@skier07 said:
When will Heritage start a similar service? When will Legend? At some point this becomes lunacy if every auction house does the same thing. Does GC get into the game?
This of course is a hypothetical scenario and hopefully never happens. I consign a coin with Stacks. It doesn’t earn a CMQ. Okay, I want my coin back. I consign with Heritage and it stickers with their new service. This nightmarish scenario could eventually border on insanity.
I don't think corporate entities can or would try. It's John Albanese and David Hall that make these (possibly) work. Heritage just sticking a Heritage sticker on a coin without a prominent authority as their finalizer would be a disaster.
I understand and agree with your point in general, but just for discussion purposes, if Heritage had @MarkFeld as their finalizer, they should do OK. Yes, his name off of these forums is not as recognizable as JA or Hall, but word would spread.
Steve
Only if Heritage is willing to put bids under the coins. Otherwise, it's just another marketing scheme meant primarily to increase values at auction, and people will see through it. Just like they do with any other retailer stickering coins to indicate PQ.
As great as Mark Feld is, he's no JA or David Hall, and doesn't have a bankroll to put behind his opinions. If Heritage would be willing to place competitive bids under his opinions, and take coins into inventory to sell for its own account, then we'd be cooking with gas.
Otherwise, if they were to do it, even with a Mark Feld, it would be no different than any of the other stickers mentioned in this thread. David Hall, AND the stated intention to make markets in the coins, is what makes this look like CAC.
Nostalgia and Perception. I see plenty of undergraded examples in modern holders.
The standards haven't changed (has PCGS updated any photo grade contents since it was published?). That doesn't mean that implementation of the standards hasn't changed though which may result in differences between "then" and "now." For example, we know that lighting is probably different and the grading process has been modernized. For better or worse, I don't know, but they don't do things the same today as they did 30-40 years ago. My point above is that I don't believe anyone at PCGS "let" the standards fall, but that they waiver over time for different reasons. But if PCGS's standard is published in photo grade, the only way you can claim the standard has changed is if they swap out any of those images.
A distinction without a difference.
Perception is reality - as evidenced by premiums for old holders - the market feels they are good candidates for upgrade. Because of gradeflation.
For the most part people buy the coins not the holders. There are; however, plenty of holder collectors and people assembling "OGH and rattler sets" out there that do drive these premiums. I've purchased plenty of coins in old holders without paying any notable premium, so an "old holder" does not guarantee any premium.
Nostalgia and Perception. I see plenty of undergraded examples in modern holders.
The standards haven't changed (has PCGS updated any photo grade contents since it was published?). That doesn't mean that implementation of the standards hasn't changed though which may result in differences between "then" and "now." For example, we know that lighting is probably different and the grading process has been modernized. For better or worse, I don't know, but they don't do things the same today as they did 30-40 years ago. My point above is that I don't believe anyone at PCGS "let" the standards fall, but that they waiver over time for different reasons. But if PCGS's standard is published in photo grade, the only way you can claim the standard has changed is if they swap out any of those images.
A distinction without a difference.
Perception is reality - as evidenced by premiums for old holders - the market feels they are good candidates for upgrade. Because of gradeflation.
For the most part people buy the coins not the holders. There are; however, plenty of holder collectors and people assembling "OGH and rattler sets" out there that do drive these premiums. I've purchased plenty of coins in old holders without paying any notable premium, so an "old holder" does not guarantee any premium.
If people are buying coins and not holders and old holders are selling for more money than new holders at the same grade, then doesn’t that imply that older holders house better coins on average?
@skier07 said:
When will Heritage start a similar service? When will Legend? At some point this becomes lunacy if every auction house does the same thing. Does GC get into the game?
This of course is a hypothetical scenario and hopefully never happens. I consign a coin with Stacks. It doesn’t earn a CMQ. Okay, I want my coin back. I consign with Heritage and it stickers with their new service. This nightmarish scenario could eventually border on insanity.
With Stack's starting this venture "early", it looks like they're positioning themselves to take over that void when CAC does stop stickering. While in theory I agree with the lunacy if HA, GC, Legend, and DLRC all do the same, I doubt they will. But who knows? As we often say, "Time will tell!"
Steve
Everyone is ASSUMING that CAC will stop the stickering business at some point. Fact is the stickering business has a long track history of success and respect in the coin community. Has anyone considered that CACG may not be a successful business enterprise and may eventually cease operations, leaving JA to fall back on his CAC sticker company and continue it for many more years than publicly stated
No. CAC said they were going to phase it out. It is not an assumption.
But he stated yesterday on his CAC forum that he has a contract with CAC to 2033, and then he will decide whether to continue with the sticker business. So he is saying publicly as of today that he will not discontinue this to at least 2033.
Good morning pcgscacgold. I have stated publicly that the end date for stickering, or the decision, will be made when my contract expires. Jan 1, 2033. John A
@skier07 said:
When will Heritage start a similar service? When will Legend? At some point this becomes lunacy if every auction house does the same thing. Does GC get into the game?
This of course is a hypothetical scenario and hopefully never happens. I consign a coin with Stacks. It doesn’t earn a CMQ. Okay, I want my coin back. I consign with Heritage and it stickers with their new service. This nightmarish scenario could eventually border on insanity.
With Stack's starting this venture "early", it looks like they're positioning themselves to take over that void when CAC does stop stickering. While in theory I agree with the lunacy if HA, GC, Legend, and DLRC all do the same, I doubt they will. But who knows? As we often say, "Time will tell!"
Steve
Everyone is ASSUMING that CAC will stop the stickering business at some point. Fact is the stickering business has a long track history of success and respect in the coin community. Has anyone considered that CACG may not be a successful business enterprise and may eventually cease operations, leaving JA to fall back on his CAC sticker company and continue it for many more years than publicly stated
No. CAC said they were going to phase it out. It is not an assumption.
But he stated yesterday on his CAC forum that he has a contract with CAC to 2033, and then he will decide whether to continue with the sticker business. So he is saying publicly as of today that he will not discontinue this to at least 2033.
Good morning pcgscacgold. I have stated publicly that the end date for stickering, or the decision, will be made when my contract expires. Jan 1, 2033. John A
Yes, that is the latest “clarification”, which differs from all of his prior statements. As such, I think we have to go with the latest.
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
Nostalgia and Perception. I see plenty of undergraded examples in modern holders.
The standards haven't changed (has PCGS updated any photo grade contents since it was published?). That doesn't mean that implementation of the standards hasn't changed though which may result in differences between "then" and "now." For example, we know that lighting is probably different and the grading process has been modernized. For better or worse, I don't know, but they don't do things the same today as they did 30-40 years ago. My point above is that I don't believe anyone at PCGS "let" the standards fall, but that they waiver over time for different reasons. But if PCGS's standard is published in photo grade, the only way you can claim the standard has changed is if they swap out any of those images.
A distinction without a difference.
Perception is reality - as evidenced by premiums for old holders - the market feels they are good candidates for upgrade. Because of gradeflation.
