a coin. That is hard enough, but when you start trying to value coins it becomes unpredictable and more difficult. PCGS hires professional coin graders and not necessarily expert appraisers. You are propagating the original sin/flaw in the Sheldon scale IMHO. If we are going to start a new scale, we need to do it correctly so that it will survive the test of time
P.S. I have no problems with a superior AU coin selling for MS money.
@tradedollarnut said:
It makes more sense than putting obviously circulated coins in MS64 holders...
What makes the MOST SENSE in my humble opinion is to return to the easiest Mint State standard to understand: "NO TRACE OF WEAR."
Circulated grades would be hardly affected at all. The prices for true Uncirculated coins would increase. The grades of 70 -80% of the bottom half of coins graded MS at this time (especially the gold) would drop to the AU range **yet their prices would be virtually unchanged." Coins like that Brasher w/rub would still be worth millions.
Then just grade the coins for their condition of preservation not what folks at a TPGS think they are worth. Best of all more folks would understand the numbers on the label AND...
After reading this interesting and thought provoking thread, I find my self in agreement with @tradedollarnut. I have seen coins that had small degrees of rub, but were otherwise in the low 60's as far as strike and surface were concerned. The AU prefix would acknowledge the rub, while giving credit for the quality of strike and surface. As it stands now, such a coin is subject to considerable contention among collectors/dealers. Overall, it would be a positive move. Cheers, RickO
And I cannot believe I am saying this, but I am starting to miss the days when a coin with light rub was limited to MS62 (most cases) and now here we are willing to expand and normalize that up to MS64.
@cameonut2011 said:
And I cannot believe I am saying this, but I am starting to miss the days when a coin with light rub was limited to MS62 (most cases) and now here we are willing to expand and normalize that up to MS64.
... and in some rare cases with obvious continuous hairlines!
How about using all of the numbers between 50 and 59 to grade AU coins. That is 10 grade slots. Add in a "+" and you have 20 grade slots.
This is what is done for MS coins, with grades ranging from 60 to 70.
One could have an AU 59+ graded coin that, while showing signs of the lightest trace of wear on a high point, is otherwise at the best of the best level.
Market values for AU 59+ coins would likely exceed the same values for MS 65 coins.
Collectors could chose what sandbox (AU vs MS) they want to play in.
Current AU slabbed coins could be submittted for regrading in the hope that on regrade a coin is graded either MS or a higher AU.
Regrades/crackouts would increase. Revenue streams for TPGs would increase.
Collectors and dealers could continue to play the crackout/regrade game in the hope of hitting a home run.
Technical grading of coins to place them on either side of the MS/AU line could be done while allowing for market values to be considered as a coin travels through a TPG.
Finally the 1-70 grading scale remains intact. It is simply utilized in a manner that allows the hobby to optimize its use.
Also, for those coins already slabbed as MS that show signs of slight wear, having those coins regraded to place them into holders with AU grades on the inserts at first blush may seem to be a problem for TPGs (grade guaranty liability). However if a grade guaranty for such a coin comes into play, if the market value of an MS64 coin that is downgraded to AU58+, the liability of the TPG under its guaranty is measured by the difference in value between the MS64 and AU58+ grade (likely the difference in wholesale value instead of retail, but that is a separate issue and a separate discussion). If the market value of an AU58+ coin is close to, equal to or even higher than the market value of an MS64 coin the loss suffered by a TPG under its grade guaranty my be minimal or even non existent.
@Cougar1978 said:
Circulated coins are such and not worth MS money period. The 64 designation is for coins superb choice Unc. See the ANA grading standards.
Hmmmm. I once cracked a late 30s WLH out of an AU58 rattler and it was regraded 65. Was well worth the value
He who talks in absolutes simply doesn’t have enough experience...
@Wabbit2313 said:
How about if you think your coin is AU and graded MS incorrectly, crack it out and send it back in. Sure don't see much of that happening.
@Wabbit2313 said:
How about if you think your coin is AU and graded MS incorrectly, crack it out and send it back in. Sure don't see much of that happening.
It's just a phase. Things will be back to normal in no time.
In the perfect world I agree with Insider2 "What makes the MOST SENSE in my humble opinion is to return to the easiest Mint State standard to understand: "NO TRACE OF WEAR."
BUT
As he also pointed out they have been doing this for years, SO, how do you deal with all the existing product?
