So this is how it's done!
The sellers pics look at least 67+. Two things here surprise me, Tom not buying them the first time he saw them and how weak the original bidding was on Ebay.
GC has an inside track and gets good treatment, quick turn-around times. If I were looking for the best grade I'd have GC do the submission. I'm not saying there is any bias, but they do get results.
@Maywood said: @Zoins said: At the end of the day, it's PCGS that is doing the upgrades here.
Here's what's strange to me: PCGS has a grade guarantee so that if I ask for a re-grade and the coin downgrades I am compensated for any loss. What @Walkerlover seems to be saying is why no compensation when a coin upgrades?? This supposes that the coin is submitted in the original capsule. The coins highlighted by the OP seem to illustrate the point, that the original submitter lost money due to an error by PCGS.
How would you go about determining which grade or grades were "errors" and which were "correct"?
For the record, in the case of such grading disparities, I do feel that either a submitter was treated unfairly, a subsequent one was treated too well or there was some combination of the two.
Under the Reconsideration Submission there is "compensation", but only to the grading company itself. Example PCGS has a Guarantee Premium of 1% of Final Value if the coin upgrades...which I have no issue with, for the most part. However, how would one go about providing compensation to the first party? If I owned the coins and sold them in any manner, how would the grading company know to compensate me? Or would one expect the second party who bought said coins and upgraded be required to provide me the compensation?
I believe it's been said: "To the victor go the spoils".
I have experienced multiple times the same outcome, but who do I blame? Me, for not knowing what I had to begin with. Although I could provide a few examples that would argue the point there was perhaps more involved.
I am curious of Mr. Feld's take on how the submitter was treated unfairly and the subsequent one was treated too well, etc? Could you explain that thought further?
I understand (and have posted multiple times here) that grading involves subjectivity. However, I think it’s fair to say that when the same company has graded/regraded the same coin with a two point swing, their initial grading was too tight, their subsequent grading was too loose or it was some of each.
I didn’t say that “… the submitter was treated unfairly and the subsequent one was treated too well…”
But I did say “I do feel that either a submitter was treated unfairly, a subsequent one was treated too well or there was some combination of the two.” I believe that to at least some extent, grading that’s 2 points too tight is unfair to the submitter. And grading that’s 2 points too loose is treating the submitter too well. Of course, maybe the grading was initially 1 point too tight, then later, 1 point too loose.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Contrary to many others, I have no issue with PCGS grading these coins MS66 and MS68. The OGH was phased out in 1998 and we are here a quarter century later. This generation of holders was used from about 1994-1998 therefore, these coins were graded between 25-and 29-years ago.
They were also graded prior to the advent of plus grades, which means for all we know the graders at PCGS may have thought these were MS66.8 or MS66.9 coins. Remember, when these coins were graded PCGS only rarely gave out the MS67 grade. Today, not only does PCGS give out the plus grade, which these coins did not earn, but they also opened up the floodgates to the MS68 grade.
PCGS gave out their first MS68 WQ in the mid-90s to a 1939 WQ. Until the early 2000s there were only a dozen or two MS68 coins, while now there are hundreds (thousands?) graded. Therefore, the MS66 grades may have been quite accurate in the mid-1990s while the MS68 grades could be accurate today. The fact that the coins were not regraded in the quarter century does not imply that PCGS screwed up, but it does give us some insight into how the super gem grading windows may have changed over the years.
I agree with those that have one point is acceptable but a two point difference mean some screwed up. As far as which I think the 1937 is over grades as a 68.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
‘’The new owner didn’t do so bad either, at 50k price guide.’’
A few weeks ago, for a very good customer, I upgraded a $7,000 classic coin in its current holder to a brand new pop 1/0 the next half point up. PCGS set the PG on the new grade level at $70,000. I paid the added grading fee PCGS charges based on the new $70,000 estimated value of the upgraded coin. When the coin recently came up for auction, I told the customer that in my opinion the coin was worth about $30,000-$37,000 tops. This at least set the reasonable expectations in the customer’s mind as to what the upgrade was likely worth to Him. The coin sold at public auction for right around $32,000. Everyone was happy on this end.
Likewise, IMHO the new owner of the 2 quarters paid the fmv for those coins. There is no measure of how well the new owner did based upon the best guess of PCGS at the time they valued the upgrades.
Just my 2 cents.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
@TomB said:
Contrary to many others, I have no issue with PCGS grading these coins MS66 and MS68. The OGH was phased out in 1998 and we are here a quarter century later. This generation of holders was used from about 1994-1998 therefore, these coins were graded between 25-and 29-years ago.
They were also graded prior to the advent of plus grades, which means for all we know the graders at PCGS may have thought these were MS66.8 or MS66.9 coins. Remember, when these coins were graded PCGS only rarely gave out the MS67 grade. Today, not only does PCGS give out the plus grade, which these coins did not earn, but they also opened up the floodgates to the MS68 grade.
PCGS gave out their first MS68 WQ in the mid-90s to a 1939 WQ. Until the early 2000s there were only a dozen or two MS68 coins, while now there are hundreds (thousands?) graded. Therefore, the MS66 grades may have been quite accurate in the mid-1990s while the MS68 grades could be accurate today. The fact that the coins were not regraded in the quarter century does not imply that PCGS screwed up, but it does give us some insight into how the super gem grading windows may have changed over the years.
Tom, not surprisingly, your points are very well taken and articulated.
My issue regarding upgrades of more than a point is more of a general one. While these two coins were graded a long time ago (and before the introduction of "Plus" grades), we have seen quite a few instances of such upgrades to coins that had initially been graded much more recently. We have also seen some upgrades in designations from Mint State to "SP" (Specimen"). To me, even if such upgrades might be justified, it's not a good look.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
"Contrary to many others, I have no issue with PCGS grading these coins MS66 and MS68. The OGH was phased out in 1998 and we are here a quarter century later. This generation of holders was used from about 1994-1998 therefore, these coins were graded between 25-and 29-years ago.