For the most part people buy the coins not the holders. There are; however, plenty of holder collectors and people assembling "OGH and rattler sets" out there that do drive these premiums. I've purchased plenty of coins in old holders without paying any notable premium, so an "old holder" does not guarantee any premium.
If people are buying coins and not holders and old holders are selling for more money than new holders at the same grade, then doesn’t that imply that older holders house better coins on average?
No. I'm saying there's extra demand for them because of the plastic, not the coin. Whereas a collector like myself will buy a coin in any generation of holder, if there's a group of collectors going for rattler sets and a nice example comes along, they HAVE to bid competitively because the supply (in many cases) is low and uncertain. Thus the old holders have a higher demand which will result in higher prices regardless of the contents.
@skier07 said:
When will Heritage start a similar service? When will Legend? At some point this becomes lunacy if every auction house does the same thing. Does GC get into the game?
This of course is a hypothetical scenario and hopefully never happens. I consign a coin with Stacks. It doesn’t earn a CMQ. Okay, I want my coin back. I consign with Heritage and it stickers with their new service. This nightmarish scenario could eventually border on insanity.
With Stack's starting this venture "early", it looks like they're positioning themselves to take over that void when CAC does stop stickering. While in theory I agree with the lunacy if HA, GC, Legend, and DLRC all do the same, I doubt they will. But who knows? As we often say, "Time will tell!"
Steve
Everyone is ASSUMING that CAC will stop the stickering business at some point. Fact is the stickering business has a long track history of success and respect in the coin community. Has anyone considered that CACG may not be a successful business enterprise and may eventually cease operations, leaving JA to fall back on his CAC sticker company and continue it for many more years than publicly stated
No. CAC said they were going to phase it out. It is not an assumption.
But he stated yesterday on his CAC forum that he has a contract with CAC to 2033, and then he will decide whether to continue with the sticker business. So he is saying publicly as of today that he will not discontinue this to at least 2033.
Good morning pcgscacgold. I have stated publicly that the end date for stickering, or the decision, will be made when my contract expires. Jan 1, 2033. John A
Yes, that is the latest “clarification”, which differs from all of his prior statements. As such, I think we have to go with the latest.
Steve
The problem for me is the published criteria for the new service is too vague. How can you say a coin will get a gold sticker if the coin looks like a wonder? That’s meaningless criteria as opposed to CAC criteria for obtaining gold.
@skier07 said:
When will Heritage start a similar service? When will Legend? At some point this becomes lunacy if every auction house does the same thing. Does GC get into the game?
This of course is a hypothetical scenario and hopefully never happens. I consign a coin with Stacks. It doesn’t earn a CMQ. Okay, I want my coin back. I consign with Heritage and it stickers with their new service. This nightmarish scenario could eventually border on insanity.
With Stack's starting this venture "early", it looks like they're positioning themselves to take over that void when CAC does stop stickering. While in theory I agree with the lunacy if HA, GC, Legend, and DLRC all do the same, I doubt they will. But who knows? As we often say, "Time will tell!"
Steve
Everyone is ASSUMING that CAC will stop the stickering business at some point. Fact is the stickering business has a long track history of success and respect in the coin community. Has anyone considered that CACG may not be a successful business enterprise and may eventually cease operations, leaving JA to fall back on his CAC sticker company and continue it for many more years than publicly stated
No. CAC said they were going to phase it out. It is not an assumption.
But he stated yesterday on his CAC forum that he has a contract with CAC to 2033, and then he will decide whether to continue with the sticker business. So he is saying publicly as of today that he will not discontinue this to at least 2033.
Good morning pcgscacgold. I have stated publicly that the end date for stickering, or the decision, will be made when my contract expires. Jan 1, 2033. John A
Yes, that is the latest “clarification”, which differs from all of his prior statements. As such, I think we have to go with the latest.
Steve
The problem for me is the published criteria for the new service is too vague. How can you say a coin will get a gold sticker if the coin looks like a wonder? That’s meaningless criteria as opposed to CAC criteria for obtaining gold.
I don’t think the published criteria for the two companies are meaningfully different. On a practical basis, it appears that each will will award a gold/different sticker to coins which they believe to be clearly/obviously under-graded.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Nostalgia and Perception. I see plenty of undergraded examples in modern holders.
The standards haven't changed (has PCGS updated any photo grade contents since it was published?). That doesn't mean that implementation of the standards hasn't changed though which may result in differences between "then" and "now." For example, we know that lighting is probably different and the grading process has been modernized. For better or worse, I don't know, but they don't do things the same today as they did 30-40 years ago. My point above is that I don't believe anyone at PCGS "let" the standards fall, but that they waiver over time for different reasons. But if PCGS's standard is published in photo grade, the only way you can claim the standard has changed is if they swap out any of those images.
A distinction without a difference.
Perception is reality - as evidenced by premiums for old holders - the market feels they are good candidates for upgrade. Because of gradeflation.
For the most part people buy the coins not the holders. There are; however, plenty of holder collectors and people assembling "OGH and rattler sets" out there that do drive these premiums. I've purchased plenty of coins in old holders without paying any notable premium, so an "old holder" does not guarantee any premium.
If people are buying coins and not holders and old holders are selling for more money than new holders at the same grade, then doesn’t that imply that older holders house better coins on average?
No. I'm saying there's extra demand for them because of the plastic, not the coin. Whereas a collector like myself will buy a coin in any generation of holder, if there's a group of collectors going for rattler sets and a nice example comes along, they HAVE to bid competitively because the supply (in many cases) is low and uncertain. Thus the old holders have a higher demand which will result in higher prices regardless of the contents.
So which is it? Are people buying the coin or the holder? Because you’ve stated it both ways!
People aren’t buying old holders for the “nostalgia”,slabbed crickets, 108 rattlers and regency holders excepted. They are buying the old holders because there is a perception that the coins in those holders are more likely to be under-graded. I’m really struggling with the fact that you are in denial on gradeflation!
@skier07 said:
When will Heritage start a similar service? When will Legend? At some point this becomes lunacy if every auction house does the same thing. Does GC get into the game?
This of course is a hypothetical scenario and hopefully never happens. I consign a coin with Stacks. It doesn’t earn a CMQ. Okay, I want my coin back. I consign with Heritage and it stickers with their new service. This nightmarish scenario could eventually border on insanity.
With Stack's starting this venture "early", it looks like they're positioning themselves to take over that void when CAC does stop stickering. While in theory I agree with the lunacy if HA, GC, Legend, and DLRC all do the same, I doubt they will. But who knows? As we often say, "Time will tell!"
Steve
Everyone is ASSUMING that CAC will stop the stickering business at some point. Fact is the stickering business has a long track history of success and respect in the coin community. Has anyone considered that CACG may not be a successful business enterprise and may eventually cease operations, leaving JA to fall back on his CAC sticker company and continue it for many more years than publicly stated
No. CAC said they were going to phase it out. It is not an assumption.
But he stated yesterday on his CAC forum that he has a contract with CAC to 2033, and then he will decide whether to continue with the sticker business. So he is saying publicly as of today that he will not discontinue this to at least 2033.
