Home World & Ancient Coins Forum

Are English auction houses starting to combat over grading?

ExbritExbrit Posts: 1,237 ✭✭✭✭
edited August 14, 2022 3:21PM in World & Ancient Coins Forum

I’ve been seeing more British catalog descriptions of TPG holdered coins using terms such as : generously graded and very generously graded in British auctions lately. Are they tightening?

Tagged:

Comments

  • SapyxSapyx Posts: 1,976 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I'd read it as just a commentary on the standard disparity between British and American grading standards, and the use of the same abbreviations for both grading standards.

    They just want to make sure that their British customers know that just because the crazy Americans are calling this coin "EF40", that doesn't mean it's actually "EF", because it's more like "VF" or "good Fine".

    Waste no more time arguing what a good man should be. Be one.
    Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius, "Meditations"

    Apparently I have been awarded one DPOTD. B)
  • bidaskbidask Posts: 13,834 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Sapyx said:
    I'd read it as just a commentary on the standard disparity between British and American grading standards, and the use of the same abbreviations for both grading standards.

    They just want to make sure that their British customers know that just because the crazy Americans are calling this coin "EF40", that doesn't mean it's actually "EF", because it's more like "VF" or "good Fine".

    Really ?

    Please tell me more,

    I thought it was British and Europeans who are late to the grading party .

    I recall being at a well known British dealer’s bourse table some years ago at the NYINC

    He was handing his raw coins with his thumb and forefinger without thought
    ( apparently) with his finger on the fields of the coin … not holding the coin by the rims.

    I know my comment is not directly associated with yours but I find it hard to believe that the British are somehow more conservative in their grading 🤓

    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.




  • coinkatcoinkat Posts: 22,720 ✭✭✭✭✭

    There is a distinct difference in grading on the other side of the pond. And trying to describe that difference in a few words is a challenge. I see the critical difference is the emphasis placed on the strike and what a full/complete strike should be even if it rarely exists. And that incompleteness is often deemed to be wear... whether it is from circulation or not. In the states, there is a greater emphasis on the surviving state of the coin itself. I am not suggesting the strike is not important but it is not the critical factor. A less sharply struck coin on this side of the pond will still obtain an MS grade which simply is unlikely in the UK.

    The better option for the UK auction catalogers is to use a British grade that is appropriate within their grade range with the TPG grade secondary without a commentary as to whether a coin is generously graded. Frankly I have seen enough UK catalogers generously grade coins without TPG assistance.

    Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.

  • AbueloAbuelo Posts: 1,758 ✭✭✭✭✭

    US XF is not the same as UK XF, that is all. Now if something was over graded, good if they described as such.

  • SapyxSapyx Posts: 1,976 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @bidask said:
    Really ?

    Please tell me more,

    I thought it was British and Europeans who are late to the grading party .

    I recall being at a well known British dealer’s bourse table some years ago at the NYINC

    He was handing his raw coins with his thumb and forefinger without thought
    ( apparently) with his finger on the fields of the coin … not holding the coin by the rims.

    I know my comment is not directly associated with yours but I find it hard to believe that the British are somehow more conservative in their grading 🤓

    Long ago - we're talking hundreds of years ago - coin collecting was the eccentric hobby of a few rich people. These collectors soon realised the concept that coins in better condition were worth more, so needed descriptive terms to help quantify this concept. They invented the concept of the "condition" or "grade" of a coin. The words they used were intended to have their literal, common-use meaning: a coin that was in "fair" condition actually was kind of average, a coin labelled "Good" was actually pretty good, while a coin in "Fine" condition was about the best one could hope for. Remember, for the most part, we're talking Ancient coins, and mediaeval hammered, because that was all that there really was to collect back then. And Fine was about as good as you could get.

    Then, countries started making coins specifically for collectors - I'm thinking of all those thalers and multiple-thalers issued by those hundreds of tiny German principalities, all aimed at that aristocratic collector market, none of which ever actually entered circulation as money - Europe's first NCLT. Suddenly, "Fine" wasn't the best their was, so we added superlatives: "Very Fine". Then "Extremely fine". Finally, in the early 20th century, the concept of "Uncirculated" caught on. And so the collection of grading terminology was more or less complete.

