@jmlanzaf said:
Technical grade alone does not explain CAC A/B/C. However, it is PART of the criteria. Next time you talk to John, please ask him whether a Technical 65.8 with good but not exceptional eye appeal is more or less likely to CAC than a 65.2 with exceptional eye appeal. I think we'd all like to know.
There’s something here that is close to what I’ve been trying to say.
Certain coins appeal to collectors more than others. Maybe stickers predict this appeal more accurately than numerical grades.
Of course, the best coins were selling for higher prices long before any of this modern commercial grading got started.....
FWIW, I like the 61 and 62 grades. A 63 is “Choice”. A 60 is Unc, but that the nicest thing you can say about it. A 61 is closer to 60. A 62 closer to 63. Simple enough. As for 53, I would side with JA. The attributes of 50 and 55 coins are so variable that using a 53 grade doesn’t add any meaningful clarity.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
@MrEureka said:
FWIW, I like the 61 and 62 grades. A 63 is “Choice”. A 60 is Unc, but that the nicest thing you can say about it. A 61 is closer to 60. A 62 closer to 63. Simple enough. As for 53, I would side with JA. The attributes of 50 and 55 coins are so variable that using a 53 grade doesn’t add any meaningful clarity.
I too like the 61 and 62 grades. When collecting liberty quarter eagles, sometimes the only coins available for a date or mint are 61 and 62. I can definitely see the difference between a 60, 61, 62 and 63. I agree that the 53 makes less sense to me.
@jmlanzaf said:
Technical grade alone does not explain CAC A/B/C. However, it is PART of the criteria. Next time you talk to John, please ask him whether a Technical 65.8 with good but not exceptional eye appeal is more or less likely to CAC than a 65.2 with exceptional eye appeal. I think we'd all like to know.
There’s something here that is close to what I’ve been trying to say.
Certain coins appeal to collectors more than others. Maybe stickers predict this appeal more accurately than numerical grades.
Of course, the best coins were selling for higher prices long before any of this modern commercial grading got started.....
Supposedly "marketability" figures into the CAC system [see earlier posts] probably as "eye appeal". It is really hard for me to assess in a detached professional way whether the CAC premium is reasonable or not. Once you move beyond sight-unseen slab pricing into "eye appeal", auction results reflect broad ranges of results for similarly TPGS graded coins, with or without CAC. Nowhere is that more obvious to me than with toners.
I like CAC. I value CAC tremendously for sight unseen purchases. But any slab or sticker should really only be part of the equation. But all of us have a somewhat different equation.
This thread is clearly representative how little of what has been learned has been put into practice in terms of grading. The mentality as expressed herein seems to be the greatest threat that prevents this hobby from being what it should be. This is truly a sad day.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
@coinkat said:
This thread is clearly representative how little of what has been learned has been put into practice in terms of grading. The mentality as expressed herein seems to be the greatest threat that prevents this hobby from being what it should be. This is truly a sad day.
Can you be more specific as to what mentality you are referring to and why it is so sad for you ?
I manage money. I earn money. I save money . I give away money. I collect money. I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
I don't see how JA could not have known the effects back in 2009 as they were already somewhat visible. The NGC coin market was getting destroyed in very early 2009....as well as the C and D coin market in general....a combo of the recession and CAC. The other half of this is was the divergence in A and B coin prices vs. C. It was quite clear, even in 2009. Of course that was going to raise the prices on what JA would have to pay for A and B coins following the 2009-2011 recession.... even up to the point where he couldn't readily buy them at his level. I saw many of my gem NGC coins fail to sticker for fairly small reasons. Their prices went from being 85-90% on average of PCGS to about 60-75%. And in some cases they fell all the way back to next grade down for an average coin. It certainly doesn't bother me to see that it limited CAC's ability to buy A and B quality coins.
The law of unintended consequences. No good deed goes unpunished.
@coinkat said:
This thread is clearly representative how little of what has been learned has been put into practice in terms of grading. The mentality as expressed herein seems to be the greatest threat that prevents this hobby from being what it should be. This is truly a sad day.