Good morning pcgscacgold. I have stated publicly that the end date for stickering, or the decision, will be made when my contract expires. Jan 1, 2033. John A
Contracts get bought out, and circumstances can change.
Nostalgia and Perception. I see plenty of undergraded examples in modern holders.
The standards haven't changed (has PCGS updated any photo grade contents since it was published?). That doesn't mean that implementation of the standards hasn't changed though which may result in differences between "then" and "now." For example, we know that lighting is probably different and the grading process has been modernized. For better or worse, I don't know, but they don't do things the same today as they did 30-40 years ago. My point above is that I don't believe anyone at PCGS "let" the standards fall, but that they waiver over time for different reasons. But if PCGS's standard is published in photo grade, the only way you can claim the standard has changed is if they swap out any of those images.
A distinction without a difference.
Perception is reality - as evidenced by premiums for old holders - the market feels they are good candidates for upgrade. Because of gradeflation.
For the most part people buy the coins not the holders. There are; however, plenty of holder collectors and people assembling "OGH and rattler sets" out there that do drive these premiums. I've purchased plenty of coins in old holders without paying any notable premium, so an "old holder" does not guarantee any premium.
If people are buying coins and not holders and old holders are selling for more money than new holders at the same grade, then doesn’t that imply that older holders house better coins on average?
No. I'm saying there's extra demand for them because of the plastic, not the coin. Whereas a collector like myself will buy a coin in any generation of holder, if there's a group of collectors going for rattler sets and a nice example comes along, they HAVE to bid competitively because the supply (in many cases) is low and uncertain. Thus the old holders have a higher demand which will result in higher prices regardless of the contents.
So which is it? Are people buying the coin or the holder? Because you’ve stated it both ways!
People aren’t buying old holders for the “nostalgia”,slabbed crickets, 108 rattlers and regency holders excepted. They are buying the old holders because there is a perception that the coins in those holders are more likely to be under-graded. I’m really struggling with the fact that you are in denial on gradeflation!
Sorry I was unclear. Hopefully this will help how both can be true but people buy the coins:
The supply of coins is old holders is much lower than the supply in new holders. Collectors who are assembling sets comprised of coins in older holders (for nostalgia or some other affinity that they have) have a very low supply of coins to buy from. Thus, when one comes along those collectors must compete aggressively driving the price up. Not because the coin is of higher quality, but because they don't know when the next one will come along. On top of that, those old-holder-only collectors must also compete with the buy-any-holder collectors. To summarize, there is a much higher number of "eligible" buyers for old holders than for new holders. I am assuming that there are very few if any modern-holder-only collectors.
You can prove gradeflation right now if you can tell me which coins in the PCGS photo grade system have been changed out since it was published. But the standard hasn't changed. As explained above, I will agree that natural variation and changes in process and training may contribute to short term ebbs and flows in the application of the photo grade standards. Otherwise gradeflation is an easy and convenient explanation for a theory that collectors want to believe. But like the so-called climate crisis, humans suffer from things like recency bias that spark the nostalgia of the good ol' days when grades were tighter. This even though you can find over-graded old-holder coins as well as plenty of under-graded new holder coins.
Since many collectibles today are graded,stickered I await the day when caskets may be graded,stickered. Can envision it now"RB 68", Toned brass handles 69,Doily satin liner70. And an EBF sticker denoting "Embalming By Fred". Then sonically sealed.
Successful transactions:Tookybandit. "Everyone is equal, some are more equal than others".
It was nice getting that reply from JACAC on the CAC forum (copied/quoted in several posts above). It cleared up assumptions many have been making about his continued commitment to verifying originality and quality.
@pcgscacgold said:
It was nice getting that reply from JACAC on the CAC forum (copied/quoted in several posts above). It cleared up assumptions many have been making about his continued commitment to verifying originality and quality.
Yes, but his current statement (which is great), is different from what he has said in the past (but that’s OK).
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
I don’t think there is really a need for CMQ as it is basically a spinoff of CAC. QA fills a void of modern coins CAC doesn’t grade. Photo Seal is specialized for IHC collectors. As long as a sticker service fills a need that makes sense.
@Walkerlover said:
I don’t think there is really a need for CMQ as it is basically a spinoff of CAC. QA fills a void of modern coins CAC doesn’t grade. Photo Seal is specialized for IHC collectors. As long as a sticker service fills a need that makes sense.
I agree, but my guess is that Stack’s is doing this now, to position themselves for down the road to be #1 to fill the void for when/if CAC stops stickering.
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
I don’t think there is really a need for CMQ as it is basically a spinoff of CAC. QA fills a void of modern coins CAC doesn’t grade. Photo Seal is specialized for IHC collectors. As long as a sticker service fills a need that makes sense.> @winesteven said:
@Walkerlover said:
I don’t think there is really a need for CMQ as it is basically a spinoff of CAC. QA fills a void of modern coins CAC doesn’t grade. Photo Seal is specialized for IHC collectors. As long as a sticker service fills a need that makes sense.
I agree, but my guess is that Stack’s is doing this now, to position themselves for down the road to be #1 to fill the void for when/if CAC stops stickering.
Steve
Do you think JA made the statement he did about deciding to stay the course to at least 2033 to discourage people from gravitating to CMQ and protect the interests of CAC. I do think so. He didn’t even say he would not necessarily not renew the contract even past 2033
I can't believe it's been 12 years since he sold his set for a beach house. David Hall has always treated this board right and I wish him all the best.
Nostalgia and Perception. I see plenty of undergraded examples in modern holders.
The standards haven't changed (has PCGS updated any photo grade contents since it was published?). That doesn't mean that implementation of the standards hasn't changed though which may result in differences between "then" and "now." For example, we know that lighting is probably different and the grading process has been modernized. For better or worse, I don't know, but they don't do things the same today as they did 30-40 years ago. My point above is that I don't believe anyone at PCGS "let" the standards fall, but that they waiver over time for different reasons. But if PCGS's standard is published in photo grade, the only way you can claim the standard has changed is if they swap out any of those images.
A distinction without a difference.
Perception is reality - as evidenced by premiums for old holders - the market feels they are good candidates for upgrade. Because of gradeflation.
For the most part people buy the coins not the holders. There are; however, plenty of holder collectors and people assembling "OGH and rattler sets" out there that do drive these premiums. I've purchased plenty of coins in old holders without paying any notable premium, so an "old holder" does not guarantee any premium.
If people are buying coins and not holders and old holders are selling for more money than new holders at the same grade, then doesn’t that imply that older holders house better coins on average?
No. I'm saying there's extra demand for them because of the plastic, not the coin. Whereas a collector like myself will buy a coin in any generation of holder, if there's a group of collectors going for rattler sets and a nice example comes along, they HAVE to bid competitively because the supply (in many cases) is low and uncertain. Thus the old holders have a higher demand which will result in higher prices regardless of the contents.
So which is it? Are people buying the coin or the holder? Because you’ve stated it both ways!
People aren’t buying old holders for the “nostalgia”,slabbed crickets, 108 rattlers and regency holders excepted. They are buying the old holders because there is a perception that the coins in those holders are more likely to be under-graded. I’m really struggling with the fact that you are in denial on gradeflation!
