Being in the business since 1990, I disagree with all of his points and very strongly reject number 3.
Then number 2 about grader rotation that is the call of the TPG and their evaluation of the grader how he fits in (skill set) within particular goals, formation. That wb like moving a Tight end to left guard. Or moving a chase down expert safety in 4-2-5 to 3-3-5 defense where the safety type needed is a ballhawk.
@Davideo said:
I don't have access to his further explanations, but how does the registry impact grading? I can see arguments for it's detriment to the hobby overall, but not really grading specifically. What am I missing?
I think it is mostly the hobby effect. But, arguably, it is the Registry sets that gave rise to the "+" grades. And the pursuit of the upgrade for Registry purposes does change the way people submit and resubmit to get the + grade. [Another reason why PCGS would be silly to take his advice.]
Interesting suggestions, and I can see the rationale behind each one. In fact, when they are distilled, they really mean the elimination of grades and the TPG's. Which, of course, will not happen. Just wait until computer grading becomes reality... Mr. Weinberg collects coins in the truest sense of coin collecting.... the hobby has long since moved beyond that. Cheers, RickO
@jmlanzaf said:
BUT BUT BUT, the bottom line is you have to respect the market. As much as I would love all collectors to think like me - I'd get in fewer arguments! - the market is what it is.
Markets can and do change to correct for inefficiencies.
@jmlanzaf said:
BUT BUT BUT, the bottom line is you have to respect the market. As much as I would love all collectors to think like me - I'd get in fewer arguments! - the market is what it is.
Markets can and do change to correct for inefficiencies.
Agreed. However, I would make 2 points:
That change still may not be closer to what I WANT. LOL
I wouldn't conflate preference with efficiency.
For example, you could argue that coin collecting is fundamentally inefficient. All historic coins should be in the Public Trust, held in museums and library for study. Recreation is, by its very nature, not tied up in efficiency. Is playing a round of golf in 2 hours instead of 4 hours more efficient? Yes. Is it more enjoyable? Probably not.
it would seem that the various TPG's have changed their practices to accommodate the needs and wants of the Hobby. Mr. Weinberg doesn't agree with those changes or, basically, the TPG concept. he has done what is best for himself and I applaud him for his steadfastness.
The + designation is a further ability to rank coins. And the history of numismatics had a very important and competitive group of copper collectors that 70-80 years ago would meet and lay down a coin and the opposing collector would then do the same , and there would be a “winner”, which was apparently a big deal then. It was called a “whisk”. John Bergman. Used to tell me about these.
Now today we have grading services and registries so collectors can have a “whisk” 24/7, and do it for all series.
I like it ;-)
Trying to obtain the best quality coins is very difficult without third party graders for most mortals. God forbid we return to the times of raw coins promoting as superb, finest, outstanding for a cleaned XF. That market nearly destroyed the hobby.
Interesting the comment about egos. I would guess most numismatic experts whether they are dealers or expert collectors have strong egos about there expertise. So I'm not sure the knock on over 100,000 collections posted on PCGS and thousands more on NGC has any validity. Coins sitting in a bank vault unseen and not shared does little in my opinion to add enjoyment to the hobby. The Bust Half Nut Club, Early American Copper Club and many others have detailed numerical rankings and varying levels of "competition" among collectors. All fun, never a black eye or a busted lip amongst us. The world only moves forward and not backward in time. Are some issues of marketing of more limited value? Yes, of course, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Most modern coinage is now forty to fifty years old, in fact much older than when the largest parts of the Eiliasberg collection was assembled by a father and son team in real time while the coins were being struck. Its easy to make statements about modern coins, but in fact the differences in grades are actually real at the high end. Not my cup of tea no doubt, but lots of low cost and fun collecting too be had.
I deeply appreciate the expertise and quality of the sets Mr. Weinberg assembled and I enthusiastically have added coins of his pedigree to my set. However, my friends and myself enjoy the PCGS registry a great deal. We've received thousands of collective hours of enjoyment watching each others sets making comments, calling, texting, updating, flattering, teasing, and ribbing each other. We've told tall tales, taught history, recounted vivid stories of great pick-ups and missed opportunities, and shared solid wisdom and epic failures. And we ain't going back...
@jmlanzaf said:
A few years ago I was on my way to my cousin's for a celebration. I stopped at the liquor store to buy wine. I know nothing about wine except for a few specific types that I enjoy. I wanted to get them something nice but don't know enough.
Soooo, the wine store had the Wine Spectator numerical ratings posted on the shelf. I was with my sister and we were talking, "this is nice looking and it got a 98", "doesn't she prefer white and this got a 96?".
The clerk came over and rolled his eyes and said, "You're not going to buy wine based on the numerical rating, are you?"
I said, quite honestly, "I don't know enough about wine so I need to go by something."
The clerk made a recommendation. We bought it and left. But I was a little miffed and said to my sister, "if he wants me to ignore the numbers, why did he put them on the shelf?"