@SanctionII said:
How about using all of the numbers between 50 and 59 to grade AU coins. That is 10 grade slots. Add in a "+" and you have 20 grade slots.
This is what is done for MS coins, with grades ranging from 60 to 70.
One could have an AU 59+ graded coin that, while showing signs of the lightest trace of wear on a high point, is otherwise at the best of the best level.
Market values for AU 59+ coins would likely exceed the same values for MS 65 coins.
Collectors could chose what sandbox (AU vs MS) they want to play in.
Current AU slabbed coins could be submittted for regrading in the hope that on regrade a coin is graded either MS or a higher AU.
Regrades/crackouts would increase. Revenue streams for TPGs would increase.
Collectors and dealers could continue to play the crackout/regrade game in the hope of hitting a home run.
Technical grading of coins to place them on either side of the MS/AU line could be done while allowing for market values to be considered as a coin travels through a TPG.
Finally the 1-70 grading scale remains intact. It is simply utilized in a manner that allows the hobby to optimize its use.
Your thoughts?
When the ANA published the grading guide they introduced a problem by combining a coin's surface condition with the amount of design detail missing - the amount it is worn. Typical and Choice were chosen to describe the number of marks.
Previously (true technical system) for the internal records at ANACS, a coin went from AU-58 down thru 55 and finally to 50 based only on how much wear the coin had. A coin graded AU-58 due to very slight wear could have pristine fields or be beat up. The pristine AU-58 was called Choice AU (back then) and the baggy one was recorded as AU-58, excessive marks. This worked fine as it described the coin perfectly but only because we were not placing a value on the piece! As soon as the ANA guide was published, the baggy AU-58 was graded AU-50 "Typical" or copper guys would net grade it into the XF range although the coin had all of its original detail design except for some minor friction.
We could break the AU grade down to all the numbers between 50 and 60 if we treated it as we do the MS range but with values as they are for the majority of coins, why bother.
Another way to look at it is................are TPG's at fault or are the popular Price Guides at fault, a great example is that AU58's commonly trade for much more than MS60-63, the consensus is just because it's MS. it has to be worth more, 58's are usually well struck high quality while low MS are the bottom of barrel MS drecks , let the market dictate and buy the coin not the holder come to mind.............there will always be controversy...........always
In concept I absolutely agree with @tradedollarnut. It was a problem when high end AU coins ended up in holders graded MS61 and MS62. With very lightly circulated coins now appearing in MS63-MS64 holders that crosses a line. When I was working with Tom DeLorey we would often internally grade coins, especially Indian Head Gold AU62 because we acknowledged that the coin was AU but it would come back from N or P in a MS62 Holder. The question then becomes what is the purpose of grading, is it determining technical condition or determining value. The argument for the previous is that there were always disagreements and deception in grading so a third party was created to assign a standardized grade, nothing more. On the other hand TDN pointed out that the Sheldon scale was designed to determine value. I would argue that the grading services started off focusing on the technical merit but when the market began to rely so heavily on TPG, the TPG started to grade to represent value. This is neither good nor bad, it just is what it is.
In the end I think the idea of AU61-64 is impractical. On soft gold coins, what is wear and what is softness in strike? It is often hard to tell. What would happen? People would send in their coins multiple times as they do now for their AU64 to grade MS64. There is too much variability as it is for that to work.
I have paid higher than 65 and maybe 66 for a few of my 58 and 58+ Barber Half's as well as someone else I know of!
@SanctionII said:
Also, for those coins already slabbed as MS that show signs of slight wear, having those coins regraded to place them into holders with AU grades on the inserts at first blush may seem to be a problem for TPGs (grade guaranty liability). However if a grade guaranty for such a coin comes into play, if the market value of an MS64 coin that is downgraded to AU58+, the liability of the TPG under its guaranty is measured by the difference in value between the MS64 and AU58+ grade (likely the difference in wholesale value instead of retail, but that is a separate issue and a separate discussion). If the market value of an AU58+ coin is close to, equal to or even higher than the market value of an MS64 coin the loss suffered by a TPG under its grade guaranty my be minimal or even non existent.
Comments
That is a win. You can get a CAC gold now and the coin will be worth more than the Mona Lisa.
Should PCGS "acknowledge that some AU coins can be graded as high as 64 by openly creating the AU 60-64 grades"?