You are forgetting that there are collectors like me who like the aesthetics of the older holders. I prefer the older blue holders. Sleek not too thick, NO Prongs, light blue font. Lovely. People can keep their newer holders. Not for me, as I enjoy the unobstructed viewing experience and lighter weight holders.
Nostalgia and Perception. I see plenty of undergraded examples in modern holders.
The standards haven't changed (has PCGS updated any photo grade contents since it was published?). That doesn't mean that implementation of the standards hasn't changed though which may result in differences between "then" and "now." For example, we know that lighting is probably different and the grading process has been modernized. For better or worse, I don't know, but they don't do things the same today as they did 30-40 years ago. My point above is that I don't believe anyone at PCGS "let" the standards fall, but that they waiver over time for different reasons. But if PCGS's standard is published in photo grade, the only way you can claim the standard has changed is if they swap out any of those images.
A distinction without a difference.
Perception is reality - as evidenced by premiums for old holders - the market feels they are good candidates for upgrade. Because of gradeflation.
For the most part people buy the coins not the holders. There are; however, plenty of holder collectors and people assembling "OGH and rattler sets" out there that do drive these premiums. I've purchased plenty of coins in old holders without paying any notable premium, so an "old holder" does not guarantee any premium.
If people are buying coins and not holders and old holders are selling for more money than new holders at the same grade, then doesn’t that imply that older holders house better coins on average?
No. It implies that people THINK they do. After 30 years of breakouts, what are the odds?
It's at least possible that it's not "grade inflation" so much as the tendency of coins to be submitted and resubmitted until they max out. Grading isn't exact. The difference between a 65 and 66 can be a matter of opinion. If you had a coin that you submitted 100x and got 95 65s, 2 64s and 3 66s, that would mean scientifically that it is a 65 with some variance in the "measurement". But that coin will invariably end up in the 66 holder because people keep submitting until they get the result they want, even if it is an outlier.
"Was it C*C who initiated this whole regrading and recertification process because they made us believe that coins previously examined were now subject to inaccuracy ?"
Unfortunately, it was inaccurate and inconsistent grading by the TPG's that created the need for and success of CAC.
"With CAC I never saw a conflict because John only operates at wholesale levels, but are these stickers going to show up in disproportionate amounts on coins being offered in Stacks auctions?"
"CAC would also not earn a commission from any sale of their coins through their own sponsored selling platform (which they do not have but Stacks does)."
"One would have vested interest in a coins performance on the auction block, which in theory could be dramatically changed by the application of their own sticker. The other buys wholesale and sells wholesale behind the scenes, acting as a market maker."
"JA does operate as a dealer, but in the wholesale side of the market. He doesn't operate a retail coin selling operation (that I know of) and he doesn't operate an auction company. As others have said I see this as a potential conflict of interest."
@Maywood said "To believe that Stack's/HRH would "sticker" coins to influence their auction performance seems pretty cynical. It's the same line of thinking that supposes certain submitters at PCGS receive preferential grading."
"Cynicism has served me well over the years. That aside, think about how GC does business with CAC. When you consign, they will send coins to CAC they feel will help add value. If Stacks has the same model with CMQ, that's a conflict of interest. Even if they encourage consignors to submit (wink, wink) on their own to CMQ, that's still a problem. If Stacks has zero direct or indirect business with CMQ, then fine. We'll just have to hope for the best."
In addition, the vast majority of dealers and collectors I've asked believe that certain submitters do receive preferential grading from TPG's.
@ProofCollection asks "The standards haven't changed (has PCGS updated any photo grade contents since it was published?)."
The answer is yes they have changed images. There is no question that the standards have changed and the adherence to those standards has varied over time. NGC has been much more open and publicly announced grading standard changes. The reasons for this include grader turnover, management instructions and metrics, market grading, market conditions, etc.
Nostalgia and Perception. I see plenty of undergraded examples in modern holders.
The standards haven't changed (has PCGS updated any photo grade contents since it was published?). That doesn't mean that implementation of the standards hasn't changed though which may result in differences between "then" and "now." For example, we know that lighting is probably different and the grading process has been modernized. For better or worse, I don't know, but they don't do things the same today as they did 30-40 years ago. My point above is that I don't believe anyone at PCGS "let" the standards fall, but that they waiver over time for different reasons. But if PCGS's standard is published in photo grade, the only way you can claim the standard has changed is if they swap out any of those images.
A distinction without a difference.
Perception is reality - as evidenced by premiums for old holders - the market feels they are good candidates for upgrade. Because of gradeflation.
For the most part people buy the coins not the holders. There are; however, plenty of holder collectors and people assembling "OGH and rattler sets" out there that do drive these premiums. I've purchased plenty of coins in old holders without paying any notable premium, so an "old holder" does not guarantee any premium.
If people are buying coins and not holders and old holders are selling for more money than new holders at the same grade, then doesn’t that imply that older holders house better coins on average?
No. It implies that people THINK they do. After 30 years of breakouts, what are the odds?
It's at least possible that it's not "grade inflation" so much as the tendency of coins to be submitted and resubmitted until they max out. Grading isn't exact. The difference between a 65 and 66 can be a matter of opinion. If you had a coin that you submitted 100x and got 95 65s, 2 64s and 3 66s, that would mean scientifically that it is a 65 with some variance in the "measurement". But that coin will invariably end up in the 66 holder because people keep submitting until they get the result they want, even if it is an outlier.
Perception is reality. The perception of that old holders are more stringently graded has led to the reality of higher prices.
You gentlemen are arguing semantics and ignoring the issue of gradeflation. It doesn’t matter how it happened or why - whether through resubmissions, unintentional loosening of the application of standards or changes in the standards itself - it has happened and is a problem.
It’s a big reason CAC was founded and is so popular.
Nostalgia and Perception. I see plenty of undergraded examples in modern holders.
The standards haven't changed (has PCGS updated any photo grade contents since it was published?). That doesn't mean that implementation of the standards hasn't changed though which may result in differences between "then" and "now." For example, we know that lighting is probably different and the grading process has been modernized. For better or worse, I don't know, but they don't do things the same today as they did 30-40 years ago. My point above is that I don't believe anyone at PCGS "let" the standards fall, but that they waiver over time for different reasons. But if PCGS's standard is published in photo grade, the only way you can claim the standard has changed is if they swap out any of those images.
A distinction without a difference.
Perception is reality - as evidenced by premiums for old holders - the market feels they are good candidates for upgrade. Because of gradeflation.
For the most part people buy the coins not the holders. There are; however, plenty of holder collectors and people assembling "OGH and rattler sets" out there that do drive these premiums. I've purchased plenty of coins in old holders without paying any notable premium, so an "old holder" does not guarantee any premium.
If people are buying coins and not holders and old holders are selling for more money than new holders at the same grade, then doesn’t that imply that older holders house better coins on average?
No. It implies that people THINK they do. After 30 years of breakouts, what are the odds?