They were also graded prior to the advent of plus grades, which means for all we know the graders at PCGS may have thought these were MS66.8 or MS66.9 coins. Remember, when these coins were graded PCGS only rarely gave out the MS67 grade. Today, not only does PCGS give out the plus grade, which these coins did not earn, but they also opened up the floodgates to the MS68 grade.
PCGS gave out their first MS68 WQ in the mid-90s to a 1939 WQ. Until the early 2000s there were only a dozen or two MS68 coins, while now there are hundreds (thousands?) graded. Therefore, the MS66 grades may have been quite accurate in the mid-1990s while the MS68 grades could be accurate today. The fact that the coins were not regraded in the quarter century does not imply that PCGS screwed up, but it does give us some insight into how the super gem grading windows may have changed over the years."
My reply:
Tom, not surprisingly, your points were very well taken and articulated.
My issue regarding upgrades of more than a point is more of a general one. While the two coins being discussed were initially graded a long time ago (and before the introduction of "Plus" grades), we have seen a number of other such upgrades to coins that had been graded much more recently. We have also seen some upgrades in designation from "Mint State" to "SP" ("Specimen"). Even if such upgrades were justified, I think it's a bad look and bad for the hobby/business.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Wow / somebody picked them off, sent in got 68 - did really fantastic! I would say when somebody gets CAC Gold send it in, get higher grade. In this example they hit a homer.
@wondercoin said:
‘’The new owner didn’t do so bad either, at 50k price guide.’’
A few weeks ago, for a very good customer, I upgraded a $7,000 classic coin in its current holder to a brand new pop 1/0 the next half point up. PCGS set the PG on the new grade level at $70,000. I paid the added grading fee PCGS charges based on the new $70,000 estimated value of the upgraded coin. When the coin recently came up for auction, I told the customer that in my opinion the coin was worth about $30,000-$37,000 tops. This at least set the reasonable expectations in the customer’s mind as to what the upgrade was likely worth to Him. The coin sold at public auction for right around $32,000. Everyone was happy on this end.
Likewise, IMHO the new owner of the 2 quarters paid the fmv for those coins. There is no measure of how well the new owner did based upon the best guess of PCGS at the time they valued the upgrades.
Just my 2 cents.
Wondercoin
He is still only at 40% of the price guide but I suppose fmv is what it is today but what about tomorrow.
And I'll assume PCGS adjusts their price guides based on actual sales? So at some point the correction is made or do they just leave it there where they initially put it?
@Coinscratch said:
He is still only at 40% of the price guide but I suppose fmv is what it is today but what about tomorrow.
And I'll assume PCGS adjusts their price guides based on actual sales? So at some point the correction is made or do they just leave it there where they initially put it?
With respect to auctions, unless it changed recently, 'GC' does not grant PCGS access to their recent results for inclusion in their estimate. Reference
@Maywood said: @Zoins said: At the end of the day, it's PCGS that is doing the upgrades here.
Here's what's strange to me: PCGS has a grade guarantee so that if I ask for a re-grade and the coin downgrades I am compensated for any loss. What @Walkerlover seems to be saying is why no compensation when a coin upgrades?? This supposes that the coin is submitted in the original capsule. The coins highlighted by the OP seem to illustrate the point, that the original submitter lost money due to an error by PCGS.
How would you go about determining which grade or grades were "errors" and which were "correct"?
For the record, in the case of such grading disparities, I do feel that either a submitter was treated unfairly, a subsequent one was treated too well or there was some combination of the two.
Under the Reconsideration Submission there is "compensation", but only to the grading company itself. Example PCGS has a Guarantee Premium of 1% of Final Value if the coin upgrades...which I have no issue with, for the most part. However, how would one go about providing compensation to the first party? If I owned the coins and sold them in any manner, how would the grading company know to compensate me? Or would one expect the second party who bought said coins and upgraded be required to provide me the compensation?
I believe it's been said: "To the victor go the spoils".
I have experienced multiple times the same outcome, but who do I blame? Me, for not knowing what I had to begin with. Although I could provide a few examples that would argue the point there was perhaps more involved.
I am curious of Mr. Feld's take on how the submitter was treated unfairly and the subsequent one was treated too well, etc? Could you explain that thought further?
I understand (and have posted multiple times here) that grading involves subjectivity. However, I think it’s fair to say that when the same company has graded/regraded the same coin with a two point swing, their initial grading was too tight, their subsequent grading was too loose or it was some of each.
I didn’t say that “… the submitter was treated unfairly and the subsequent one was treated too well…”
But I did say “I do feel that either a submitter was treated unfairly, a subsequent one was treated too well or there was some combination of the two.” I believe that to at least some extent, grading that’s 2 points too tight is unfair to the submitter. And grading that’s 2 points too loose is treating the submitter too well. Of course, maybe the grading was initially 1 point too tight, then later, 1 point too loose.
Mark,
I didn't mean to misquote you, was just paraphrasing the comment. My apologies buddy!!!
Jim
"If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went." Will Rogers
@Maywood said: @Zoins said: At the end of the day, it's PCGS that is doing the upgrades here.
Here's what's strange to me: PCGS has a grade guarantee so that if I ask for a re-grade and the coin downgrades I am compensated for any loss. What @Walkerlover seems to be saying is why no compensation when a coin upgrades?? This supposes that the coin is submitted in the original capsule. The coins highlighted by the OP seem to illustrate the point, that the original submitter lost money due to an error by PCGS.
How would you go about determining which grade or grades were "errors" and which were "correct"?
For the record, in the case of such grading disparities, I do feel that either a submitter was treated unfairly, a subsequent one was treated too well or there was some combination of the two.
