Have grading standards tightened??

dollarfan

Hello. As a self proclaimed horrible grader I am always watching unboxing videos to try to guess the grades received. Over the last few months the results (right or wrong) seem to be much tighter. Does anyone have any personal experiences to share?

MFeld

I think other questions to consider should be:

Do grading standards actually tighten (or loosen) or are they less objective than desired?

Do grading standards tighten (or loosen) or does the application of grading standards differ on a coin-by-coin basis?

How would one know whether grading standards have actually changed or if grading is simply inconsistent?

[Deleted User]

I read an interesting article about PCGS using AI so I believe their grading will become more consistent than it normally would be. What I mean by that is with the combination of the human eye and AI not much should get missed. It will be kind of like facial recognition. If there is any downside to that my thinking tells me the crackout game will change I suppose. However, conservation to a newly slabbed coin may result in a different grade. For example PL to DMPL on a Morgan.
Here is a link to the discussion that I also found on this forum-

https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1042609/pcgs-launches-ai-powered-coin-grading-technology

DeplorableDan

@Watchtower said:
I read an interesting article about PCGS using AI so I believe their grading will become more consistent than it normally would be. What I mean by that is with the combination of the human eye and AI not much should get missed. It will be kind of like facial recognition. If there is any downside to that my thinking tells me the crackout game will change I suppose. However, conservation to a newly slabbed coin may result in a different grade. For example PL to DMPL on a Morgan.
Here is a link to the discussion that I also found on this forum-

https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1042609/pcgs-launches-ai-powered-coin-grading-technology

I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for that technology to be implemented into grading. That thread you linked is from 2020 and the initial press release was in 2018.

[Deleted User]

I thought it was already in use with Gold Shield being implemented at the time of the announcement. Many years have passed so those systems have been learning for a very long time by technology standards. That's if it has been in place.
You guys would know better than me but I figured it did pertain to the question asked.

WaterSport

PCGS tried to use computers a while back for grading if I recall correctly. They did not implement it then, but given all the photos they are taking of coins I NEVER requested imagining - and that they have been doing photos for years, I think they have the largest coin photo database to implement it now. Costly, yes, but so are 6 figure salaries for graders. But to answer the original question, I feel they are getting "better" and not tighter. And that may have something to do with the experience of the new graders that were hired during covid. As in, they are more experienced now.

WS

MFeld

@WaterSport said:
PCGS tried to use computers a while back for grading if I recall correctly. They did not implement it then, but given all the photos they are taking of coins I NEVER requested imagining - and that they have been doing photos for years, I think they have the largest coin photo database to implement it now. Costly, yes, but so are 6 figure salaries for graders. But to answer the original question, I feel they are getting "better" and not tighter. And that may have something to do with the experience of the new graders that were hired during covid. As in, they are more experienced now.

WS

“a while back” was decades ago - 1990, in fact.

See here: https://www.coingrading.com/compgrade1.html

coinbuf

In order for standards to tighten there would have to be standards, which there are not. Grading is an opinion and as has been proven here time and time again those opinions can and do change in the future.

coinkat

No-

Subjectivity is and always will be a moving target

Shamika

@MFeld said:
I think other questions to consider should be:

Do grading standards actually tighten (or loosen) or are they less objective than desired?

Do grading standards tighten (or loosen) or does the application of grading standards differ on a coin-by-coin basis?

How would one know whether grading standards have actually changed or if grading is simply inconsistent?

Words of wisdom.

jdimmick

I havent noticed, Recent PCGS and NGC submissions came back where I expected. If anything, I graded a coin or two a bit more conservative, but thats becuase I'm old school.

Cougar1978

No

I do keep a copy of the PCGs grading standards handy for reference.

It’s individual people who grade coins not some hive intelligence.

Barberian

Yes

A few years ago, I noticed boundaries between 35/40 and 40/45 seated halves had shifted downward for perhaps a year but was "tightened" up to where I think it should be. Here's some anecdotal evidence that represents the tightening of standards that I perceived a few years back. This EF45 CAC coin was liberated from its holder by the USPS in what I call the "Immaculate Compression." Amazingly, there was absolutely no damage to the coin from the holder being crushed. The coin is now properly regraded IMO as EF40 CAC.