TPG's need to think outside the box to get that revenue stream flowing. Instead of assigning a numerical grade, they should just assign a price. An old dealer once told me "I don't grade 'em, I just price 'em".
l
It's not having what you want, it's wanting what you've got.
Circulated coins are such and not worth MS money period. The 64 designation is for coins superb choice Unc. See the ANA grading standards.
The current grading standard does have problems relating grade and value. In the collector world, we would prefer that grade and value were more inter related. I sometimes wonder if the ANA grading standard is the basis of TPG grading. And obviously TPG's have established their own grading standard that reflects market value, but still does not represent values outside the scope of the ANA standard. Attractive vs Unattractive toning is a HUGE missing attribution in the ANA standard. This needs to be updated by the ANA, not the TPG's.
Grading quality of toning is much more important than further defining miniscule rub that defines a coin on the margin.
OINK
Hmmmm. I once cracked a late 30s WLH out of an AU58 rattler and it was regraded 65. Was well worth the value
He who talks in absolutes simply doesn’t have enough experience...
My thoughts for a while now.
90% of the MS64 dollars I see don't meet that criteria.
I wouldn't shed a single tear if ALL numbers used for grading coins went away and never returned.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
How many numbers can dance on the head of a pin?
Just no.
I believe it was over ten years ago while attending an NGC luncheon that Mark Salzburg NGC president said we will grade coins with light cabinet friction/rub, clean fields, and good luster, low grade mint state (60-62). You can't get much more out in the open than that, and that is exactly what they did and still do.
What I don't understand is why both major TPG's still define MS-60 and above coins as having "No trace of wear". Why not modify their written definitions of mint state coins to accurately reflect the way they are grading?
PCGS MS62 with obvious friction across the knee. Some would call it a slider, AU62, UNC, or MS. Either way I am happy with her as is but would never tell someone it has no wear. But I am a collector.
Attractive vs Unattractive toning is a HUGE missing attribution in the ANA standard. This needs to be updated by the ANA, not the TPG's.
I can appreciate your point but, "Attractive vs Unattractive" is so subjective that it would be difficult to create a standard for it.
AKA Pakasmom
This is so true. Another person may prefer a certain style/color of toning than me. Why would I pay a certain price or accept a given grade if he or she likes it. It’s my money and my coin.
Someone may prefer a Picasso over a Monet. That’s fine, but it should dictate whether or not it is an attractive painting to my eyes.
Love these provocative "poke the bear" threads!
I've got a few VF's that I might get regraded. I'm thinking at least one could get a VF-64 designation!
10-4,
My Instagram picturesErik
My registry sets
We've been dealing with this for decades, especially with CBH's and early copper, and we've had many threads on it. TDN's suggestion isn't the worst idea I've seen. How do YOU explain the issue to a new collector? I can't. It's funny when you read articles showing the pick-up points for wear on certain coins and as fastfreddie showed...Yup, there's wear...wait it's MS...Oh, the humanity!!!
We all agree I think that Seated Coins and older are graded MS with cabinet friction. Why not just add a little caption on the holder MS whatever "Cabinet Friction"?
I'm sure that the submitter would just love that and it would do wonders for the value.
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947):
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/
This is just a case of misgrading. It was graded incorrectly one of those times. And the last time IS NOT necessarily the correct time.
I can see TDN's point, and am kinda on the fence about it and it makes me think about the other side of the question, which is for example, I have quite a few rolls of 50's nickels that are BU, these years are known for extremely worn dies, dark planchets and so on, just cruddy looking MS coins, never the less THEY ARE MS coins and I'd say MS60 PERIOD, however if I threw them in my pocket for a day or two and gave em a little rub and friction would they be graded AU58 by ANYONE...............Hayeell NO.............they might get a VF 25 (if you were lucky) so should these be graded say MS25, MS25+. MS25*
Steve
Technical grading works with the circ vs unc concepts. Market grading does not. Since the TPGs are market grading it is obvious they should move to a simple point system and drop all verbiage. Just make a 64 a 64 and forget about AU/MS.
My personal preference would be for the TPGs to technically grade only and let the market handle the market grade (value). This would do more to end gradeflation than anything. But market grading (moving target) is way more profitable for the TPGs so with that in mind TDN is probably correct here.