Under the Reconsideration Submission there is "compensation", but only to the grading company itself. Example PCGS has a Guarantee Premium of 1% of Final Value if the coin upgrades...which I have no issue with, for the most part. However, how would one go about providing compensation to the first party? If I owned the coins and sold them in any manner, how would the grading company know to compensate me? Or would one expect the second party who bought said coins and upgraded be required to provide me the compensation?
I believe it's been said: "To the victor go the spoils".
I have experienced multiple times the same outcome, but who do I blame? Me, for not knowing what I had to begin with. Although I could provide a few examples that would argue the point there was perhaps more involved.
I am curious of Mr. Feld's take on how the submitter was treated unfairly and the subsequent one was treated too well, etc? Could you explain that thought further?
I understand (and have posted multiple times here) that grading involves subjectivity. However, I think it’s fair to say that when the same company has graded/regraded the same coin with a two point swing, their initial grading was too tight, their subsequent grading was too loose or it was some of each.
I didn’t say that “… the submitter was treated unfairly and the subsequent one was treated too well…”
But I did say “I do feel that either a submitter was treated unfairly, a subsequent one was treated too well or there was some combination of the two.” I believe that to at least some extent, grading that’s 2 points too tight is unfair to the submitter. And grading that’s 2 points too loose is treating the submitter too well. Of course, maybe the grading was initially 1 point too tight, then later, 1 point too loose.
Mark,
I didn't mean to misquote you, was just paraphrasing the comment. My apologies buddy!!!
Jim
Jim, no apology necessary - I just wanted to avoid possible confusion. Thank you for taking the time to tell me.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@Coinscratch said:
He is still only at 40% of the price guide but I suppose fmv is what it is today but what about tomorrow.
And I'll assume PCGS adjusts their price guides based on actual sales? So at some point the correction is made or do they just leave it there where they initially put it?
With respect to auctions, unless it changed recently, 'GC' does not grant PCGS access to their recent results for inclusion in their estimate. Reference
To clarify - GC does not release their auction data. However, PCGS (and others) can certainly view the GC auction results like others do and use that information in determining prices. Now manually doing this for thousands of coins would not be practical. But it can be done on select cases. The below Morgan 1893 S MS67 was sold at GC and then subsequently pcgs upped their price guide. I guess perhaps the buyer could have said hey I bought this for $X and pcgs used that but....
My take-away question from all of this- yes PCGS graded stricter 25 years ago on these Washington quarters (and Roosevelt dimes, by the way) yet CAC didn't see fit to award the gold sticker when they were housed in the MS66 slabs?
@braddick said:
My take-away question from all of this- yes PCGS graded stricter 25 years ago on these Washington quarters (and Roosevelt dimes, by the way) yet CAC didn't see fit to award the gold sticker when they were housed in the MS66 slabs?
That is strange.
Edited, as I misinterpreted the question.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@braddick said:
My take-away question from all of this- yes PCGS graded stricter 25 years ago on these Washington quarters (and Roosevelt dimes, by the way) yet CAC didn't see fit to award the gold sticker when they were housed in the MS66 slabs?
@lilolme said:
To clarify - GC does not release their auction data. However, PCGS (and others) can certainly view the GC auction results like others do and use that information in determining prices. Now manually doing this for thousands of coins would not be practical. But it can be done on select cases. The below Morgan 1893 S MS67 was sold at GC and then subsequently pcgs upped their price guide. I guess perhaps the buyer could have said hey I bought this for $X and pcgs used that but....
Excellent point. Thanks for the clarification, and the example.
It will be interesting to see 'if/when' the PCGS 'PG' value drops from $25K on 5800 and 5803 in MS68 based on these results (i.e., $14,062.50 and $7,593.75, respectively).
@braddick said:
My take-away question from all of this- yes PCGS graded stricter 25 years ago on these Washington quarters (and Roosevelt dimes, by the way) yet CAC didn't see fit to award the gold sticker when they were housed in the MS66 slabs?
That is strange.
I’m not certain what you took from the thread since I wrote in the title that both had gold CAC stickers and my text had it, as well.
I agree fully with @TomB. It was I want to say natural for PCGS to be hesitant to give out higher grades in the earlier years since they hadn't done it yet. I think the desire was to put really solid coins in those 67 and 68 holders (since many eyes would be on those high grade holders). Therefore, a lot of really nice liners got thrown in 65 and 66 holders.
Now that there are many many more 68s and up, the grades below and leading up to 68 are becoming much more common. PCGS will be willing to grade coins at that level much more often. I think the coins are solid, and they probably were undergraded a considerable amount. A 68 isn't shocking, looking at the coins. You're just seeing the effects of several decades of coins being graded and opinions changing in that time.
@logger7 said:
What numismatist can really peg coins that will grade MS67 or MS68?
The great ones. Also you gotta remember, these guys will submit these things a dozen times if they really believe in the coin.
This. I had a Saint that I reconned 3 times to get from 64 to 64+ (to no avail) then sold it on GC. 3 months later, I check the Cert number, and it got a 64+
I did believe in the coin, but just was not persistent enough.
And on grading strictness and grading theory, even when grading was the tightest, in the 1980s generally, there was always a reason why a given coin got a given grade unless the graders made one of their relatively rare mistakes. I.e., the gold sticker old holder coins had something that held them back in the eyes of the graders. Plus many of the coins especially common type gold before they started grading moderns may not have been "good enough" for higher grades, when the stakes were a lot less. Some coins have exploded in value between the grades since then.
I wonder how that guy sent them (CAC 66) in (they came back68). A. Crack out and send in raw. Or B. Leave in 66 CAC holder and then send in (possibly specifying minimum grade)? Then was he an experienced upgrade player? Shows even this late in the game upgrade opportunity stuff still out there.
@Cougar1978 said:
I wonder how that guy sent them (CAC 66) in (they came back68). A. Crack out and send in raw. Or B. Leave in 66 CAC holder and then send in (possibly specifying minimum grade)? Then was he an experienced upgrade player? Shows even this late in the game upgrade opportunity stuff still out there.