I think partly it is that there are different types of> @roadrunner said:
I don't see how JA could not have known the effects back in 2009 as they were already very visible. The NGC coin market was getting destroyed in very early 2009....as well as the C and D coin market in general. The other half of this is that was starting to push up the prices of A and B coins. It was quite clear, even in 2009. Of course that was going to raise the prices on what JA would have to pay for A and B coins, even up to the point where he couldn't readily buy them at his level. I saw many of my gem NGC coins fail to sticker for fairly small reasons. Their prices went from being 85-90% on average of PCGS to about 60-75%. And in some cases they fell all the way back to next grade down for an average coin. It certainly doesn't bother me to see that it limited CAC's ability to buy A and B quality coins.
The law of unintended consequences. No good deed goes unpunished.
I agree. He had to have suspected the direction if not the magnitude of the market move. His whole stated reason for CAC was to free the A/B coins from the drag of the C coins.
JA knew what was going on way back when. he was a major coin buyer. He saw the problems. I saw them too. The only problem: too many people were making way too much money and had blinders on not caring about the future. I was there in 2008/9.I'll never forget an ANA Show in Denver where one grading service just opened up and every one made everything. That never should have happened-but it did too many times (1 is 1 too much).
When I consider a non cac coin to purchase, the biggest factor for me is why it did not CAC. Since I generally collect gold coins, if the coin is simply a "C" coin for the grade I will consider it (look at population, price, whether other opportunities exist, etc). However, if the coin did not sticker for lack of originality I will almost always pass.
@MrEureka said:
FWIW, I like the 61 and 62 grades. A 63 is “Choice”. A 60 is Unc, but that the nicest thing you can say about it. A 61 is closer to 60. A 62 closer to 63. Simple enough. As for 53, I would side with JA. The attributes of 50 and 55 coins are so variable that using a 53 grade doesn’t add any meaningful clarity.
I too like the 61 and 62 grades. When collecting liberty quarter eagles, sometimes the only coins available for a date or mint are 61 and 62. I can definitely see the difference between a 60, 61, 62 and 63. I agree that the 53 makes less sense to me.
I am going to be the odd man out and say that AU53 makes more sense to me than hair splitting at the lower MS range. Many AU50s I see are really grade inflated XF coins, and often there is a huge difference in quality between AU50 and AU55 both in terms of meat and luster. For more valuable coins especially, I think AU53 has become an important market grade.
I plan to be brief even though there is so much to write to clarify my views as to the future of grading and what it is and is not. As a starting point, grading serves of purpose that should best describe the state of preservation of coins. And as we all know, a grade assigned to a coin is predicated on how a coin measures up to standards that exist... Some more general with others being specific to individual series. While there are some disputes as to what those standards should be or how they should be measured and applied, there does seem to be a consensus surrounding the acceptance and use of the Sheldon Scale. And even it had a history before it was widely accepted. So grading has been an evolutionary process and must remain a work in progress that represents what has been learned through research and over time.
What has been learned and observed that is significant in grading does not make the main stream in terms reshaping the way we think about grading because there is simply no vested interest in doing so. Instead grading has taken a back seat to how coins are marketed. It is a sad day when the coin is no longer center stage and has been replaced by an opinion... And it only gets worse because a coin now has the stigma of doubt after being graded appropriately by a TPG because it does not have a sticker. It is a sad day when we are not able to act rationally and allow what it is that we collect have the center of attention. Coin collecting seems to be threatened by a shift away from what should be constant... And that is the coin itself. The threat is manifested in the obsession of an opinion. An opinion that is subjective and can change. And while I will concede that some opinions are better than others, there are those that somehow believe that opinions are absolute. I unwilling to be silenced by the misplaced view that that there must be something wrong with a coin if it is not in the right holder or stickered.
The idea of A,B and C coins seem to follow what likely would be like a bell shaped curve for coins within a grade. Not all coins are created equal at a certain grade is to be expected. Understanding the reasons for the variation is more important. And these reasons are sometimes less obvious than others but that is not a reason to undertaken the challenge and learn to appreciate the differences.
The idea of fewer grades does nothing to advance the natural progression of grading. I have not heard or read anything that creates a better future for grading and the meaningful purpose grading should serve. However, it does seem to help further cultivate and delineate coins within a conceptual model for marketing.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
The idea of A,B and C coins seem to follow what likely would be like a bell shaped curve for coins within a grade. Not all coins are created equal at a certain grade is to be expected.