It's at least possible that it's not "grade inflation" so much as the tendency of coins to be submitted and resubmitted until they max out. Grading isn't exact. The difference between a 65 and 66 can be a matter of opinion. If you had a coin that you submitted 100x and got 95 65s, 2 64s and 3 66s, that would mean scientifically that it is a 65 with some variance in the "measurement". But that coin will invariably end up in the 66 holder because people keep submitting until they get the result they want, even if it is an outlier.
Perception is reality. The perception of that old holders are more stringently graded has led to the reality of higher prices.
You gentlemen are arguing semantics and ignoring the issue of gradeflation. It doesn’t matter how it happened or why - whether through resubmissions, unintentional loosening of the application of standards or changes in the standards itself - it has happened and is a problem.
It’s a big reason CAC was founded and is so popular.
If anyone doesn't think gradeflation is real, look through this book and see what the 70's grading standards were for buffalo nickels or walking halves. Rick Snow did a write up several years ago on gradeflation about indian cents with specific examples, and that was just addressing the slab era. Market grading is just a nice way of saying gradeflation. Human nature is such that people are always looking so shave off just a little extra, no matter what they're involved in.
I would be very reluctant to consign a coin with SB in the future that doesn’t have a griff or green sticker. SB both auctions and sells coins and now are “self stickering” coins which is potentially a big conflict of interest. The CEO of Stacks and David Hall (who still actively sells coins with his own company) are two of the starters of CMQ. This to me from an optics perspective is a bad look.
Of course time will tell what happens down the road.
Nostalgia and Perception. I see plenty of undergraded examples in modern holders.
The standards haven't changed (has PCGS updated any photo grade contents since it was published?). That doesn't mean that implementation of the standards hasn't changed though which may result in differences between "then" and "now." For example, we know that lighting is probably different and the grading process has been modernized. For better or worse, I don't know, but they don't do things the same today as they did 30-40 years ago. My point above is that I don't believe anyone at PCGS "let" the standards fall, but that they waiver over time for different reasons. But if PCGS's standard is published in photo grade, the only way you can claim the standard has changed is if they swap out any of those images.
A distinction without a difference.
Perception is reality - as evidenced by premiums for old holders - the market feels they are good candidates for upgrade. Because of gradeflation.
For the most part people buy the coins not the holders. There are; however, plenty of holder collectors and people assembling "OGH and rattler sets" out there that do drive these premiums. I've purchased plenty of coins in old holders without paying any notable premium, so an "old holder" does not guarantee any premium.
If people are buying coins and not holders and old holders are selling for more money than new holders at the same grade, then doesn’t that imply that older holders house better coins on average?
No. It implies that people THINK they do. After 30 years of breakouts, what are the odds?
It's at least possible that it's not "grade inflation" so much as the tendency of coins to be submitted and resubmitted until they max out. Grading isn't exact. The difference between a 65 and 66 can be a matter of opinion. If you had a coin that you submitted 100x and got 95 65s, 2 64s and 3 66s, that would mean scientifically that it is a 65 with some variance in the "measurement". But that coin will invariably end up in the 66 holder because people keep submitting until they get the result they want, even if it is an outlier.
Perception is reality. The perception of that old holders are more stringently graded has led to the reality of higher prices.
You gentlemen are arguing semantics and ignoring the issue of gradeflation. It doesn’t matter how it happened or why - whether through resubmissions, unintentional loosening of the application of standards or changes in the standards itself - it has happened and is a problem.
It’s a big reason CAC was founded and is so popular.
Reality it reality. And then there are urban legends, lore, and prevailing beliefs. Believing in urban legends doesn't make the legends real, and neither does a belief become legitimate because it is prevailing. 2 Years ago there were plenty of myths and beliefs about Covid that turned out to be complete hooey now that more information has been provided and studies have been published.
I get why collectors believe what they do about gradeflation but I also believe there are valid and logical explanations for why people have formed these opinions that don't support the underlying assertions such as the argument @jmlanzaf made above.
The theory about old holders falls apart because if they are under-graded and there is any profit to be made, in most cases (of course there are exceptions) the coins will be cracked out and re-submitted by now. I've done pretty well recently buying undergraded coins and sending them in for regrades and most of them have been in modern holders.
Nostalgia and Perception. I see plenty of undergraded examples in modern holders.
The standards haven't changed (has PCGS updated any photo grade contents since it was published?). That doesn't mean that implementation of the standards hasn't changed though which may result in differences between "then" and "now." For example, we know that lighting is probably different and the grading process has been modernized. For better or worse, I don't know, but they don't do things the same today as they did 30-40 years ago. My point above is that I don't believe anyone at PCGS "let" the standards fall, but that they waiver over time for different reasons. But if PCGS's standard is published in photo grade, the only way you can claim the standard has changed is if they swap out any of those images.
A distinction without a difference.
Perception is reality - as evidenced by premiums for old holders - the market feels they are good candidates for upgrade. Because of gradeflation.
For the most part people buy the coins not the holders. There are; however, plenty of holder collectors and people assembling "OGH and rattler sets" out there that do drive these premiums. I've purchased plenty of coins in old holders without paying any notable premium, so an "old holder" does not guarantee any premium.
If people are buying coins and not holders and old holders are selling for more money than new holders at the same grade, then doesn’t that imply that older holders house better coins on average?
No. It implies that people THINK they do. After 30 years of breakouts, what are the odds?
It's at least possible that it's not "grade inflation" so much as the tendency of coins to be submitted and resubmitted until they max out. Grading isn't exact. The difference between a 65 and 66 can be a matter of opinion. If you had a coin that you submitted 100x and got 95 65s, 2 64s and 3 66s, that would mean scientifically that it is a 65 with some variance in the "measurement". But that coin will invariably end up in the 66 holder because people keep submitting until they get the result they want, even if it is an outlier.
Perception is reality. The perception of that old holders are more stringently graded has led to the reality of higher prices.
You gentlemen are arguing semantics and ignoring the issue of gradeflation. It doesn’t matter how it happened or why - whether through resubmissions, unintentional loosening of the application of standards or changes in the standards itself - it has happened and is a problem.
It’s a big reason CAC was founded and is so popular.
Reality it reality. And then there are urban legends, lore, and prevailing beliefs. Believing in urban legends doesn't make the legends real, and neither does a belief become legitimate because it is prevailing. 2 Years ago there were plenty of myths and beliefs about Covid that turned out to be complete hooey now that more information has been provided and studies have been published.
I get why collectors believe what they do about gradeflation but I also believe there are valid and logical explanations for why people have formed these opinions that don't support the underlying assertions such as the argument @jmlanzaf made above.
The theory about old holders falls apart because if they are under-graded and there is any profit to be made, in most cases (of course there are exceptions) the coins will be cracked out and re-submitted by now. I've done pretty well recently buying undergraded coins and sending them in for regrades and most of them have been in modern holders.
Take a look at the prices for old holders. The perception that they are better coins has resulted in the reality of higher prices.
No one is talking about urban legends or covid.
The fact that so many have been cracked and resubmitted over the years just provides further evidence for my point.
Regardless, the discussion of old holders is ancillary to the main point - TPG gradeflation has occurred - the cause of it is debatable.