Barber halves seemed to go through a similar conservative shift in the boundary for VG10/F12 and F15/VF20 in the past few years as well, IMO.

The standards may not have changed but they weren't being applied uniformly through time.

winesteven

The following is non-scientific, as it applies only to my most recent eight submissions over the most recent nine months, with 65 coins:

1. Over the years, I choose to play the Reconsideration game (no need to discuss here why I don’t do regrade or crackout, which admittedly has the potential for better success). I learned early on not to submit coins for Reconsideration that have a plus grade - virtually no success. As such, I only submit coins in whole grade numbers, and the upgrades when they happen are the addition of a plus.
2. I never buy coins with the expectation of an upgrade. I’m very happy with each coin in the grade it is when I buy it. But: a) some coins are in older holders (not necessarily OGH’s, but original holders with cert numbers lower than 25xxxxxx). That’s when PCGS started grading coins using plus grades. b) my perception is that even with coins in higher cert numbers, graders tend to underuse plus grades. So some coins with higher cert numbers that to my eye (and I readily admit I’m not a good grader) look like they may be undergraded, I submit for Reconsideration too.
3. As a generalization, I have two submissions quarterly - one “Regular”, values <$2,500, and the other “Express”, values from “$2,500 - $10k. I prefer to not disclose my success rate, but up until last July, it was surprisingly consistent over the years. Rarely would ANY submission not have at least one coin upgrade by getting a plus.
4. Starting last July, as noted above I’ve had eight submissions totaling 65 coins. My rate of success is only 35% of what it had been, with many shutouts. Not one order of those eight had my prior success rate - not even one!

One could say it’s a coincidence, since this is admittedly a small sample of only eight orders (even though EVERY single one of those eight orders failed to reach just my overall average prior to July). One can say that the coins I’ve recently submitted are indeed subpar as a group compared to the quality of coins I’ve always bought over the years. But I believe that for whatever reason, grading has tightened. Separately, if you look at the recent PCGS published statistics, they assign plus grades to only 1.6% of coins graded, where in the past it used to be at around 2.3% - 2.5% or so. Admittedly though, that doesn’t mean a lot, since modern coins grading 69 and 70 are ineligible for a plus grade. So one can speculate that all of a sudden starting last July through now a MUCH higher percentage of coins submitted are moderns compared to before July 2022. One can also say that grading results may have tightened for Reconsideration submissions, but not for raw coin submissions.

Just my 2 cents worth.

Steve

ricko

There are many valid factors to consider when theorizing about grading results. The points made by @MFeld and information presented by @winesteven certainly are factors. Also, as has been pointed out by myself and others, there are no documented, measurable standards to assess repeatability/consistency. Much of consistency change theory is simply perception, based on extremely small samples. Cheers, RickO

pmh1nic

@Barberian said:
Yes

A few years ago, I noticed boundaries between 35/40 and 40/45 seated halves had shifted downward for perhaps a year but was "tightened" up to where I think it should be. Here's some anecdotal evidence that represents the tightening of standards that I perceived a few years back. This EF45 CAC coin was liberated from its holder by the USPS in what I call the "Immaculate Compression." Amazingly, there was absolutely no damage to the coin from the holder being crushed. The coin is now properly regraded IMO as EF40 CAC.

Barber halves seemed to go through a similar conservative shift in the boundary for VG10/F12 and F15/VF20 in the past few years as well, IMO.

The standards may not have changed but they weren't being applied uniformly through time.

@Barberian said:
Yes

A few years ago, I noticed boundaries between 35/40 and 40/45 seated halves had shifted downward for perhaps a year but was "tightened" up to where I think it should be. Here's some anecdotal evidence that represents the tightening of standards that I perceived a few years back. This EF45 CAC coin was liberated from its holder by the USPS in what I call the "Immaculate Compression." Amazingly, there was absolutely no damage to the coin from the holder being crushed. The coin is now properly regraded IMO as EF40 CAC.

Barber halves seemed to go through a similar conservative shift in the boundary for VG10/F12 and F15/VF20 in the past few years as well, IMO.

The standards may not have changed but they weren't being applied uniformly through time.

Immaculate compression! Love it.