Yes, some coins are high end for the grade and others low end, but it’s nothing like a bell curve. The distribution for each grade will tend to follow the distribution curve for all grades. So there will usually be more high end or more low end coins for any given grade, depending on the slope of the larger curve. ) Just a quibble, but I wanted to somehow acknowledge your post. 🙂
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
John asserts the likelihood a coin would have been seen by CAC is subject to the size of the spread between the CAC and non CAC value or bid. Of course the bigger spread ones the 5 star recruits heavily sought after. The sheet reports the CAC bids for many issues. Sort of like a treasure hunt if that is your game. Have they all been picked off or there some out there?
I do see many who are crackout players cruising the bourse for nice coins which will CAC also assuming a big uptick in bid value if sticker. PQ coins will sell quickly I had 2 one CAC one not sell within a week or so of being acquired. The CAC coin a MS66 Texas I paid slightly over the CAC bid (won a bid war) I was skeptic would sell quickly with my cost plus and then pleasantly surprised.
The idea of A,B and C coins seem to follow what likely would be like a bell shaped curve for coins within a grade. Not all coins are created equal at a certain grade is to be expected.
Yes, some coins are high end for the grade and others low end, but it’s nothing like a bell curve. The distribution for each grade will tend to follow the distribution curve for all grades. So there will usually be more high end or more low end coins for any given grade, depending on the slope of the larger curve. ) Just a quibble, but I wanted to somehow acknowledge your post. 🙂
I disagree. My post is too simplistic and needs to be explained further but I'll let others write about wear patterns, melting, etc that affect the coins we find. Otherwise, IMO raw coins go straight up the grade bracket with all conditions present. The only reason what you state exists is artificial influences manifested ONLY by the coins that are sent in for grading. Low-end coins were sent hoping to get the next grade up (they did) while high-end coins didn't quite make it.
The idea of A,B and C coins seem to follow what likely would be like a bell shaped curve for coins within a grade. Not all coins are created equal at a certain grade is to be expected.
Yes, some coins are high end for the grade and others low end, but it’s nothing like a bell curve. The distribution for each grade will tend to follow the distribution curve for all grades. So there will usually be more high end or more low end coins for any given grade, depending on the slope of the larger curve. ) Just a quibble, but I wanted to somehow acknowledge your post. 🙂
I disagree. My post is too simplistic and needs to be explained further but I'll let others write about wear patterns, melting, etc that affect the coins we find. Otherwise, IMO raw coins go straight up the grade bracket with all conditions present. The only reason what you state exists is artificial influences manifested ONLY by the coins that are sent in for grading. Low-end coins were sent hoping to get the next grade up (they did) while high-end coins didn't quite make it.
I think you're missing the point, so here's an example. Imagine a coin with a pop of 1000 in 64, 100 in 65, and 10 in 66. There will be far more coins that just barely made 65 than just barely missed 66.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Sorry. I did miss the point. That is correct when we are talking about a TPGS which I guess this discussion is all about. Of course, it does not apply to TPG Silver Eagles either or the highest grades.
The quantity of coins within a population "grade" is immaterial.
One must first have clear definitions of each "grade," then allow the coins to fall wherever they might by applying those definitions strictly and consistently among all of the TPGs, and other practitioners.
If this is done, then statistical methods can be used to validate the accuracy of "grading."
@RogerB said:
The quantity of coins within a population "grade" is immaterial.
One must first have clear definitions of each "grade," then allow the coins to fall wherever they might by applying those definitions strictly and consistently among all of the TPGs, and other practitioners.
If this is done, then statistical methods can be used to validate the accuracy of "grading."
As you know, there are too many subjective variables for us to ever set strict definitions for every grade. Get used to it.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Eliminate as much of the subjectivity and variability as possible - or is that too much interference with commercial greed and ignorance?
The present non-system perpetuates price inflation along with grade inflation, neither of which actually affect the real value of an item. TPGs were supposed to eliminate fakes and stabilize condition. The have done the former (at least within their slabs), but have failed in the latter. Hence the growth of approval stickers and "I'll buy it" stickers and other gimmicks that produce more confusion than the "old days" when buyers and sellers could openly disagree. Now, the mighty TPG-Gods decree and the "Stickeratti" declare, and the collector/numismatist gets raped and abused like a Wally Breen protégé .