Joseph J. Singleton - First Superintendent of the U.S. Branch Mint in Dahlonega Georgia
Findley Ridge Collection
About Findley Ridge
I like the idea from @Baley best.
I've also noticed that many of the detractors simply state their opposition and then follow up by stating that it is because it must be (which is no explanation at all!).
@tradedollarnut,
Folks tend not to like change, so they will resist simply for the sake of maintaining the status quo. Also, folks tend to think linearly which is why change comes slowly.
How does one get a hater to stop hating?
I can be reached at evillageprowler@gmail.com
Actually, the "grade" and the other markings on the slab insert paper will describe the Quality of the coin (overall state of preservation and any relevent specifics) along with the Identity (date, mint, variety, etc), any notable provenance or other history, and implicit representation of authenticity.
These aspects together form the basis for the value (which is obviously determined in each transaction between willing buyers and sellers, as has been helpfully pointed out over and over.) Still, the slab is intended to evaluate the piece.
I simply disagree that TPG grading and encapsulation of coins isn't or shouldn't be an appraisal at all.
Rather, appraisal of Quality seems to be (like it or not)
the main purpose.
And it is silly for coins of overall higher quality to grade a lower number.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
I agree with the concept of just putting a numerical grade on the slab with no VF, XF, AU, MS, etc. Each and every coin is unique and has its own value, if the TPG's are going to market grade (i.e. place value by assigning a grade), then just put the numeric grade on it, period.
Best, SH
Well, I kind of like the AU prices that are attached to coins to that are AU60-64. Secondly, an AU60-61 would probably look like sh&& and there is no real difference between AU60-61 and ms60-61. A few molecules of rub never bothered me any.
It's actually grade deflation, and there's almost no financial incentive on anyone's part for that. Imagine taking all the MS66 Saints and downgrading half of them to AU66. Oh, the horror..
I can't believe how many people are taking this as serious rather than a dig!
This one:
My YouTube Channel
IMO, all the TPGS have been doing this for years with some coins actually reaching the '64 level. Why rock the boat?
What is the basis of your premise? Values change, but the technical merits of a coin should not change if encapsulated and stored properly. Grading is more useful IMHO when it provides a static technical description of a coin and provides information that bidders and the market can use to price a coin. That is hard enough, but when you start trying to value coins it becomes unpredictable and more difficult. PCGS hires professional coin graders and not necessarily expert appraisers. You are propagating the original sin/flaw in the Sheldon scale IMHO. If we are going to start a new scale, we need to do it correctly so that it will survive the test of time
P.S. I have no problems with a superior AU coin selling for MS money.
What makes the MOST SENSE in my humble opinion is to return to the easiest Mint State standard to understand: "NO TRACE OF WEAR."
Circulated grades would be hardly affected at all. The prices for true Uncirculated coins would increase. The grades of 70 -80% of the bottom half of coins graded MS at this time (especially the gold) would drop to the AU range **yet their prices would be virtually unchanged." Coins like that Brasher w/rub would still be worth millions.
Then just grade the coins for their condition of preservation not what folks at a TPGS think they are worth. Best of all more folks would understand the numbers on the label AND...
**CAC would still exist!"
After reading this interesting and thought provoking thread, I find my self in agreement with @tradedollarnut. I have seen coins that had small degrees of rub, but were otherwise in the low 60's as far as strike and surface were concerned. The AU prefix would acknowledge the rub, while giving credit for the quality of strike and surface. As it stands now, such a coin is subject to considerable contention among collectors/dealers. Overall, it would be a positive move. Cheers, RickO
And I cannot believe I am saying this, but I am starting to miss the days when a coin with light rub was limited to MS62 (most cases) and now here we are willing to expand and normalize that up to MS64.
... and in some rare cases with obvious continuous hairlines!
How about using all of the numbers between 50 and 59 to grade AU coins. That is 10 grade slots. Add in a "+" and you have 20 grade slots.
This is what is done for MS coins, with grades ranging from 60 to 70.
One could have an AU 59+ graded coin that, while showing signs of the lightest trace of wear on a high point, is otherwise at the best of the best level.
Market values for AU 59+ coins would likely exceed the same values for MS 65 coins.
Collectors could chose what sandbox (AU vs MS) they want to play in.
Current AU slabbed coins could be submittted for regrading in the hope that on regrade a coin is graded either MS or a higher AU.