Nostalgia and Perception. I see plenty of undergraded examples in modern holders.
The standards haven't changed (has PCGS updated any photo grade contents since it was published?). That doesn't mean that implementation of the standards hasn't changed though which may result in differences between "then" and "now." For example, we know that lighting is probably different and the grading process has been modernized. For better or worse, I don't know, but they don't do things the same today as they did 30-40 years ago. My point above is that I don't believe anyone at PCGS "let" the standards fall, but that they waiver over time for different reasons. But if PCGS's standard is published in photo grade, the only way you can claim the standard has changed is if they swap out any of those images.
A distinction without a difference.
Perception is reality - as evidenced by premiums for old holders - the market feels they are good candidates for upgrade. Because of gradeflation.
For the most part people buy the coins not the holders. There are; however, plenty of holder collectors and people assembling "OGH and rattler sets" out there that do drive these premiums. I've purchased plenty of coins in old holders without paying any notable premium, so an "old holder" does not guarantee any premium.
If people are buying coins and not holders and old holders are selling for more money than new holders at the same grade, then doesn’t that imply that older holders house better coins on average?
No. It implies that people THINK they do. After 30 years of breakouts, what are the odds?
It's at least possible that it's not "grade inflation" so much as the tendency of coins to be submitted and resubmitted until they max out. Grading isn't exact. The difference between a 65 and 66 can be a matter of opinion. If you had a coin that you submitted 100x and got 95 65s, 2 64s and 3 66s, that would mean scientifically that it is a 65 with some variance in the "measurement". But that coin will invariably end up in the 66 holder because people keep submitting until they get the result they want, even if it is an outlier.
Perception is reality. The perception of that old holders are more stringently graded has led to the reality of higher prices.
You gentlemen are arguing semantics and ignoring the issue of gradeflation. It doesn’t matter how it happened or why - whether through resubmissions, unintentional loosening of the application of standards or changes in the standards itself - it has happened and is a problem.
It’s a big reason CAC was founded and is so popular.
Reality it reality. And then there are urban legends, lore, and prevailing beliefs. Believing in urban legends doesn't make the legends real, and neither does a belief become legitimate because it is prevailing. 2 Years ago there were plenty of myths and beliefs about Covid that turned out to be complete hooey now that more information has been provided and studies have been published.
I get why collectors believe what they do about gradeflation but I also believe there are valid and logical explanations for why people have formed these opinions that don't support the underlying assertions such as the argument @jmlanzaf made above.
The theory about old holders falls apart because if they are under-graded and there is any profit to be made, in most cases (of course there are exceptions) the coins will be cracked out and re-submitted by now. I've done pretty well recently buying undergraded coins and sending them in for regrades and most of them have been in modern holders.
Take a look at the prices for old holders. The perception that they are better coins has resulted in the reality of higher prices.
No one is talking about urban legends or covid.
The fact that so many have been cracked and resubmitted over the years just provides further evidence for my point.
Regardless, the discussion of old holders is ancillary to the main point - TPG gradeflation has occurred - the cause of it is debatable.
OK, so the higher prices for old holders is only because of a perception about coin quality and not a result of having a larger pool of buyers for old holders or the extra competitiveness due to the small and uncertain and diminishing supply?
@ProofCollection said:
OK, so the higher prices for old holders is only because of a perception about coin quality and not a result of having a larger pool of buyers for old holders or the extra competitiveness due to the small and uncertain and diminishing supply?
Does it need to be one or the other? Can't it be a combination? Although I would argue that 95% of it is due to gradeflation. As someone who has seen many, MANY coins cracked out of old holders and resubmitted resulting in 1 or 2 grades higher is proof. Holder collectors exist but are a small minority of the overall collector base. Old holders command premiums because a MS63 20 or 30 years ago is the MS-64 or 65 of today (potentially).
Nostalgia and Perception. I see plenty of undergraded examples in modern holders.
The standards haven't changed (has PCGS updated any photo grade contents since it was published?). That doesn't mean that implementation of the standards hasn't changed though which may result in differences between "then" and "now." For example, we know that lighting is probably different and the grading process has been modernized. For better or worse, I don't know, but they don't do things the same today as they did 30-40 years ago. My point above is that I don't believe anyone at PCGS "let" the standards fall, but that they waiver over time for different reasons. But if PCGS's standard is published in photo grade, the only way you can claim the standard has changed is if they swap out any of those images.
A distinction without a difference.
Perception is reality - as evidenced by premiums for old holders - the market feels they are good candidates for upgrade. Because of gradeflation.
For the most part people buy the coins not the holders. There are; however, plenty of holder collectors and people assembling "OGH and rattler sets" out there that do drive these premiums. I've purchased plenty of coins in old holders without paying any notable premium, so an "old holder" does not guarantee any premium.
If people are buying coins and not holders and old holders are selling for more money than new holders at the same grade, then doesn’t that imply that older holders house better coins on average?
No. It implies that people THINK they do. After 30 years of breakouts, what are the odds?
It's at least possible that it's not "grade inflation" so much as the tendency of coins to be submitted and resubmitted until they max out. Grading isn't exact. The difference between a 65 and 66 can be a matter of opinion. If you had a coin that you submitted 100x and got 95 65s, 2 64s and 3 66s, that would mean scientifically that it is a 65 with some variance in the "measurement". But that coin will invariably end up in the 66 holder because people keep submitting until they get the result they want, even if it is an outlier.
Perception is reality. The perception of that old holders are more stringently graded has led to the reality of higher prices.
You gentlemen are arguing semantics and ignoring the issue of gradeflation. It doesn’t matter how it happened or why - whether through resubmissions, unintentional loosening of the application of standards or changes in the standards itself - it has happened and is a problem.
It’s a big reason CAC was founded and is so popular.
Actually, YOU argued against it. Perception is reality means that there may not actually be grade inflation. It is not semantic.
What is the CAC sticker rate for newer holders vs OGH?
Nostalgia and Perception. I see plenty of undergraded examples in modern holders.
The standards haven't changed (has PCGS updated any photo grade contents since it was published?). That doesn't mean that implementation of the standards hasn't changed though which may result in differences between "then" and "now." For example, we know that lighting is probably different and the grading process has been modernized. For better or worse, I don't know, but they don't do things the same today as they did 30-40 years ago. My point above is that I don't believe anyone at PCGS "let" the standards fall, but that they waiver over time for different reasons. But if PCGS's standard is published in photo grade, the only way you can claim the standard has changed is if they swap out any of those images.
A distinction without a difference.
Perception is reality - as evidenced by premiums for old holders - the market feels they are good candidates for upgrade. Because of gradeflation.
For the most part people buy the coins not the holders. There are; however, plenty of holder collectors and people assembling "OGH and rattler sets" out there that do drive these premiums. I've purchased plenty of coins in old holders without paying any notable premium, so an "old holder" does not guarantee any premium.
If people are buying coins and not holders and old holders are selling for more money than new holders at the same grade, then doesn’t that imply that older holders house better coins on average?
No. It implies that people THINK they do. After 30 years of breakouts, what are the odds?