    What happened next was gradeflation: the words stayed the same, but the conditions that the words were attached to gradually drifted downwards.

    It is obvious that gradeflation has happened, because a coin in "Good" condition is no longer literally pretty good - it's actually rather terrible. Even a coin in Very Fine condition is kind of ugly and unwantable these days; it certainly isn't "very fine" in the common meaning of that phrase.

    At least, this is the case in America. In Britain, gradeflation has occurred, but it's nowhere near as bad. A coin in "British VF" is still actually rather good; you'd call it "AU". In short, the British grading standard is much closer to the literal meaning of the words.

    Here in Australia, we're kind of in-between the British and American standards. British VF = Australian EF = American AU, is my general rule of thumb.

    Waste no more time arguing what a good man should be. Be one.
    Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius, "Meditations"

    Apparently I have been awarded one DPOTD. B)
  • SapyxSapyx Posts: 1,976 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited August 14, 2022 7:58PM

    This difference in grading standards is also one of the reasons why American TPGs have been slow to take off overseas. From our point of view, the grades assigned by the TPGs are simply "wrong". We would say the coin is actually in EF or VF condition, but the grade on the slab says "AU". Therefore, the coin is "very generously graded".

    I can't speak for the British situation, but here in Australia there was certainly strong pushback from numerous dealers and collector organizations against American TPGs, and this was one of the main reasons the anti-TPG crowd gave for their opposition: the imposition of inferior American grading standards on Australian coins.

    Waste no more time arguing what a good man should be. Be one.
    Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius, "Meditations"

    Apparently I have been awarded one DPOTD. B)
  • 7Jaguars7Jaguars Posts: 7,228 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Not to nitpick but I have recently actually seen a couple of Brit auctions of TPG pieces that have felt the coins under graded.
    Also there are some Brit firms that have become "enthusiastic" with their grading. So not universal low graders these days...

    I will say in the grande olde days of Spink I bought a gEF 1926ME penny that later graded MS665RB at our hosts, and this was more typical. Or a Glendining 1839 currency halfcrown grading EF that went MS64 also at our hosts.

    Love that Milled British (1830-1960)
    Well, just Love coins, period.
  • fluffy155fluffy155 Posts: 227 ✭✭✭✭
    edited August 14, 2022 8:54PM

    To say that a coin is "overgraded" or "generously graded" because it uses a different grading system seems more like a sop to lazy collectors who can't be bothered to understand what they're buying. "Generously graded" implies that the coin doesn't fit the criteria for the grade within the system it's using, as if a (Sheldon) 55 should actually be a 45 or some such, not that a Sheldon EF isn't the same as a British EF which should be obvious to any collector. It would be like putting "generously measured" next to any temperature listed in degrees Fahrenheit.

    Of course, this is without seeing the listings in question. They may very well be saying that the TPGs overgraded by their own standards and the 55s should really be 53s or 50s, but given the context I tend to doubt it.

  • John ConduittJohn Conduitt Posts: 350 ✭✭✭

    @fluffy155 said:
    To say that a coin is "overgraded" or "generously graded" because it uses a different grading system seems more like a sop to lazy collectors who can't be bothered to understand what they're buying.

    Isn't that true of all grading? Now you have high resolution photos, you can tell if you like the look of a coin or not. Grading was originally used to tell you what a coin was like before the days of being able to see a high quality photo. You even bought coins without seeing them based on the grade. What's the point of a grade now, unless you collect grades instead of coins?

    @bidask said:
    I thought it was British and Europeans who are late to the grading party .

    You're only late for a party if you intend to go. I think the reason Europeans haven't all jumped on the grading bandwagon is because there isn't a Heritage (with a business model that depends on people paying more for imperceptible differences in grades) pushing the idea. It's harder for them to do that anyway, since many British/European collectors collect hammered coins from their own countries, where grade is far less relevant.