Regrades/crackouts would increase. Revenue streams for TPGs would increase.
Collectors and dealers could continue to play the crackout/regrade game in the hope of hitting a home run.
Technical grading of coins to place them on either side of the MS/AU line could be done while allowing for market values to be considered as a coin travels through a TPG.
Finally the 1-70 grading scale remains intact. It is simply utilized in a manner that allows the hobby to optimize its use.
Your thoughts?
Also, for those coins already slabbed as MS that show signs of slight wear, having those coins regraded to place them into holders with AU grades on the inserts at first blush may seem to be a problem for TPGs (grade guaranty liability). However if a grade guaranty for such a coin comes into play, if the market value of an MS64 coin that is downgraded to AU58+, the liability of the TPG under its guaranty is measured by the difference in value between the MS64 and AU58+ grade (likely the difference in wholesale value instead of retail, but that is a separate issue and a separate discussion). If the market value of an AU58+ coin is close to, equal to or even higher than the market value of an MS64 coin the loss suffered by a TPG under its grade guaranty my be minimal or even non existent.
I think I just bought an AU64, as the label says 64
1st try? Or 9th try?
How about if you think your coin is AU and graded MS incorrectly, crack it out and send it back in. Sure don't see much of that happening.
Sure would help PCGS with revenue too...
It's just a phase. Things will be back to normal in no time.
In the perfect world I agree with Insider2 "What makes the MOST SENSE in my humble opinion is to return to the easiest Mint State standard to understand: "NO TRACE OF WEAR."
BUT
As he also pointed out they have been doing this for years, SO, how do you deal with all the existing product?
When the ANA published the grading guide they introduced a problem by combining a coin's surface condition with the amount of design detail missing - the amount it is worn. Typical and Choice were chosen to describe the number of marks.
Previously (true technical system) for the internal records at ANACS, a coin went from AU-58 down thru 55 and finally to 50 based only on how much wear the coin had. A coin graded AU-58 due to very slight wear could have pristine fields or be beat up. The pristine AU-58 was called Choice AU (back then) and the baggy one was recorded as AU-58, excessive marks. This worked fine as it described the coin perfectly but only because we were not placing a value on the piece! As soon as the ANA guide was published, the baggy AU-58 was graded AU-50 "Typical" or copper guys would net grade it into the XF range although the coin had all of its original detail design except for some minor friction.
We could break the AU grade down to all the numbers between 50 and 60 if we treated it as we do the MS range but with values as they are for the majority of coins, why bother.
Another way to look at it is................are TPG's at fault or are the popular Price Guides at fault, a great example is that AU58's commonly trade for much more than MS60-63, the consensus is just because it's MS. it has to be worth more, 58's are usually well struck high quality while low MS are the bottom of barrel MS drecks , let the market dictate and buy the coin not the holder come to mind.............there will always be controversy...........always
Steve
In concept I absolutely agree with @tradedollarnut. It was a problem when high end AU coins ended up in holders graded MS61 and MS62. With very lightly circulated coins now appearing in MS63-MS64 holders that crosses a line. When I was working with Tom DeLorey we would often internally grade coins, especially Indian Head Gold AU62 because we acknowledged that the coin was AU but it would come back from N or P in a MS62 Holder. The question then becomes what is the purpose of grading, is it determining technical condition or determining value. The argument for the previous is that there were always disagreements and deception in grading so a third party was created to assign a standardized grade, nothing more. On the other hand TDN pointed out that the Sheldon scale was designed to determine value. I would argue that the grading services started off focusing on the technical merit but when the market began to rely so heavily on TPG, the TPG started to grade to represent value. This is neither good nor bad, it just is what it is.
In the end I think the idea of AU61-64 is impractical. On soft gold coins, what is wear and what is softness in strike? It is often hard to tell. What would happen? People would send in their coins multiple times as they do now for their AU64 to grade MS64. There is too much variability as it is for that to work.
I have paid higher than 65 and maybe 66 for a few of my 58 and 58+ Barber Half's as well as someone else I know of!
So how many of the 1804 Dollars don't have any wear or Rub or Graffiti?
Would all of the new AU grades qualify for “Everyman” sets?
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
What about the really ugly 60 coins that really shouldn’t be worth more than 45 money. Should we grade them MS45?
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.