@RogerB said:
The quantity of coins within a population "grade" is immaterial.
One must first have clear definitions of each "grade," then allow the coins to fall wherever they might by applying those definitions strictly and consistently among all of the TPGs, and other practitioners.
If this is done, then statistical methods can be used to validate the accuracy of "grading."
As you know, there are too many subjective variables for us to ever set strict definitions for every grade. Get used to it.
I'll need to disagree again. I believe every circulated grade is STILL fairly formalized. Back in the 1970's, our "true" technical grading system removed so much subjectivity we could consistently grade with precision. This system was ONLY USED at two services located in Washington DC. One was INSAB the first TPGS. It was based on the Sheldon System and there were NOT 10 MS grades at the time. With hardly any change at all, it is still workable today. However, value was not a consideration in that system.
You'll love this one...we graded coins under fluorescent light with a stereo microscope set at 7X WHILE WE AUTHENTICATED THEM.
There is a reason, fluorescent light is not recommended by 99.9999% of professionals. Try it and see why.
Eliminate as much of the subjectivity and variability as possible
How about some specific proposals?
Simple- Grade all morgan dollars on the same level. If the coin is an 1889-cc that is a 64, call it a 64. If an 1881-s $1 is in ms64, call it ms64.
Placing those same 2 coins next to each other should leave you feeling that they are both consistent for the grade.
Same with say $20 Saints in ms65.
Look at what pcgs calls ms66 for a 1924 and then look at what the call ms65 for 1910. I will almost guarantee that the ms65 1910 will look significantly nicer than the 1924 even though the 1924 is graded higher.
I have spoken to DH and DW when they were at PCGS and neither had a good answer for why certain rarities are graded more strictly. As @RogerB says- grade the same standard and let fall which grades are truly rare.
Personally when I looked at my grading results from the Long beach grading contest, I laughed at the results. I graded the coins in my opinion according to old pcgs standards of what is considered A-C for the grade and I kept telling myself during the contest- this is an b+/ A ms65 but im guessing pcgs called it ms66 but it would never sticker. So I wrote ms65. I was disappointed when I saw the answer as ms66. Not in myself or my grading standards but in my opinion what I thought was overgraded.
(There was a $10 piece that I graded nice ms65 but pcgs called ms66. In my opinion should have been ms65. Also another gold coin that I called au55 that was dull but was called au58. I disagreed. some others I felt the same. I was not unhappy with my results. I was unhappy with theirs
@joebb21 said:
Simple- Grade all morgan dollars on the same level. If the coin is an 1889-cc that is a 64, call it a 64. If an 1881-s $1 is in ms64, call it ms64.
Placing those same 2 coins next to each other should leave you feeling that they are both consistent for the grade.
Same with say $20 Saints in ms65.
Look at what pcgs calls ms66 for a 1924 and then look at what the call ms65 for 1910. I will almost guarantee that the ms65 1910 will look significantly nicer than the 1924 even though the 1924 is graded higher.
I have spoken to DH and DW when they were at PCGS and neither had a good answer for why certain rarities are graded more strictly. As @RogerB says- grade the same standard and let fall which grades are truly rare.
This has always bothered me. My guess is that there is a tendency to limit exposure/liability under the guarantee.
Now, the mighty TPG-Gods decree and the "Stickeratti" declare, and the collector/numismatist gets raped and abused like a Wally Breen protégé .
Roger, while people might agree that collectors are unfairly bearing the burden of many industry practices, equating this with what Breen did to children....... I’m shocked. Your comparison is sickening. Losing a few bucks participating in a hobby is not comparable to destroying a child’s life before it even gets started.
There seems to be an unwritten law that any CAC thread must eventually end badly. This one is no exception and I’m regretful now that I had any part in it.
The comparison was intended to "be sickening" --- because that is what is happening to core attributes of coin collecting. The primary advantage is that The Hobby can fix itself IF the business leaders and organizations choose to do so and to change course.
My comments have little to do with the OP's initial comments and message; the thread's subject saw a business opportunity and took it.
Eliminate as much of the subjectivity and variability as possible
How about some specific proposals?
