Have grading standards changed over the years?
UncleDano
Posts: 93 ✭✭
I have coins from many different grading companies, and form early 1980's to graded last month. As I examine some of the old ones I have had for many years, I notice that the coins are really nicer looking coins for the grade than the more recently graded coins. Makes me think that grading standards have slipped a little bit.
What is your take on this? Have you noticed that your older stuff is your best coins?
Collector of what ever looks good to me today.
2
Comments
Since there are no actual grading standards, it's a bit of a funny question. Collective tastes change over time and grading conventions reflect that.
They tended to be more strict in their grading in the past.
I think a better way to rephrase this question would be-
"Has the application of the grading standards been inconsistent over the years?"
To which my answer would be- "yes"
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Generally speaking, for the top TPG's, yes ... there have been somewhat noticeable shifts from the 1987 to 1990 timeframe until now (IMO).
This should be considered carefully though before assuming older holders contain nicer coins. In fact, somewhat of the opposite has happened as time has went on, as premium coins that have come up for sale have been regraded and/or reconsidered for pluses and upgrades, and non-premium coins have been left where they lie.
My 2c. YMMV
“We are only their care-takers,” he posed, “if we take good care of them, then centuries from now they may still be here … ”
Todd - BHNC #242
I've been around awhile and remember the old Photograde days. Buffalo Nickels and Walking Halves are two series that had vastly more conservative standards back then.
In the days before slabs: If you were selling it was Fine. If you were buying it was Very Fine.
Grading exists in the world of "opinions", not "fact".
That's why third-party grading become so popular. Coin dealers had two grading standards---one for buying and one for selling. When a dealer is buying your coin, it's an AU slider but when he puts it into his inventory, it magically becomes a gem uncirculated.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
There are no grading standards. There are generally accepted guidelines, and pictorial examples, and individuals with training/experience. Standards are defined and accepted measurements, and clearly repeatable. Perhaps someday we will have standards. Cheers, RickO
There have been grading standards for a long time. Application of the standards are not an exact science thou. So there will always be undergraded and overgraded coins in slabs. ANA grading standards have been around for ages. Our host had a book on grading and counterfeit detection as well.
Successful BST with ad4400, Kccoin, lablover, pointfivezero, koynekwest, jwitten, coin22lover, HalfDimeDude, erwindoc, jyzskowsi, COINS MAKE CENTS, AlanSki, BryceM
Successful BST with ad4400, Kccoin, lablover, pointfivezero, koynekwest, jwitten, coin22lover, HalfDimeDude, erwindoc, jyzskowsi, COINS MAKE CENTS, AlanSki, BryceM
They most certainly have changed.
Take a look at how Buffalo Nickels are graded now. The horn on Black Diamond was always the key to a grade. Used to be that a VF Buff had to have a full horn to the tip. I hated it, but I kinda grudgingly accept it.
Nowadays Buffs are graded by being "market acceptable" and by "overall wear", discounting the horn as the most important element to grading.
Pete
Edited to put a period after "tip".
The problem is that some buffalo nickels come with a weak strike and even though they have full mint luster and are technically Mint State, they don't have a full horn.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
Whatever the “standards”, they’re partly subjective, and even the objective components aren’t always applied consistently over short or long periods of time.
Additionally, many or most of the coins that are conservatively graded eventually make their way into higher grade holders, while the liberally graded ones stay put. So we get a skewed view of overall grading.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Absolutely, most of the "older" holders that were conservatively graded have already been reholdered at higher
grades. Age of the holder doesn't mean as much as it did 10 years ago
Agreed, but that's what made coins like the 24-s and 26-s so much more valuable in true full horn VF and XF. Grading by wear skewed the pricing structure, which amounted to "gradeflation". I know I'm in the minority but I think coins should be graded on detail, not wear. Detail is a much more objective standard, the proof being - When do you stop grading by wear? i.e. when is a 26-s G4 indistinguishable from a 26 G4? Grade them all by detail and let the chips fall where they may regarding strike/wear.
Remember, there are two types of grading: Technical Grading & Market Grading.
Market Grading is generally employed for coins AU & above. Each grading company has their own standards that originally morphed from the ANA Grading Standards. Their is a contingency out there (of which I am one) that believes Market Grading is not really grading at all but is more of a "valuing" process.
One way in which grading has changed involves toning. There was a time when coins were marked down if toned. Today, attractive toning has a following and I believe that attractively toned coins (except for modern commemoratives) can receive a slight bump.
Very valuable coins get the benefit of the doubt. I have seen very valuable coins that have wear cross over into the mint state category. Happens all of the time with gold.
Grading is as straight as the letter Z.
Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value. Zero. Voltaire. Ebay coinbowlllc
Imo, in the 'old days' it was easier to find coins with special eye appeal.
One minor example: in the 1980's, I submitted a 1982 no P dime to a grading company (not PCGS). It came back MS-63, and with my grading knowledge back then (or lack thereof), I agreed with that grade. Over 30 years later, l re-submitted it to the same grading company, this time it came back MS-66. And with my grading knowledge today, I now agree with the new grade. Go figure. :-)
Opinions of coins as to their state of preservation have changed over the years...
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Thigh shine = cabinet rub; flip or envelope rub; slider grade; AU, MS62; MS63, use to be the limit allowed; now
Seen on alot of MS66 Registry set coins. I have been told by a well know grader that it has to do with the depth of the shine ie: shine or wear. Now how is that determined with a 5x loupe and 8 seconds. I find this all very inconsistent and believe the AU -- MS line has change alot over the years and still is the most subjective.
I have had coins re-submitted go from 55 details to 63 straight graded. , 64 to 58, to 62. Etc.