If I had to guess, I would say they were cracked out, or submitted under regrade where pcgs cracks them out first. No chance it was a reconsideration submission.
As posted by OP the cac is still active and as posted by me early in the thread the OGH cert numbers are still active (see below). This implies a crack out (unless pcgs totally missed on deleting out the old cert numbers on a regrade).
Yes I would think he cracked them out. I don’t think it was his first rodeo in executing that kind of project. Certainly paid off big for him. What now for him - rinse and repeat? Or just by a few pieces nice inventory around bid make his case at shows look really nice.
@Cougar1978 said:
Yes I would think he cracked them out. I don’t think it was his first rodeo in executing that kind of project. Certainly paid off big for him. What now for him - rinse and repeat? Or just by a few pieces nice inventory around bid make his case at shows look really nice.
How did he know he would succeed getting 68, and not lose the gold stickers?
I would want send them in get the upgrade whatever it is. Then flip them. I like execution of strategy not mystery.
In his case the odds (JA opinion) favored they would upgrade. Like poker - I am sure he analyzed their potential upgrade, his cost in them vs CPG or whatever then put his money on the table (push came to shove or simply it’s time to execute the plan). BS walks money (upgrade) talks. He saw potential of the deal payoff bigtime. Perhaps this a regular thing he does. Not a bad angle to work. He saw the big picture - price guide of higher grades.
@Cougar1978 said:
I would want send them in get the upgrade whatever it is. Then flip them. I like execution of strategy not mystery.
In his case the odds (JA opinion) favored they would upgrade. Like poker - I am sure he analyzed their potential upgrade, his cost in them vs CPG or whatever then put his money on the table (push came to shove or simply it’s time to execute the plan). BS walks money (upgrade) talks. He saw potential of the deal payoff bigtime. Perhaps this a regular thing he does. Not a bad angle to work. He saw the big picture - price guide of higher grades.
Cougar, does this mean you've turned the corner on gold stickers, and your decision of "not paying above grade on holder" ? 😃
With that vision of the road have turned the corner. I haven’t been offered any gold stickered coins so it’s really a moot issue for me . But realistically I don’t see how anybody could acquire one without having to pay up. If I did buy one would send it in wanna see how it would do take my turn at bat (for Upgrade).
Considering how that one upgraded 2 grades plus lots $ Value result from him sending it in certainly took notice. The 2 grades up result a made a heck of value difference. Let’s just say my outlook on that changed after seeing this thread. Obviously if JA flagged it like that….then avenue send in.
@Maywood said: @Zoins said: At the end of the day, it's PCGS that is doing the upgrades here.
Here's what's strange to me: PCGS has a grade guarantee so that if I ask for a re-grade and the coin downgrades I am compensated for any loss. What @Walkerlover seems to be saying is why no compensation when a coin upgrades?? This supposes that the coin is submitted in the original capsule. The coins highlighted by the OP seem to illustrate the point, that the original submitter lost money due to an error by PCGS.
How would you go about determining which grade or grades were "errors" and which were "correct"?
For the record, in the case of such grading disparities, I do feel that either a submitter was treated unfairly, a subsequent one was treated too well or there was some combination of the two.
Under the Reconsideration Submission there is "compensation", but only to the grading company itself. Example PCGS has a Guarantee Premium of 1% of Final Value if the coin upgrades...which I have no issue with, for the most part. However, how would one go about providing compensation to the first party? If I owned the coins and sold them in any manner, how would the grading company know to compensate me? Or would one expect the second party who bought said coins and upgraded be required to provide me the compensation?
I believe it's been said: "To the victor go the spoils".
I have experienced multiple times the same outcome, but who do I blame? Me, for not knowing what I had to begin with. Although I could provide a few examples that would argue the point there was perhaps more involved.
I am curious of Mr. Feld's take on how the submitter was treated unfairly and the subsequent one was treated too well, etc? Could you explain that thought further?
I understand (and have posted multiple times here) that grading involves subjectivity. However, I think it’s fair to say that when the same company has graded/regraded the same coin with a two point swing, their initial grading was too tight, their subsequent grading was too loose or it was some of each.
What time frame are you thinking of?
It seems like a lot of coins have gone up in grade since TPGs were started, sometimes with swings of 15 points or more.
@braddick said:
It can work the other way around too!
Here is a former PCGS PR67 1939 quarter cracked and submitted to NGC.
It is now in an NGC PR64 slab...
@Maywood said: @Zoins said: At the end of the day, it's PCGS that is doing the upgrades here.
Here's what's strange to me: PCGS has a grade guarantee so that if I ask for a re-grade and the coin downgrades I am compensated for any loss. What @Walkerlover seems to be saying is why no compensation when a coin upgrades?? This supposes that the coin is submitted in the original capsule. The coins highlighted by the OP seem to illustrate the point, that the original submitter lost money due to an error by PCGS.
How would you go about determining which grade or grades were "errors" and which were "correct"?
For the record, in the case of such grading disparities, I do feel that either a submitter was treated unfairly, a subsequent one was treated too well or there was some combination of the two.
Under the Reconsideration Submission there is "compensation", but only to the grading company itself. Example PCGS has a Guarantee Premium of 1% of Final Value if the coin upgrades...which I have no issue with, for the most part. However, how would one go about providing compensation to the first party? If I owned the coins and sold them in any manner, how would the grading company know to compensate me? Or would one expect the second party who bought said coins and upgraded be required to provide me the compensation?
I believe it's been said: "To the victor go the spoils".
I have experienced multiple times the same outcome, but who do I blame? Me, for not knowing what I had to begin with. Although I could provide a few examples that would argue the point there was perhaps more involved.
I am curious of Mr. Feld's take on how the submitter was treated unfairly and the subsequent one was treated too well, etc? Could you explain that thought further?