That’s EXACTLY how I got into the wine hobby. I worked at Consumer Reports Magazine from 1973 - 1987, so I had a tremendous respect for rating subjective things in an objective manner. I too walked into a wine store in the early 1990’s, knew nothing, and was fascinated with the “shelf-talkers” that rated wines!
The same is true with my love of our wonderful hobby - the eye appeal/condition of each coin, which is somewhat subjective, is converted to an objective measure by applying a grade (and possibly a sticker).
WINEsteven
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@GoBust said:
Trying to obtain the best quality coins is very difficult without third party graders for most mortals. God forbid we return to the times of raw coins promoting as superb, finest, outstanding for a cleaned XF. That market nearly destroyed the hobby.
Interesting the comment about egos. I would guess most numismatic experts whether they are dealers or expert collectors have strong egos about there expertise. So I'm not sure the knock on over 100,000 collections posted on PCGS and thousands more on NGC has any validity. Coins sitting in a bank vault unseen and not shared does little in my opinion to add enjoyment to the hobby. The Bust Half Nut Club, Early American Copper Club and many others have detailed numerical rankings and varying levels of "competition" among collectors. All fun, never a black eye or a busted lip amongst us. The world only moves forward and not backward in time. Are some issues of marketing of more limited value? Yes, of course, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Most modern coinage is now forty to fifty years old, in fact much older than when the largest parts of the Eiliasberg collection was assembled by a father and son team in real time while the coins were being struck. Its easy to make statements about modern coins, but in fact the differences in grades are actually real at the high end. Not my cup of tea no doubt, but lots of low cost and fun collecting too be had.
I deeply appreciate the expertise and quality of the sets Mr. Weinberg assembled and I enthusiastically have added coins of his pedigree to my set. However, my friends and myself enjoy the PCGS registry a great deal. We've received thousands of collective hours of enjoyment watching each others sets making comments, calling, texting, updating, flattering, teasing, and ribbing each other. We've told tall tales, taught history, recounted vivid stories of great pick-ups and missed opportunities, and shared solid wisdom and epic failures. And we ain't going back...
Very well said. I never supported the grading of bullion coins but if other people want to spend their money on that have at it
@TurtleCat said:
3. Eliminate grading of anything made recently or mint made
I'm not in much agreement and see little reason to implement such changes. Two of them are somewhat contradictory but I am in favor of having as many specialists on staff as submissions support.
I do agree that recent coins should generally not be graded because the way we define grades is correlated more closely with value than the condition of the coin. Since there is no defined market for coins less than 2 or 3 years old there is no defined value and grading is ephemeral. Also it takes a little time before it's even known what the finest look like. People want to be the first on their block to own something and most coins lose this type of demand and prices fall.
The services can continue to slab these as genuine and/ or issue provisional grades since it's impossible to stop the demand.
The way we grade is about consistency and anything that hurts consistency hurts the services and hurts the hobby.
title should read "Recommended changes to grading company practices" since it deals with grading company policy and not actual grading standards.
Let him start his own TPG where he can make the rules.
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
Comments
Being in the business since 1990, I disagree with all of his points and very strongly reject number 3.
Then number 2 about grader rotation that is the call of the TPG and their evaluation of the grader how he fits in (skill set) within particular goals, formation. That wb like moving a Tight end to left guard. Or moving a chase down expert safety in 4-2-5 to 3-3-5 defense where the safety type needed is a ballhawk.
I think it is mostly the hobby effect. But, arguably, it is the Registry sets that gave rise to the "+" grades. And the pursuit of the upgrade for Registry purposes does change the way people submit and resubmit to get the + grade. [Another reason why PCGS would be silly to take his advice.]
Interesting suggestions, and I can see the rationale behind each one. In fact, when they are distilled, they really mean the elimination of grades and the TPG's. Which, of course, will not happen. Just wait until computer grading becomes reality... Mr. Weinberg collects coins in the truest sense of coin collecting.... the hobby has long since moved beyond that. Cheers, RickO
Markets can and do change to correct for inefficiencies.
I think the + grades are one point that I can agree.
There has never been a collector that enjoyed taking a loss on a coin
You cannot separate the two at the end of the day.
BST: KindaNewish (3/21/21), WQuarterFreddie (3/30/21), Meltdown (4/6/21), DBSTrader2 (5/5/21) AKA- unclemonkey on Blow Out
Agreed. However, I would make 2 points:
For example, you could argue that coin collecting is fundamentally inefficient. All historic coins should be in the Public Trust, held in museums and library for study. Recreation is, by its very nature, not tied up in efficiency. Is playing a round of golf in 2 hours instead of 4 hours more efficient? Yes. Is it more enjoyable? Probably not.
Would changing everything add one more collector?
I agree with some of his points but believe the TPGs need revenue drivers to maintain quality and innovation.