I've posted several starter proposals here and elsewhere -- several times -- beginning with 3 fixed "set points." Nothing but "head in the sand" objections from most. [With apologies to Dr. Seuss.]
The entire subject is too simple to require much work to implement. The basics were done by ANA and others decades ago. TPGs initially made important contributions to definitions. Then - it evaporated. The good work was ignored. Excuses made. Woeful hand-wringing by "business" people who wanted constant growth in place of steady, honest productivity. "Grades" stretched and twisted like taffy on a hot summer day.
Good news is -- It can be changed for the better, and with limited down-side to collectors. (Speculators and "crack-out" crackers will suffer - as should all speculators who guess wrong.)
The short story is: Use technology to stabilize agreed upon standards - not just grading but things like "proof-like" or off-center percent. Stabilized points (or ranges, actually) become the base for in-fill.
Another poster mentioned a hypothetical situation of coin populations of 1,000; 100, and 10 in MS63; 64; and 65 respectively. The real question is: If MS-63 = x and MS-65 = z, where does MS-64 = y lie in relation to x and z ? Do we agree on a means of describing each and then on the interval between them? ....Or something else. Also -- where does MS-65 lie in relation to MS-70 (perfect as struck)?
PS: The discussion has morphed into something quite good and potentially useful - if members and others reading will put aside their present opinions and look for ways to improve, not complicate or confuse.
@Zoins said:
Micro grading is one reason I like tokens and medals. I have coins but it’s nice to not need to think about all this stuff all the time.
What do you consider to be "micro grading." Am I correct that it refers to being too critical or using more than your naked eye or 5X to examine a coin?
I think in the context of the video, micro grading is splitting hairs that don't need to be split. Eg grades such as VF25, AU53 and MS61.
The whole thing is perception. Few are experienced AND competent.
The PUBLIC wants and needs simplicity.
The PUBLIC is also concerned greatly with resale price retention.
The available published information ...confirms... that a sticker sells easily and for more money.
Ergo: MOST coin buyers really should pay more for the peace of mind and reliability that their own personal skill set NEEDS !
@Zoins said:
Micro grading is one reason I like tokens and medals. I have coins but it’s nice to not need to think about all this stuff all the time.
What do you consider to be "micro grading." Am I correct that it refers to being too critical or using more than your naked eye or 5X to examine a coin?
I think in the context of the video, micro grading is splitting hairs that don't need to be split. Eg grades such as VF25, AU53 and MS61.
That's not what I understand it to be. Perhaps it means noticing things on a coin that are not significant enough to matter such as a small amount of friction wear or some small scratches.
@Zoins said:
Micro grading is one reason I like tokens and medals. I have coins but it’s nice to not need to think about all this stuff all the time.
What do you consider to be "micro grading." Am I correct that it refers to being too critical or using more than your naked eye or 5X to examine a coin?
I think in the context of the video, micro grading is splitting hairs that don't need to be split. Eg grades such as VF25, AU53 and MS61.
That's not what I understand it to be. Perhaps it means noticing things on a coin that are not significant enough to matter such as a small amount of friction wear or some small scratches.
To me, micro-grading is focusing on and penalizing a coin too much for a minor flaw, while at the same time, ignoring its positive attributes.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Comments
There’s something here that is close to what I’ve been trying to say.
Certain coins appeal to collectors more than others. Maybe stickers predict this appeal more accurately than numerical grades.
Of course, the best coins were selling for higher prices long before any of this modern commercial grading got started.....
FWIW, I like the 61 and 62 grades. A 63 is “Choice”. A 60 is Unc, but that the nicest thing you can say about it. A 61 is closer to 60. A 62 closer to 63. Simple enough. As for 53, I would side with JA. The attributes of 50 and 55 coins are so variable that using a 53 grade doesn’t add any meaningful clarity.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
I too like the 61 and 62 grades. When collecting liberty quarter eagles, sometimes the only coins available for a date or mint are 61 and 62. I can definitely see the difference between a 60, 61, 62 and 63. I agree that the 53 makes less sense to me.
Supposedly "marketability" figures into the CAC system [see earlier posts] probably as "eye appeal". It is really hard for me to assess in a detached professional way whether the CAC premium is reasonable or not. Once you move beyond sight-unseen slab pricing into "eye appeal", auction results reflect broad ranges of results for similarly TPGS graded coins, with or without CAC. Nowhere is that more obvious to me than with toners.