I understand (and have posted multiple times here) that grading involves subjectivity. However, I think it’s fair to say that when the same company has graded/regraded the same coin with a two point swing, their initial grading was too tight, their subsequent grading was too loose or it was some of each.
What time frame are you thinking of?
It seems like a lot of coins have gone up in grade since TPGs were started, sometimes with swings of 15 points or more.
I’m not thinking of any particular time period.
If you’re going to talk about “swings of 15 points or more”, it would be good to provide some context.
For example, I’m guessing no coins have had a swing of 45 to 60, 50 to 65, or 55 to 70.😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@Maywood said: @Zoins said: At the end of the day, it's PCGS that is doing the upgrades here.
Here's what's strange to me: PCGS has a grade guarantee so that if I ask for a re-grade and the coin downgrades I am compensated for any loss. What @Walkerlover seems to be saying is why no compensation when a coin upgrades?? This supposes that the coin is submitted in the original capsule. The coins highlighted by the OP seem to illustrate the point, that the original submitter lost money due to an error by PCGS.
How would you go about determining which grade or grades were "errors" and which were "correct"?
For the record, in the case of such grading disparities, I do feel that either a submitter was treated unfairly, a subsequent one was treated too well or there was some combination of the two.
Under the Reconsideration Submission there is "compensation", but only to the grading company itself. Example PCGS has a Guarantee Premium of 1% of Final Value if the coin upgrades...which I have no issue with, for the most part. However, how would one go about providing compensation to the first party? If I owned the coins and sold them in any manner, how would the grading company know to compensate me? Or would one expect the second party who bought said coins and upgraded be required to provide me the compensation?
I believe it's been said: "To the victor go the spoils".
I have experienced multiple times the same outcome, but who do I blame? Me, for not knowing what I had to begin with. Although I could provide a few examples that would argue the point there was perhaps more involved.
I am curious of Mr. Feld's take on how the submitter was treated unfairly and the subsequent one was treated too well, etc? Could you explain that thought further?
I understand (and have posted multiple times here) that grading involves subjectivity. However, I think it’s fair to say that when the same company has graded/regraded the same coin with a two point swing, their initial grading was too tight, their subsequent grading was too loose or it was some of each.
What time frame are you thinking of?
It seems like a lot of coins have gone up in grade since TPGs were started, sometimes with swings of 15 points or more.
I’m not thinking of any particular time period.
Do you think grading standards have changed over time?
If you’re going to talk about “swings of 15 points or more”, it would be good to provide some context.
For example, I’m guessing no coins have had a swing of 45 to 60, 50 to 65, or 55 to 70.😉
Thanks for bringing this up. Regarding the point spread, of course context is useful
Here are a few from a post here a while back.
When talking about point swings, it's useful to recognize larger swings happen as well.
@CharlotteDudesaid:
Here's an example of a coin which I purchased raw, submitted to PCGS in 1993 and received a VF-30 grade. I had expected the coin to grade at least XF-40, so I brought it to a Baltimore show in 2003, showed it to several prominent dealers of southern gold... each one said it was an easy XF coin and even offered XF money for it. I resubmitted it to PCGS, where it came back as an XF-45.
Here a few other examples of upgrades:
1854-O $3 PCGS XF-45 to NGC AU-55
1857-S $3 PCGS XF-45 to NGC AU-53 1860-S $3 PCGS VF-25 to PCGS XF-45 1838-C $5 PCGS VF-30 to PCGS XF-45
1842-C $5 PCGS XF-45 to PCGS AU-50
1850-C $5 NGC AU-50 to NGC AU-58 1856-D $5 NGC VF-30 to NGC XF-45 1856-O $5 PCGS VF-30 to PCGS XF-45 1882-O $10 PCGS VF-30 to PCGS XF-45
1857-O $20 PCGS VF-35 to PCGS XF-45
@braddick said:
It can work the other way around too!
Here is a former PCGS PR67 1939 quarter cracked and submitted to NGC.
It is now in an NGC PR64 slab...
@Maywood said: @Zoins said: At the end of the day, it's PCGS that is doing the upgrades here.
Here's what's strange to me: PCGS has a grade guarantee so that if I ask for a re-grade and the coin downgrades I am compensated for any loss. What @Walkerlover seems to be saying is why no compensation when a coin upgrades?? This supposes that the coin is submitted in the original capsule. The coins highlighted by the OP seem to illustrate the point, that the original submitter lost money due to an error by PCGS.
How would you go about determining which grade or grades were "errors" and which were "correct"?
For the record, in the case of such grading disparities, I do feel that either a submitter was treated unfairly, a subsequent one was treated too well or there was some combination of the two.
Under the Reconsideration Submission there is "compensation", but only to the grading company itself. Example PCGS has a Guarantee Premium of 1% of Final Value if the coin upgrades...which I have no issue with, for the most part. However, how would one go about providing compensation to the first party? If I owned the coins and sold them in any manner, how would the grading company know to compensate me? Or would one expect the second party who bought said coins and upgraded be required to provide me the compensation?
I believe it's been said: "To the victor go the spoils".
I have experienced multiple times the same outcome, but who do I blame? Me, for not knowing what I had to begin with. Although I could provide a few examples that would argue the point there was perhaps more involved.
I am curious of Mr. Feld's take on how the submitter was treated unfairly and the subsequent one was treated too well, etc? Could you explain that thought further?
I understand (and have posted multiple times here) that grading involves subjectivity. However, I think it’s fair to say that when the same company has graded/regraded the same coin with a two point swing, their initial grading was too tight, their subsequent grading was too loose or it was some of each.
What time frame are you thinking of?
It seems like a lot of coins have gone up in grade since TPGs were started, sometimes with swings of 15 points or more.
I’m not thinking of any particular time period.
Do you think grading standards have changed over time?
If you’re going to talk about “swings of 15 points or more”, it would be good to provide some context.