It's at least possible that it's not "grade inflation" so much as the tendency of coins to be submitted and resubmitted until they max out. Grading isn't exact. The difference between a 65 and 66 can be a matter of opinion. If you had a coin that you submitted 100x and got 95 65s, 2 64s and 3 66s, that would mean scientifically that it is a 65 with some variance in the "measurement". But that coin will invariably end up in the 66 holder because people keep submitting until they get the result they want, even if it is an outlier.
Perception is reality. The perception of that old holders are more stringently graded has led to the reality of higher prices.
You gentlemen are arguing semantics and ignoring the issue of gradeflation. It doesn’t matter how it happened or why - whether through resubmissions, unintentional loosening of the application of standards or changes in the standards itself - it has happened and is a problem.
It’s a big reason CAC was founded and is so popular.
Actually, YOU argued against it. Perception is reality means that there may not actually be grade inflation. It is not semantic.
What is the CAC sticker rate for newer holders vs OGH?
That’s not a meaningful comparison if a large portion of OGHs have been cracked for upgrade (many before CAC was founded).
You are hung up on the semantics - but I think the pricing of coins in various holders speaks for itself.
Why do ANACS soapboxes sell for more than yellow label? Why do NGC fatties sell for more? It’s not just a bunch of people collecting plastic and ignoring the coins.
Here is a thought experiment. For the sake of argument, let’s say that PCGS, NGC and ANACS have the same standards today as they had in 1986 and that these standards are applied in the same way.
We know that dealers and collectors crack coins out to try for upgrades - some dealers make a living doing it. If there is no change in standards over time, then the simple explanation is that crack outs are a result of inconsistency in grading coins on the bubble of being assigned the next grade up. Over time, as crack out practitioners arbitrage the inconsistencies, the average grade of coins moves up - all the A coins end up as C coins at the next higher grade. Sounds a lot like gradeflation to me! Inconsistency is one potential cause of gradeflation.
Here is a thought experiment. For the sake of argument, let’s say that PCGS, NGC and ANACS have the same standards today as they had in 1986 and that these standards are applied in the same way.
We know that dealers and collectors crack coins out to try for upgrades - some dealers make a living doing it. If there is no change in standards over time, then the simple explanation is that crack outs are a result of inconsistency in grading coins on the bubble of being assigned the next grade up. Over time, as crack out practitioners arbitrage the inconsistencies, the average grade of coins moves up - all the A coins end up as C coins at the next higher grade. Sounds a lot like gradeflation to me! Inconsistency is one potential cause of gradeflation.
Gentlemen, there’s no need to even discuss different holders in order to try to make a point.
Whether one wants to call it a change in standards or a change in how the standards are applied, there’s no doubt that countless coins are graded higher now than they were (or would have been graded) many years ago.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@MFeld said: there’s no doubt that countless coins are graded higher now than they were (or would have been graded) many years ago.
This is a valid point which we can know because of TPG imaging and auction archives. What can't be known is the opposite, "that countless coins are graded lower now than they were (or would have been graded) many years ago". It follows logically that with the inconsistency in grading that if coins were cracked out/resubmitted that this would happen, but that isn't what collectors do, submit random coins to see if they'll grade lower. One thing we do know is that overall the upgrade on re-submissions is below 50%(generally speaking, based on forum members comments). That in itself isn't even good evidence because it may mean the coin is correctly graded or too high. Collectors just don't submit and hope for a down-grade.
My thinking on "grade-flation has changed over the years. Right now I think it would take more than the random impressions of collectors at a coin forum to prove/disprove any perception. I suggest those that feel strongly about it and are convinced of their position should undertake an experiment. I doubt anyone will.
As a former grader, do you think you still grade the same as you did 30 some years ago?? Were you grading more strictly while working for NGC??
Guys
I collect the old rattlers not due to potential upgrades (most that took that approach have done that already). I prefer the rattler look and the price doesn’t really matter to me because supply is limited. I may never find an 18XX Morgan in 65 rattler again; therefore if I do, I’ll pay a premium for my set. Definitely not paying more for the crack out game, but for limited supply left in rattlers at grades I like (65).
@Maywood said: @MFeld said: there’s no doubt that countless coins are graded higher now than they were (or would have been graded) many years ago.
This is a valid point which we can know because of TPG imaging and auction archives. What can't be known is the opposite, "that countless coins are graded lower now than they were (or would have been graded) many years ago". It follows logically that with the inconsistency in grading that if coins were cracked out/resubmitted that this would happen, but that isn't what collectors do, submit random coins to see if they'll grade lower. One thing we do know is that overall the upgrade on re-submissions is below 50%(generally speaking, based on forum members comments). That in itself isn't even good evidence because it may mean the coin is correctly graded or too high. Collectors just don't submit and hope for a down-grade.
My thinking on "grade-flation has changed over the years. Right now I think it would take more than the random impressions of collectors at a coin forum to prove/disprove any perception. I suggest those that feel strongly about it and are convinced of their position should undertake an experiment. I doubt anyone will.
As a former grader, do you think you still grade the same as you did 30 some years ago?? Were you grading more strictly while working for NGC??
I'd like to think I grade the same I did 30 years ago. However, seeing as how I believe that overall, grading is looser now, the large pool of coins I see, likely affects my grading.
Having said that, ideally, I do grade the same despite that, but at the same time, I'm aware of the overall looser standards. So for example, I might grade an ungraded coin X, but expect that it will be graded X+1. Or I examine a coin graded 67, but grade it 66. And so on.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
My thinking has always been that as an individuals pool of coins viewed grows over the years(experience), so does our ability to assess/grade them. Viewed from the perspective of a professional grader working at a TPG(actually, a group of three), there should be a better idea of what constitutes a specific grade today versus 30 years ago. I don't know if that's what collectors see as grade-flation. To me, people seem to be suggesting that the TPG's are looking at a coin and know it's an MS66 but call it an MS67.
@Maywood said: @MFeld said: there’s no doubt that countless coins are graded higher now than they were (or would have been graded) many years ago.
This is a valid point which we can know because of TPG imaging and auction archives. What can't be known is the opposite, "that countless coins are graded lower now than they were (or would have been graded) many years ago". It follows logically that with the inconsistency in grading that if coins were cracked out/resubmitted that this would happen, but that isn't what collectors do, submit random coins to see if they'll grade lower. One thing we do know is that overall the upgrade on re-submissions is below 50%(generally speaking, based on forum members comments). That in itself isn't even good evidence because it may mean the coin is correctly graded or too high. Collectors just don't submit and hope for a down-grade.
My thinking on "grade-flation has changed over the years. Right now I think it would take more than the random impressions of collectors at a coin forum to prove/disprove any perception. I suggest those that feel strongly about it and are convinced of their position should undertake an experiment. I doubt anyone will.
As a former grader, do you think you still grade the same as you did 30 some years ago?? Were you grading more strictly while working for NGC??
I'd like to think I grade the same I did 30 years ago. However, seeing as how I believe that overall, grading is looser now, the large pool of coins I see, likely affects my grading.