I like CAC. I value CAC tremendously for sight unseen purchases. But any slab or sticker should really only be part of the equation. But all of us have a somewhat different equation.
I'll make my comment really simple: too much of nothing written here. Be glad CAC exists. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.
This thread is clearly representative how little of what has been learned has been put into practice in terms of grading. The mentality as expressed herein seems to be the greatest threat that prevents this hobby from being what it should be. This is truly a sad day.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Can you be more specific as to what mentality you are referring to and why it is so sad for you ?
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
I don't see how JA could not have known the effects back in 2009 as they were already somewhat visible. The NGC coin market was getting destroyed in very early 2009....as well as the C and D coin market in general....a combo of the recession and CAC. The other half of this is was the divergence in A and B coin prices vs. C. It was quite clear, even in 2009. Of course that was going to raise the prices on what JA would have to pay for A and B coins following the 2009-2011 recession.... even up to the point where he couldn't readily buy them at his level. I saw many of my gem NGC coins fail to sticker for fairly small reasons. Their prices went from being 85-90% on average of PCGS to about 60-75%. And in some cases they fell all the way back to next grade down for an average coin. It certainly doesn't bother me to see that it limited CAC's ability to buy A and B quality coins.
The law of unintended consequences. No good deed goes unpunished.
@roadrunner said: I saw many of my gem NGC coins fail to sticker for fairly small reasons.
I'm surprised to hear this, since you have a great eye and very high standards. What sort of imperfections meet RR approval but not CAC approval?
I think partly it is that there are different types of> @roadrunner said:
I agree. He had to have suspected the direction if not the magnitude of the market move. His whole stated reason for CAC was to free the A/B coins from the drag of the C coins.
Glad to see I was able to make you laugh CJ
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
JA knew what was going on way back when. he was a major coin buyer. He saw the problems. I saw them too. The only problem: too many people were making way too much money and had blinders on not caring about the future. I was there in 2008/9.I'll never forget an ANA Show in Denver where one grading service just opened up and every one made everything. That never should have happened-but it did too many times (1 is 1 too much).
The theories said here are just ridiculous!
When I consider a non cac coin to purchase, the biggest factor for me is why it did not CAC. Since I generally collect gold coins, if the coin is simply a "C" coin for the grade I will consider it (look at population, price, whether other opportunities exist, etc). However, if the coin did not sticker for lack of originality I will almost always pass.
I am going to be the odd man out and say that AU53 makes more sense to me than hair splitting at the lower MS range. Many AU50s I see are really grade inflated XF coins, and often there is a huge difference in quality between AU50 and AU55 both in terms of meat and luster. For more valuable coins especially, I think AU53 has become an important market grade.
I plan to be brief even though there is so much to write to clarify my views as to the future of grading and what it is and is not. As a starting point, grading serves of purpose that should best describe the state of preservation of coins. And as we all know, a grade assigned to a coin is predicated on how a coin measures up to standards that exist... Some more general with others being specific to individual series. While there are some disputes as to what those standards should be or how they should be measured and applied, there does seem to be a consensus surrounding the acceptance and use of the Sheldon Scale. And even it had a history before it was widely accepted. So grading has been an evolutionary process and must remain a work in progress that represents what has been learned through research and over time.
What has been learned and observed that is significant in grading does not make the main stream in terms reshaping the way we think about grading because there is simply no vested interest in doing so. Instead grading has taken a back seat to how coins are marketed. It is a sad day when the coin is no longer center stage and has been replaced by an opinion... And it only gets worse because a coin now has the stigma of doubt after being graded appropriately by a TPG because it does not have a sticker. It is a sad day when we are not able to act rationally and allow what it is that we collect have the center of attention. Coin collecting seems to be threatened by a shift away from what should be constant... And that is the coin itself. The threat is manifested in the obsession of an opinion. An opinion that is subjective and can change. And while I will concede that some opinions are better than others, there are those that somehow believe that opinions are absolute. I unwilling to be silenced by the misplaced view that that there must be something wrong with a coin if it is not in the right holder or stickered.