For example, I’m guessing no coins have had a swing of 45 to 60, 50 to 65, or 55 to 70.😉
Thanks for bringing this up. Regarding the point spread, course context is useful
Here are a few from a post here a while back.
When talking about point swings, it's useful to recognize larger swings happen as well.
@CharlotteDudesaid:
Here's an example of a coin which I purchased raw, submitted to PCGS in 1993 and received a VF-30 grade. I had expected the coin to grade at least XF-40, so I brought it to a Baltimore show in 2003, showed it to several prominent dealers of southern gold... each one said it was an easy XF coin and even offered XF money for it. I resubmitted it to PCGS, where it came back as an XF-45.
Here a few other examples of upgrades:
1854-O $3 PCGS XF-45 to NGC AU-55
1857-S $3 PCGS XF-45 to NGC AU-53 1860-S $3 PCGS VF-25 to PCGS XF-45 1838-C $5 PCGS VF-30 to PCGS XF-45
1842-C $5 PCGS XF-45 to PCGS AU-50
1850-C $5 NGC AU-50 to NGC AU-58 1856-D $5 NGC VF-30 to NGC XF-45 1856-O $5 PCGS VF-30 to PCGS XF-45 1882-O $10 PCGS VF-30 to PCGS XF-45
1857-O $20 PCGS VF-35 to PCGS XF-45
Thank you and I hope you didn’t spend too much time compiling that list.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@Maywood said: @Zoins said: At the end of the day, it's PCGS that is doing the upgrades here.
Here's what's strange to me: PCGS has a grade guarantee so that if I ask for a re-grade and the coin downgrades I am compensated for any loss. What @Walkerlover seems to be saying is why no compensation when a coin upgrades?? This supposes that the coin is submitted in the original capsule. The coins highlighted by the OP seem to illustrate the point, that the original submitter lost money due to an error by PCGS.
How would you go about determining which grade or grades were "errors" and which were "correct"?
For the record, in the case of such grading disparities, I do feel that either a submitter was treated unfairly, a subsequent one was treated too well or there was some combination of the two.
Under the Reconsideration Submission there is "compensation", but only to the grading company itself. Example PCGS has a Guarantee Premium of 1% of Final Value if the coin upgrades...which I have no issue with, for the most part. However, how would one go about providing compensation to the first party? If I owned the coins and sold them in any manner, how would the grading company know to compensate me? Or would one expect the second party who bought said coins and upgraded be required to provide me the compensation?
I believe it's been said: "To the victor go the spoils".
I have experienced multiple times the same outcome, but who do I blame? Me, for not knowing what I had to begin with. Although I could provide a few examples that would argue the point there was perhaps more involved.
I am curious of Mr. Feld's take on how the submitter was treated unfairly and the subsequent one was treated too well, etc? Could you explain that thought further?
I understand (and have posted multiple times here) that grading involves subjectivity. However, I think it’s fair to say that when the same company has graded/regraded the same coin with a two point swing, their initial grading was too tight, their subsequent grading was too loose or it was some of each.
What time frame are you thinking of?
It seems like a lot of coins have gone up in grade since TPGs were started, sometimes with swings of 15 points or more.
I’m not thinking of any particular time period.
Do you think grading standards have changed over time?
If you’re going to talk about “swings of 15 points or more”, it would be good to provide some context.
For example, I’m guessing no coins have had a swing of 45 to 60, 50 to 65, or 55 to 70.😉
Thanks for bringing this up. Regarding the point spread, course context is useful
Here are a few from a post here a while back.
When talking about point swings, it's useful to recognize larger swings happen as well.
@CharlotteDudesaid:
Here's an example of a coin which I purchased raw, submitted to PCGS in 1993 and received a VF-30 grade. I had expected the coin to grade at least XF-40, so I brought it to a Baltimore show in 2003, showed it to several prominent dealers of southern gold... each one said it was an easy XF coin and even offered XF money for it. I resubmitted it to PCGS, where it came back as an XF-45.
Here a few other examples of upgrades:
1854-O $3 PCGS XF-45 to NGC AU-55
1857-S $3 PCGS XF-45 to NGC AU-53 1860-S $3 PCGS VF-25 to PCGS XF-45 1838-C $5 PCGS VF-30 to PCGS XF-45
1842-C $5 PCGS XF-45 to PCGS AU-50
1850-C $5 NGC AU-50 to NGC AU-58 1856-D $5 NGC VF-30 to NGC XF-45 1856-O $5 PCGS VF-30 to PCGS XF-45 1882-O $10 PCGS VF-30 to PCGS XF-45
1857-O $20 PCGS VF-35 to PCGS XF-45
Thank you and I hope you didn’t spend too much time compiling that list.
Thanks go to @CharlotteDude for that list as mentioned above.
Comments
So this is how it's done!
The sellers pics look at least 67+. Two things here surprise me, Tom not buying them the first time he saw them and how weak the original bidding was on Ebay.
GC has an inside track and gets good treatment, quick turn-around times. If I were looking for the best grade I'd have GC do the submission. I'm not saying there is any bias, but they do get results.
n> @lablover said:
I understand (and have posted multiple times here) that grading involves subjectivity. However, I think it’s fair to say that when the same company has graded/regraded the same coin with a two point swing, their initial grading was too tight, their subsequent grading was too loose or it was some of each.
I didn’t say that “… the submitter was treated unfairly and the subsequent one was treated too well…”
But I did say “I do feel that either a submitter was treated unfairly, a subsequent one was treated too well or there was some combination of the two.” I believe that to at least some extent, grading that’s 2 points too tight is unfair to the submitter. And grading that’s 2 points too loose is treating the submitter too well. Of course, maybe the grading was initially 1 point too tight, then later, 1 point too loose.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
The new owner didn’t do so bad either, at 50k price guide.