    For Europeans, I think the role of a TPG is much more about verifying authenticity than grading. Since many European coins are rather less faked than US coins (due to smaller markets), the pressure to slab is less, although it's still there.

  • 1984worldcoins1984worldcoins Posts: 596 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited August 15, 2022 4:47AM

    I live in EU and I am a fan of the american style of grading. All my rare coins will, sooner or later, be graded in USA, cant wait to see the results. I have seen myself collectors (dont know about dealers) handling proof coins without any care and leaving them with finger prints, very very sad feeling.

    Coinsof1984@martinb6830 on twitter

  • BjornBjorn Posts: 529 ✭✭✭

    @bidask said:

    @Sapyx said:
    I'd read it as just a commentary on the standard disparity between British and American grading standards, and the use of the same abbreviations for both grading standards.

    They just want to make sure that their British customers know that just because the crazy Americans are calling this coin "EF40", that doesn't mean it's actually "EF", because it's more like "VF" or "good Fine".

    Really ?

    Please tell me more,

    I thought it was British and Europeans who are late to the grading party .

    I recall being at a well known British dealer’s bourse table some years ago at the NYINC

    He was handing his raw coins with his thumb and forefinger without thought
    ( apparently) with his finger on the fields of the coin … not holding the coin by the rims.

    I know my comment is not directly associated with yours but I find it hard to believe that the British are somehow more conservative in their grading 🤓

    I would say most of the more established as well as some with more traditional graders, a VF is a US EF or better, and an EF is a US AU to lower unc. For instance, I purchased an 1862 half rupee described as VF+ from a firm in Scotland, which had full lustre with an original skin, albeit with pleasant toning - I would guess it would grade around AU 58 or better at our hosts.

    I would have to add though - there are exceptions, and a number of UK auction firms will grade US coins using US grading standards. So their US capped bust quarter described as VF will really be a VF. So, I would always advise looking at the pictures, and perhaps other lots you aren't interested in, just to get a better idea how the auction firm grades UK/Commonwealth pieces, as well as US/World coins.

    As a final note - I have encountered some European dealers who really mishandle coins, and cleaning seems to have been less of an issue in some countries. I have seen coins dropped (not by accident) on glass counters, and held as you described... I have not observed this as much with US , Canadian and UK dealers.

  • tcollectstcollects Posts: 782 ✭✭✭✭

    I think UK grading starts with detail and goes down from there, whereas US grading starts at luster and goes down from there. This explains the culture of grading and handling coins differently. So much luster lost.

  • MasonGMasonG Posts: 6,268 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Rhetorical question...

    Why is overgrading a bad thing but undergrading something to aspire to?

  • John ConduittJohn Conduitt Posts: 350 ✭✭✭

    @MasonG said:
    Rhetorical question...

    Why is overgrading a bad thing but undergrading something to aspire to?

    Neither is good if grades truly mean anything. But no-one agrees on grades, which tells you something.

  • koincollectkoincollect Posts: 446 ✭✭✭

    Did anyone mention about cleaning and other issues not being noted? A gEF might be a MS64 or UNC details cleaned. I have had that more than a couple of times with the auction houses simply not noting these issues. They will tell you the condition if specifically asked but for some reason not in the catalog.

  • 7Jaguars7Jaguars Posts: 7,228 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Well, yes, if you are referring to English auction firms. Hate to mention Spink, but over the last several years have had some real cleaning bombs that were not always mentioned in the descriptions - and I am sad to say that.....

    Love that Milled British (1830-1960)
    Well, just Love coins, period.
  • tcollectstcollects Posts: 782 ✭✭✭✭

    @7Jaguars said:
    Well, yes, if you are referring to English auction firms. Hate to mention Spink, but over the last several years have had some real cleaning bombs that were not always mentioned in the descriptions - and I am sad to say that.....

    It's because they don't value luster as much as detail. A flat struck luster bomb can't be UNC, but a hammered cleaned and pawed coin can be. Plus they're generally tougher on coins, to the point of EAC-like absurdity.