The idea of A,B and C coins seem to follow what likely would be like a bell shaped curve for coins within a grade. Not all coins are created equal at a certain grade is to be expected. Understanding the reasons for the variation is more important. And these reasons are sometimes less obvious than others but that is not a reason to undertaken the challenge and learn to appreciate the differences.
The idea of fewer grades does nothing to advance the natural progression of grading. I have not heard or read anything that creates a better future for grading and the meaningful purpose grading should serve. However, it does seem to help further cultivate and delineate coins within a conceptual model for marketing.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Yes, some coins are high end for the grade and others low end, but it’s nothing like a bell curve. The distribution for each grade will tend to follow the distribution curve for all grades. So there will usually be more high end or more low end coins for any given grade, depending on the slope of the larger curve. ) Just a quibble, but I wanted to somehow acknowledge your post. 🙂
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
John asserts the likelihood a coin would have been seen by CAC is subject to the size of the spread between the CAC and non CAC value or bid. Of course the bigger spread ones the 5 star recruits heavily sought after. The sheet reports the CAC bids for many issues. Sort of like a treasure hunt if that is your game. Have they all been picked off or there some out there?
I do see many who are crackout players cruising the bourse for nice coins which will CAC also assuming a big uptick in bid value if sticker. PQ coins will sell quickly I had 2 one CAC one not sell within a week or so of being acquired. The CAC coin a MS66 Texas I paid slightly over the CAC bid (won a bid war) I was skeptic would sell quickly with my cost plus and then pleasantly surprised.
I disagree. My post is too simplistic and needs to be explained further but I'll let others write about wear patterns, melting, etc that affect the coins we find. Otherwise, IMO raw coins go straight up the grade bracket with all conditions present. The only reason what you state exists is artificial influences manifested ONLY by the coins that are sent in for grading. Low-end coins were sent hoping to get the next grade up (they did) while high-end coins didn't quite make it.
I think you're missing the point, so here's an example. Imagine a coin with a pop of 1000 in 64, 100 in 65, and 10 in 66. There will be far more coins that just barely made 65 than just barely missed 66.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Sorry. I did miss the point. That is correct when we are talking about a TPGS which I guess this discussion is all about. Of course, it does not apply to TPG Silver Eagles either or the highest grades.
The quantity of coins within a population "grade" is immaterial.
One must first have clear definitions of each "grade," then allow the coins to fall wherever they might by applying those definitions strictly and consistently among all of the TPGs, and other practitioners.
If this is done, then statistical methods can be used to validate the accuracy of "grading."
As you know, there are too many subjective variables for us to ever set strict definitions for every grade. Get used to it.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Nope.
Eliminate as much of the subjectivity and variability as possible - or is that too much interference with commercial greed and ignorance?
The present non-system perpetuates price inflation along with grade inflation, neither of which actually affect the real value of an item. TPGs were supposed to eliminate fakes and stabilize condition. The have done the former (at least within their slabs), but have failed in the latter. Hence the growth of approval stickers and "I'll buy it" stickers and other gimmicks that produce more confusion than the "old days" when buyers and sellers could openly disagree. Now, the mighty TPG-Gods decree and the "Stickeratti" declare, and the collector/numismatist gets raped and abused like a Wally Breen protégé .
I'll need to disagree again. I believe every circulated grade is STILL fairly formalized. Back in the 1970's, our "true" technical grading system removed so much subjectivity we could consistently grade with precision. This system was ONLY USED at two services located in Washington DC. One was INSAB the first TPGS. It was based on the Sheldon System and there were NOT 10 MS grades at the time. With hardly any change at all, it is still workable today. However, value was not a consideration in that system.
You'll love this one...we graded coins under fluorescent light with a stereo microscope set at 7X WHILE WE AUTHENTICATED THEM.
There is a reason, fluorescent light is not recommended by 99.9999% of professionals. Try it and see why.
How about some specific proposals?
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Simple- Grade all morgan dollars on the same level. If the coin is an 1889-cc that is a 64, call it a 64. If an 1881-s $1 is in ms64, call it ms64.
Placing those same 2 coins next to each other should leave you feeling that they are both consistent for the grade.
Same with say $20 Saints in ms65.
Look at what pcgs calls ms66 for a 1924 and then look at what the call ms65 for 1910. I will almost guarantee that the ms65 1910 will look significantly nicer than the 1924 even though the 1924 is graded higher.