Contrary to many others, I have no issue with PCGS grading these coins MS66 and MS68. The OGH was phased out in 1998 and we are here a quarter century later. This generation of holders was used from about 1994-1998 therefore, these coins were graded between 25-and 29-years ago.
They were also graded prior to the advent of plus grades, which means for all we know the graders at PCGS may have thought these were MS66.8 or MS66.9 coins. Remember, when these coins were graded PCGS only rarely gave out the MS67 grade. Today, not only does PCGS give out the plus grade, which these coins did not earn, but they also opened up the floodgates to the MS68 grade.
PCGS gave out their first MS68 WQ in the mid-90s to a 1939 WQ. Until the early 2000s there were only a dozen or two MS68 coins, while now there are hundreds (thousands?) graded. Therefore, the MS66 grades may have been quite accurate in the mid-1990s while the MS68 grades could be accurate today. The fact that the coins were not regraded in the quarter century does not imply that PCGS screwed up, but it does give us some insight into how the super gem grading windows may have changed over the years.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
I agree with those that have one point is acceptable but a two point difference mean some screwed up. As far as which I think the 1937 is over grades as a 68.
‘’The new owner didn’t do so bad either, at 50k price guide.’’
A few weeks ago, for a very good customer, I upgraded a $7,000 classic coin in its current holder to a brand new pop 1/0 the next half point up. PCGS set the PG on the new grade level at $70,000. I paid the added grading fee PCGS charges based on the new $70,000 estimated value of the upgraded coin. When the coin recently came up for auction, I told the customer that in my opinion the coin was worth about $30,000-$37,000 tops. This at least set the reasonable expectations in the customer’s mind as to what the upgrade was likely worth to Him. The coin sold at public auction for right around $32,000. Everyone was happy on this end.
Likewise, IMHO the new owner of the 2 quarters paid the fmv for those coins. There is no measure of how well the new owner did based upon the best guess of PCGS at the time they valued the upgrades.
Just my 2 cents.
Wondercoin
Tom, not surprisingly, your points are very well taken and articulated.
My issue regarding upgrades of more than a point is more of a general one. While these two coins were graded a long time ago (and before the introduction of "Plus" grades), we have seen quite a few instances of such upgrades to coins that had initially been graded much more recently. We have also seen some upgrades in designations from Mint State to "SP" (Specimen"). To me, even if such upgrades might be justified, it's not a good look.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@TomB posted:
"Contrary to many others, I have no issue with PCGS grading these coins MS66 and MS68. The OGH was phased out in 1998 and we are here a quarter century later. This generation of holders was used from about 1994-1998 therefore, these coins were graded between 25-and 29-years ago.
They were also graded prior to the advent of plus grades, which means for all we know the graders at PCGS may have thought these were MS66.8 or MS66.9 coins. Remember, when these coins were graded PCGS only rarely gave out the MS67 grade. Today, not only does PCGS give out the plus grade, which these coins did not earn, but they also opened up the floodgates to the MS68 grade.
PCGS gave out their first MS68 WQ in the mid-90s to a 1939 WQ. Until the early 2000s there were only a dozen or two MS68 coins, while now there are hundreds (thousands?) graded. Therefore, the MS66 grades may have been quite accurate in the mid-1990s while the MS68 grades could be accurate today. The fact that the coins were not regraded in the quarter century does not imply that PCGS screwed up, but it does give us some insight into how the super gem grading windows may have changed over the years."
My reply:
Tom, not surprisingly, your points were very well taken and articulated.
My issue regarding upgrades of more than a point is more of a general one. While the two coins being discussed were initially graded a long time ago (and before the introduction of "Plus" grades), we have seen a number of other such upgrades to coins that had been graded much more recently. We have also seen some upgrades in designation from "Mint State" to "SP" ("Specimen"). Even if such upgrades were justified, I think it's a bad look and bad for the hobby/business.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Wow / somebody picked them off, sent in got 68 - did really fantastic! I would say when somebody gets CAC Gold send it in, get higher grade. In this example they hit a homer.
He is still only at 40% of the price guide but I suppose fmv is what it is today but what about tomorrow.
And I'll assume PCGS adjusts their price guides based on actual sales? So at some point the correction is made or do they just leave it there where they initially put it?
DS was my 1st thought as well @BigMoose.
My 1866 Philly Mint Set
Yep!
Check out some of my 1794 Large Cents on www.coingallery.org
No one else really comes to mind.
Check out some of my 1794 Large Cents on www.coingallery.org
All of my slabbed coins (graded in 2021 and 2022 by our host) are undergraded, by 1 or more points. Everyone of them!!!!
I know that all of them will receive higher grades when resubmitted. I just have to find the time to do the leg work to get them back to PCGS
From the PCGS 'PG' webpage:
Source
With respect to auctions, unless it changed recently, 'GC' does not grant PCGS access to their recent results for inclusion in their estimate. Reference
Mark,
I didn't mean to misquote you, was just paraphrasing the comment. My apologies buddy!!!
Jim
Jim, no apology necessary - I just wanted to avoid possible confusion. Thank you for taking the time to tell me.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
To clarify - GC does not release their auction data. However, PCGS (and others) can certainly view the GC auction results like others do and use that information in determining prices. Now manually doing this for thousands of coins would not be practical. But it can be done on select cases. The below Morgan 1893 S MS67 was sold at GC and then subsequently pcgs upped their price guide. I guess perhaps the buyer could have said hey I bought this for $X and pcgs used that but....
https://www.pcgs.com/pricehistory#/?=7226-67
.
.
https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/1893-s-1/7226
.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=wwmUMvhy-lY - Pink Me And Bobby McGee
.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=D0FPxuQv2ns - Ruby Starr (from 'Go Jim Dandy') Maybe I'm Amazed
RLJ 1958 - 2023
My take-away question from all of this- yes PCGS graded stricter 25 years ago on these Washington quarters (and Roosevelt dimes, by the way) yet CAC didn't see fit to award the gold sticker when they were housed in the MS66 slabs?