  • ElmhurstElmhurst Posts: 768 ✭✭✭

    I think I’ve commented on this before, but in general a US graded AU is about equivalent to a GB XF, US XF is a GB VF, etc. If I remember correctly, Spink doesn’t list anything below Fine. As for cleaning, your on your own.

  • 7Jaguars7Jaguars Posts: 7,228 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Yes, I agree with both of the above. British EBay has some clunkers as you might imagine and there are a couple of dealers over there with imaginative grading. I still occasionally buy from Spink sales, but if you look back on the Pywell-PHillips collection as an example, many coins that were cleaned were not ID'd as such.
    As Elmhurst and tcollects, they are not too picky about it as long as detail is good - regardless of cleaning, etc. So on hammered, or even to a somewhat lesser degree even George V halfcrowns and crowns (Wreath) the overall grade is dinged enormously compared to our own grading in the USA.
    As one further example, and I will see if I can post it, I bought a1926ME penny as GEF from the old Circular list from Spink and it graded MS65RB with out hosts!
    https://images.pcgs.com/CoinFacts/36665146_151377854_max.jpg

    Love that Milled British (1830-1960)
    Well, just Love coins, period.
  • John ConduittJohn Conduitt Posts: 350 ✭✭✭
    edited August 20, 2022 11:07AM

    @7Jaguars said:
    As one further example, and I will see if I can post it, I bought a1926ME penny as GEF from the old Circular list from Spink and it graded MS65RB with out hosts!
    https://images.pcgs.com/CoinFacts/36665146_151377854_max.jpg

    It's a great coin, but are they saying it would come out of the mint like that?
    Of course, MS is an inappropriate category name and non-Americans are less likely to like the scale. But it doesn't matter, because everyone can see what the coin looks like.

  • 7Jaguars7Jaguars Posts: 7,228 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Well, yes. Very little wear (none), few bag marks, and the nicest that I have seen. Coin is a bit redder in hand and has not been messed with.

    Love that Milled British (1830-1960)
    Well, just Love coins, period.
  • John ConduittJohn Conduitt Posts: 350 ✭✭✭

    It's beautiful, but there is wear e.g. to George V's cheek and eyebrow, and Britannia's face and helmet. The areas with darker toning are evidence of circulation. Here's one with no wear https://www.coinarchives.com/w/lotviewer.php?LotID=5598555&AucID=6359&Lot=114&Val=ada33e0e006c67ee5dcac1624d8523ab

    Grading a coin with any wear or sign of circulation 'mint state' is symantically incorrect. But the situation is brought about because of the complexity of the Sheldon scale, which has more grades than are useful beyond the needs of grade collectors. They've stretched the divisions beyond the limits of the language, which is clearly too far.

    Your coin is as nice as most people would hope for (GEF being one down from UNC, the highest), regardless of the grade assigned.

  • 7Jaguars7Jaguars Posts: 7,228 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Won’t argue the point as the first coin has far more red to it but does have envelope toning on high spots

    Love that Milled British (1830-1960)
    Well, just Love coins, period.
  • RexfordRexford Posts: 1,125 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @JohnConduitt said:
    It's beautiful, but there is wear e.g. to George V's cheek and eyebrow, and Britannia's face and helmet. The areas with darker toning are evidence of circulation. Here's one with no wear https://www.coinarchives.com/w/lotviewer.php?LotID=5598555&AucID=6359&Lot=114&Val=ada33e0e006c67ee5dcac1624d8523ab

    Grading a coin with any wear or sign of circulation 'mint state' is symantically incorrect. But the situation is brought about because of the complexity of the Sheldon scale, which has more grades than are useful beyond the needs of grade collectors. They've stretched the divisions beyond the limits of the language, which is clearly too far.

    Your coin is as nice as most people would hope for (GEF being one down from UNC, the highest), regardless of the grade assigned.

    I would not call that legitimate wear or a sign of circulation. Copper is very susceptible to dark color shift relative to other metals and often features that appearance on the high points without having actual wear. The Sheldon grading scale is far more technically correct than the British scale in my view, in that it doesn’t confuse strike and other issues with wear.

Sign In or Register to comment.