Anyway these are not the biggest issues facing numismatics. The bigger issue I maintain is getting more people interested in the hobby.
Sports cards are breaking price records every day, promoting the collectibility exponentially.
At the risk of a very short diversion from the thread... Which era sports cards? Just pre 1980s?
TurtleCat Gold Dollars
NLI
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/date-sets/hashtags-prefect-coin-grading-service-1879/album/7621
Yes, mostly pre 80's but reading recently Michael Jordan, Patrick Mahomes rookie cards are white hot.
Yes...but it would subtract 500,000.
it would seem that the various TPG's have changed their practices to accommodate the needs and wants of the Hobby. Mr. Weinberg doesn't agree with those changes or, basically, the TPG concept. he has done what is best for himself and I applaud him for his steadfastness.
The + designation is a further ability to rank coins. And the history of numismatics had a very important and competitive group of copper collectors that 70-80 years ago would meet and lay down a coin and the opposing collector would then do the same , and there would be a “winner”, which was apparently a big deal then. It was called a “whisk”. John Bergman. Used to tell me about these.
Now today we have grading services and registries so collectors can have a “whisk” 24/7, and do it for all series.
I like it ;-)
Trying to obtain the best quality coins is very difficult without third party graders for most mortals. God forbid we return to the times of raw coins promoting as superb, finest, outstanding for a cleaned XF. That market nearly destroyed the hobby.
Interesting the comment about egos. I would guess most numismatic experts whether they are dealers or expert collectors have strong egos about there expertise. So I'm not sure the knock on over 100,000 collections posted on PCGS and thousands more on NGC has any validity. Coins sitting in a bank vault unseen and not shared does little in my opinion to add enjoyment to the hobby. The Bust Half Nut Club, Early American Copper Club and many others have detailed numerical rankings and varying levels of "competition" among collectors. All fun, never a black eye or a busted lip amongst us. The world only moves forward and not backward in time. Are some issues of marketing of more limited value? Yes, of course, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Most modern coinage is now forty to fifty years old, in fact much older than when the largest parts of the Eiliasberg collection was assembled by a father and son team in real time while the coins were being struck. Its easy to make statements about modern coins, but in fact the differences in grades are actually real at the high end. Not my cup of tea no doubt, but lots of low cost and fun collecting too be had.
I deeply appreciate the expertise and quality of the sets Mr. Weinberg assembled and I enthusiastically have added coins of his pedigree to my set. However, my friends and myself enjoy the PCGS registry a great deal. We've received thousands of collective hours of enjoyment watching each others sets making comments, calling, texting, updating, flattering, teasing, and ribbing each other. We've told tall tales, taught history, recounted vivid stories of great pick-ups and missed opportunities, and shared solid wisdom and epic failures. And we ain't going back...
That’s EXACTLY how I got into the wine hobby. I worked at Consumer Reports Magazine from 1973 - 1987, so I had a tremendous respect for rating subjective things in an objective manner. I too walked into a wine store in the early 1990’s, knew nothing, and was fascinated with the “shelf-talkers” that rated wines!
The same is true with my love of our wonderful hobby - the eye appeal/condition of each coin, which is somewhat subjective, is converted to an objective measure by applying a grade (and possibly a sticker).
WINEsteven
My collecting “Pride & Joy” is my PCGS Registry Dansco 7070 Set:
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/type-sets/design-type-sets/complete-dansco-7070-modified-type-set-1796-date/publishedset/213996
This is the one I can agree with the most.
To me, it's important to have consistency across types.
Very well said. I never supported the grading of bullion coins but if other people want to spend their money on that have at it
That's like a hospital switching specialists to keep them from seeing the same kind of sick people.
I vote no.
I'm not in much agreement and see little reason to implement such changes. Two of them are somewhat contradictory but I am in favor of having as many specialists on staff as submissions support.
I do agree that recent coins should generally not be graded because the way we define grades is correlated more closely with value than the condition of the coin. Since there is no defined market for coins less than 2 or 3 years old there is no defined value and grading is ephemeral. Also it takes a little time before it's even known what the finest look like. People want to be the first on their block to own something and most coins lose this type of demand and prices fall.
The services can continue to slab these as genuine and/ or issue provisional grades since it's impossible to stop the demand.
The way we grade is about consistency and anything that hurts consistency hurts the services and hurts the hobby.
title should read "Recommended changes to grading company practices" since it deals with grading company policy and not actual grading standards.
Let him start his own TPG where he can make the rules.
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
Coins are inanimate objects which are much different than sick people.
Over time, people have noticed and reported that different series can be graded differently. I'd prefer all series to be graded more similarly.
If you only need one thing than specialization is good. Examples include collecting only a few coin series, or even having a rare disease.
But if you collect many coin series or are a type collector, more consistency is a good thing.
I'm in the consistency is good camp.
The nice thing about the plus grades is they get us to the 100 point grading scale
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1015887/the-100-point-grading-scale-in-use-today