That is strange.
peacockcoins
Edited, as I misinterpreted the question.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
?
CAC did award gold stickers, to both of them.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Excellent point. Thanks for the clarification, and the example.
It will be interesting to see 'if/when' the PCGS 'PG' value drops from $25K on 5800 and 5803 in MS68 based on these results (i.e., $14,062.50 and $7,593.75, respectively).
For historic reference, as of 06/27/23:
Source: https://www.pcgs.com/prices/detail/washington-quarter-1932-1998/112/most-active/ms
I’m not certain what you took from the thread since I wrote in the title that both had gold CAC stickers and my text had it, as well.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
^
I know.
Sorry.
I messed up.
peacockcoins
@FlyingAl
Would like your thoughts on the quarters!
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
I agree fully with @TomB. It was I want to say natural for PCGS to be hesitant to give out higher grades in the earlier years since they hadn't done it yet. I think the desire was to put really solid coins in those 67 and 68 holders (since many eyes would be on those high grade holders). Therefore, a lot of really nice liners got thrown in 65 and 66 holders.
Now that there are many many more 68s and up, the grades below and leading up to 68 are becoming much more common. PCGS will be willing to grade coins at that level much more often. I think the coins are solid, and they probably were undergraded a considerable amount. A 68 isn't shocking, looking at the coins. You're just seeing the effects of several decades of coins being graded and opinions changing in that time.
Coin Photographer.
This. I had a Saint that I reconned 3 times to get from 64 to 64+ (to no avail) then sold it on GC. 3 months later, I check the Cert number, and it got a 64+
I did believe in the coin, but just was not persistent enough.
And on grading strictness and grading theory, even when grading was the tightest, in the 1980s generally, there was always a reason why a given coin got a given grade unless the graders made one of their relatively rare mistakes. I.e., the gold sticker old holder coins had something that held them back in the eyes of the graders. Plus many of the coins especially common type gold before they started grading moderns may not have been "good enough" for higher grades, when the stakes were a lot less. Some coins have exploded in value between the grades since then.
I wonder how that guy sent them (CAC 66) in (they came back68). A. Crack out and send in raw. Or B. Leave in 66 CAC holder and then send in (possibly specifying minimum grade)? Then was he an experienced upgrade player? Shows even this late in the game upgrade opportunity stuff still out there.
If I had to guess, I would say they were cracked out, or submitted under regrade where pcgs cracks them out first. No chance it was a reconsideration submission.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
As posted by OP the cac is still active and as posted by me early in the thread the OGH cert numbers are still active (see below). This implies a crack out (unless pcgs totally missed on deleting out the old cert numbers on a regrade).
https://youtube.com/watch?v=wwmUMvhy-lY - Pink Me And Bobby McGee
.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=D0FPxuQv2ns - Ruby Starr (from 'Go Jim Dandy') Maybe I'm Amazed
RLJ 1958 - 2023
Yes I would think he cracked them out. I don’t think it was his first rodeo in executing that kind of project. Certainly paid off big for him. What now for him - rinse and repeat? Or just by a few pieces nice inventory around bid make his case at shows look really nice.
They were cracked out first. I have absolutely no doubt about that.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
How did he know he would succeed getting 68, and not lose the gold stickers?
He didn’t know for certain that they would grade 68, but he must have felt that the odds were in his favor, based on his grading ability.
Check out some of my 1794 Large Cents on www.coingallery.org
I would want send them in get the upgrade whatever it is. Then flip them. I like execution of strategy not mystery.
In his case the odds (JA opinion) favored they would upgrade. Like poker - I am sure he analyzed their potential upgrade, his cost in them vs CPG or whatever then put his money on the table (push came to shove or simply it’s time to execute the plan). BS walks money (upgrade) talks. He saw potential of the deal payoff bigtime. Perhaps this a regular thing he does. Not a bad angle to work. He saw the big picture - price guide of higher grades.
Cougar, does this mean you've turned the corner on gold stickers, and your decision of "not paying above grade on holder" ? 😃
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
It can work the other way around too!
Here is a former PCGS PR67 1939 quarter cracked and submitted to NGC.
It is now in an NGC PR64 slab...
peacockcoins
::Whoops::
Here's the photo:
peacockcoins
Great thread!
My YouTube Channel
With that vision of the road have turned the corner. I haven’t been offered any gold stickered coins so it’s really a moot issue for me . But realistically I don’t see how anybody could acquire one without having to pay up. If I did buy one would send it in wanna see how it would do take my turn at bat (for Upgrade).
Considering how that one upgraded 2 grades plus lots $ Value result from him sending it in certainly took notice. The 2 grades up result a made a heck of value difference. Let’s just say my outlook on that changed after seeing this thread. Obviously if JA flagged it like that….then avenue send in.
What time frame are you thinking of?
It seems like a lot of coins have gone up in grade since TPGs were started, sometimes with swings of 15 points or more.
This is different TPGs so it's more common to have different grades.
At least it got stickered.
Has it found it's way back to PCGS yet?
I’m not thinking of any particular time period.
If you’re going to talk about “swings of 15 points or more”, it would be good to provide some context.
For example, I’m guessing no coins have had a swing of 45 to 60, 50 to 65, or 55 to 70.😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Do you think grading standards have changed over time?
Thanks for bringing this up. Regarding the point spread, of course context is useful
Here are a few from a post here a while back.
When talking about point swings, it's useful to recognize larger swings happen as well.
It is not my coin.
Interestingly, the asking price (on eBay) is the full PR67 price!
peacockcoins
Thank you and I hope you didn’t spend too much time compiling that list.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Thanks go to @CharlotteDude for that list as mentioned above.
Wow… I remember each of those coins. All but one were eventually sold… mostly to fund the (at then) new early Half Eagle direction I was moving into.