Agree with Mark, there are "standards" that have an subjective aspect to them (i.e. what is a prime focal area). But even with the subjective nature of standards I think there is clear evidence they have changed. One of the changes that's pet peeve for me is the grade AU-58. In the past an AU-58 coin was a coin with a lot of luster, very few marks and missed being a 64/65 because it had some slight rub. You could get some very nice coins in AU-58 at a discount off the MS price if you we're hung up on the MS designation. That has changed. You find AU-58 coins that have almost full luster, good strike but are dogs because of the number of distracting marks.
In a video post in another thread JA made reference to grade-flation and CAC's commitment to avoid it. This sliding of grades is real even with the understanding that the grading standards are somewhat subjective.
The fact that there was ever a fourth party grade review service like CAC (created more than 20 years after the services were started) should give you your answer. Ditto for fascination with OGH PCGS holders and no line “fatty” NGC holders.
IMO, you can call them " grading standards " but it's an opinion by individuals. I don't believe anyone can be 100 % consistent over the course of time. Pretty close but not 100%. Then throw in that graders change over the years, more pressure on crossovers to upgrade or not upgrade. Coins being submitted multiple times and " finally " getting the upgrade, or rumors of favoritism depending on who is submitting ( not sure if I believe in that one ) ALL SUBJECTIVE OPINIONS. To me, that's not a standard.
You pretty much hit it on the head according to the way I look at it.
Pete
It’s too complex of an issue to make generalizations about. Used to chase the ogh / rattler thing. Some coins I sent in upgraded some not. After grading cost broke even.
You can’t make generalizations about it. If it’s truly a higher grade send it in. I Would want find it out.
Grading standards most definitely exist. I think some posters expect a standard to be defined so specifically that a computer could grade a coin. The standards have always, out of necessity, been less specific to allow for the many variants of coin wear, number and placement of marks on the surface, and strike. This is where the subjectivity of a grading standards comes into play.
I think when we broke down the MS grades into 11 grades, then more with the + grades, and then even more with the A, B, and C grades, we required standards to be more defined than is practical.
JMHO.
US and British coin collector, and creator of The Ultimate Chuck E. Cheese's and Showbiz Pizza Place Token & Ticket Guide
I think grading standards vary from moment to moment even with the same people, it’s not fixed and always a bit subjective. But it’s also not that hard to guess the grade here on the forum from images and get the answer within an acceptable range of plus or minus 2 grades more than 50% of the time
Mr_Spud
JMHO, the changing tastes of collectors have caused the rise of market grading and the TPG's have followed by placing premiums on different subjective qualities of coins. There are still areas of collecting where prices aren't as volatile as the overall market, but they are few and far between.
Can any differences be seen between the editions?
for uncirculated coins, it seems luster and eye appeal have been given a boost.
@Zoins I dont have any newer editions to compare with. I only have an old ANA and an old PCGS.
Successful BST with ad4400, Kccoin, lablover, pointfivezero, koynekwest, jwitten, coin22lover, HalfDimeDude, erwindoc, jyzskowsi, COINS MAKE CENTS, AlanSki, BryceM
I wonder if that happened after sharing images on the Internet became popular.
Before the Internet, strongly toned Morgans like the Battle Creek pieces hadn’t even been seen by many collectors. Now they seem to be much more common.
It's time to let the computers take over. The technology exists right now.
Lordmarcovan, WTCG, YogiBerraFan, Phoenin21, LindeDad, Coll3ctor, blue594, robkoll, Mike Dixon, BloodMan, Flakthat and others.
Problem is that plus or minus 2 grades these days can make the difference between a hundred dollar and a 500 dollar coin.
Lordmarcovan, WTCG, YogiBerraFan, Phoenin21, LindeDad, Coll3ctor, blue594, robkoll, Mike Dixon, BloodMan, Flakthat and others.
Interestingly, in the old days, some of those intermediate grades may not have existed....
There's a start up working on this. The following thread is about toning but it seems like their primary business is pricing.
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1091987/pure-technologies-utilizing-computer-vision-machine-learning-for-natural-artificial-toning#latest
It could be interesting to compare the photos and grades with newer guides to see how things have changed.
The group that actually pays close attention to all the details on a coin who are dedicated on being certain the "coin is all there" in their selections is IMO, a very small society. And a coin grading company can't stay afloat catering only to a minority with such strict grading standards (GS). The ANA soften the GS for uncirculated coins in 2006 or 07 when they replaced the term "full strike" with "as struck" in the MS65 and up descriptions of those standards. It's an altogether totally different market for such coins. And 99% are paying out of their noses for coins that are not all there because the prices were/are either triggered by something else or a coin that was bid up due to its detailed strike. But they don't have any way of knowing if they don't have the right mindset about that smaller group of true quality coins. They don't know what to look for nor have an idea what an EDS detailed coin looks like because they aren't/haven't been searching for them.
I like to think the GS were/are set by collectors but they appear to be more mainstream for the CGC than from categorizing the worse to your best coins with EDS pristine strikes.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
I would yes, grading standards have changed over time. I have copy of the red book volume seven. Most of the listings are good, very fine, and unc. There aren't many if any listings for xf and no listings for AU. When I was a part time coin dealer in the 1970's, an old collector (born in the late 1890's or early 1900's) showed me some old coins he wanted to sell. I asked him if one was AU or uncirculated, he said there is no such grade as AU! It is either XF or BU. I did not want to lose this purchase or irritate a potential seller, so I just agreed with him and he sold me his coins.
When is a 70 point grading scale not a 70 point grading scale? When it is coins that you are using the 70 point grading system on, that's when. Why is there not a f-19 or a vf-33 or au-57 grade available? I think that EAC uses VG-7 but grading companies do not. Thus the 70 point grading system is in reality about a 30 point system. Why would anyone want a 100 point grading scale when we don't use even half of the 70 grades available now?