I have spoken to DH and DW when they were at PCGS and neither had a good answer for why certain rarities are graded more strictly. As @RogerB says- grade the same standard and let fall which grades are truly rare.
Personally when I looked at my grading results from the Long beach grading contest, I laughed at the results. I graded the coins in my opinion according to old pcgs standards of what is considered A-C for the grade and I kept telling myself during the contest- this is an b+/ A ms65 but im guessing pcgs called it ms66 but it would never sticker. So I wrote ms65. I was disappointed when I saw the answer as ms66. Not in myself or my grading standards but in my opinion what I thought was overgraded.
(There was a $10 piece that I graded nice ms65 but pcgs called ms66. In my opinion should have been ms65. Also another gold coin that I called au55 that was dull but was called au58. I disagreed. some others I felt the same. I was not unhappy with my results. I was unhappy with theirs
There's a difference between grading coins and grading + pricing coins.
I wish we could go back to the former and ditch the latter.
It would make it easier to trust that the coin you're buying is going to look like what you expect it to, that's for sure.
This has always bothered me. My guess is that there is a tendency to limit exposure/liability under the guarantee.
Roger, while people might agree that collectors are unfairly bearing the burden of many industry practices, equating this with what Breen did to children....... I’m shocked. Your comparison is sickening. Losing a few bucks participating in a hobby is not comparable to destroying a child’s life before it even gets started.
There seems to be an unwritten law that any CAC thread must eventually end badly. This one is no exception and I’m regretful now that I had any part in it.
The comparison was intended to "be sickening" --- because that is what is happening to core attributes of coin collecting. The primary advantage is that The Hobby can fix itself IF the business leaders and organizations choose to do so and to change course.
My comments have little to do with the OP's initial comments and message; the thread's subject saw a business opportunity and took it.
I've posted several starter proposals here and elsewhere -- several times -- beginning with 3 fixed "set points." Nothing but "head in the sand" objections from most. [With apologies to Dr. Seuss.]
The entire subject is too simple to require much work to implement. The basics were done by ANA and others decades ago. TPGs initially made important contributions to definitions. Then - it evaporated. The good work was ignored. Excuses made. Woeful hand-wringing by "business" people who wanted constant growth in place of steady, honest productivity. "Grades" stretched and twisted like taffy on a hot summer day.
Good news is -- It can be changed for the better, and with limited down-side to collectors. (Speculators and "crack-out" crackers will suffer - as should all speculators who guess wrong.)
The short story is: Use technology to stabilize agreed upon standards - not just grading but things like "proof-like" or off-center percent. Stabilized points (or ranges, actually) become the base for in-fill.
Another poster mentioned a hypothetical situation of coin populations of 1,000; 100, and 10 in MS63; 64; and 65 respectively. The real question is: If MS-63 = x and MS-65 = z, where does MS-64 = y lie in relation to x and z ? Do we agree on a means of describing each and then on the interval between them? ....Or something else. Also -- where does MS-65 lie in relation to MS-70 (perfect as struck)?
PS: The discussion has morphed into something quite good and potentially useful - if members and others reading will put aside their present opinions and look for ways to improve, not complicate or confuse.
I think in the context of the video, micro grading is splitting hairs that don't need to be split. Eg grades such as VF25, AU53 and MS61.
The whole thing is perception. Few are experienced AND competent.
The PUBLIC wants and needs simplicity.
The PUBLIC is also concerned greatly with resale price retention.
The available published information ...confirms... that a sticker sells easily and for more money.
Ergo: MOST coin buyers really should pay more for the peace of mind and reliability that their own personal skill set NEEDS !
or so I sees it
That's not what I understand it to be. Perhaps it means noticing things on a coin that are not significant enough to matter such as a small amount of friction wear or some small scratches.
To me, micro-grading is focusing on and penalizing a coin too much for a minor flaw, while at the same time, ignoring its positive attributes.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Accuracy versus 👇 Precision in Coin Grading... 🧐😉
Stuart
Collect 18th & 19th Century US Type Coins, Silver Dollars, $20 Gold Double Eagles and World Crowns & Talers with High Eye Appeal
"Luck is what happens when Preparation meets Opportunity"