Having said that, ideally, I do grade the same despite that, but at the same time, I'm aware of the overall looser standards. So for example, I might grade an ungraded coin X, but expect that it will be graded X+1. Or I examine a coin graded 67, but grade it 66. And so on.
So, Mark, how soon can we expect to see the MFA stricker? Mark Feld Approved...that I would pay up for...
"If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went." Will Rogers
@Maywood said:
My thinking has always been that as an individuals pool of coins viewed grows over the years(experience), so does our ability to assess/grade them. Viewed from the perspective of a professional grader working at a TPG(actually, a group of three), there should be a better idea of what constitutes a specific grade today versus 30 years ago. I don't know if that's what collectors see as grade-flation. To me, people seem to be suggesting that the TPG's are looking at a coin and know it's an MS66 but call it an MS67.
I don't disagree about greater experience over time (and perhaps about a better idea regarding a specific grade). But I've seen too many instances in which a coin that was graded a short time ago, got resubmitted, and garnered a higher grade - sometimes by more than a point. Said differently, I don't think increased experience accounts for a lot of the more liberal grading.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@Cougar1978 said:
I welcome them entering the fray (especially David Hall) to give CAC competition.
Totally agree. Competition is always good for the coin consumer.
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
Nostalgia and Perception. I see plenty of undergraded examples in modern holders.
The standards haven't changed (has PCGS updated any photo grade contents since it was published?). That doesn't mean that implementation of the standards hasn't changed though which may result in differences between "then" and "now." For example, we know that lighting is probably different and the grading process has been modernized. For better or worse, I don't know, but they don't do things the same today as they did 30-40 years ago. My point above is that I don't believe anyone at PCGS "let" the standards fall, but that they waiver over time for different reasons. But if PCGS's standard is published in photo grade, the only way you can claim the standard has changed is if they swap out any of those images.
A distinction without a difference.
Perception is reality - as evidenced by premiums for old holders - the market feels they are good candidates for upgrade. Because of gradeflation.
For the most part people buy the coins not the holders. There are; however, plenty of holder collectors and people assembling "OGH and rattler sets" out there that do drive these premiums. I've purchased plenty of coins in old holders without paying any notable premium, so an "old holder" does not guarantee any premium.
If people are buying coins and not holders and old holders are selling for more money than new holders at the same grade, then doesn’t that imply that older holders house better coins on average?
No. It implies that people THINK they do. After 30 years of breakouts, what are the odds?
It's at least possible that it's not "grade inflation" so much as the tendency of coins to be submitted and resubmitted until they max out. Grading isn't exact. The difference between a 65 and 66 can be a matter of opinion. If you had a coin that you submitted 100x and got 95 65s, 2 64s and 3 66s, that would mean scientifically that it is a 65 with some variance in the "measurement". But that coin will invariably end up in the 66 holder because people keep submitting until they get the result they want, even if it is an outlier.
Perception is reality. The perception of that old holders are more stringently graded has led to the reality of higher prices.
You gentlemen are arguing semantics and ignoring the issue of gradeflation. It doesn’t matter how it happened or why - whether through resubmissions, unintentional loosening of the application of standards or changes in the standards itself - it has happened and is a problem.
It’s a big reason CAC was founded and is so popular.
Actually, YOU argued against it. Perception is reality means that there may not actually be grade inflation. It is not semantic.
What is the CAC sticker rate for newer holders vs OGH?
That’s not a meaningful comparison if a large portion of OGHs have been cracked for upgrade (many before CAC was founded).
You are hung up on the semantics - but I think the pricing of coins in various holders speaks for itself.
Why do ANACS soapboxes sell for more than yellow label? Why do NGC fatties sell for more? It’s not just a bunch of people collecting plastic and ignoring the coins.
Because perception is reality when it comes to pricing. That doesn't make it real.
My argument is not at all semantic. Kindly stop saying that.
To your own counterpoint, you're suggesting that fewer CAC in old holders is because of crack outs. It might be, but that was my original point: you can't expect older holders to automatically upgrade. So maybe the coins left in old holders are all overgraded or just right.
Crack out upgrades also happen with new coins. Is the crack out success rate higher, lower, or the same for newer holders? I don't know. But it should be lower if grade inflation is real.
Edited: maybe I should say that I see no evidence of a loosening of standards?
@Maywood said: @MFeld said: there’s no doubt that countless coins are graded higher now than they were (or would have been graded) many years ago.
This is a valid point which we can know because of TPG imaging and auction archives. What can't be known is the opposite, "that countless coins are graded lower now than they were (or would have been graded) many years ago". It follows logically that with the inconsistency in grading that if coins were cracked out/resubmitted that this would happen, but that isn't what collectors do, submit random coins to see if they'll grade lower. One thing we do know is that overall the upgrade on re-submissions is below 50%(generally speaking, based on forum members comments). That in itself isn't even good evidence because it may mean the coin is correctly graded or too high. Collectors just don't submit and hope for a down-grade.
My thinking on "grade-flation has changed over the years. Right now I think it would take more than the random impressions of collectors at a coin forum to prove/disprove any perception. I suggest those that feel strongly about it and are convinced of their position should undertake an experiment. I doubt anyone will.
As a former grader, do you think you still grade the same as you did 30 some years ago?? Were you grading more strictly while working for NGC??
I'd like to think I grade the same I did 30 years ago. However, seeing as how I believe that overall, grading is looser now, the large pool of coins I see, likely affects my grading.
Having said that, ideally, I do grade the same despite that, but at the same time, I'm aware of the overall looser standards. So for example, I might grade an ungraded coin X, but expect that it will be graded X+1. Or I examine a coin graded 67, but grade it 66. And so on.
So, Mark, how soon can we expect to see the MFA stricker? Mark Feld Approved...that I would pay up for...
Thanks very much for the nice thought, but if you ever see such a sticker, it will be counterfeit.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Here is a thought experiment. For the sake of argument, let’s say that PCGS, NGC and ANACS have the same standards today as they had in 1986 and that these standards are applied in the same way.
We know that dealers and collectors crack coins out to try for upgrades - some dealers make a living doing it. If there is no change in standards over time, then the simple explanation is that crack outs are a result of inconsistency in grading coins on the bubble of being assigned the next grade up. Over time, as crack out practitioners arbitrage the inconsistencies, the average grade of coins moves up - all the A coins end up as C coins at the next higher grade. Sounds a lot like gradeflation to me! Inconsistency is one potential cause of gradeflation.
I agree. You might well see a gradual move of all coins the highest possible grade they can achieve. You also rarely see coins migrate down because no one submits for a lower grade. That is different, however, than the suggestion that grading standards have loosened. Is that what you mean by semantic? If so, I retract.
But if that is the reason for the "grade inflation" as you're calling it, it argues for a completely different view of old holders. They contain inferior coins that didn't merit cracking out.
If grade inflation is due to looser standards, then one would expect older holders to hold superior coins.
@Maywood said: @MFeld said: there’s no doubt that countless coins are graded higher now than they were (or would have been graded) many years ago.
This is a valid point which we can know because of TPG imaging and auction archives. What can't be known is the opposite, "that countless coins are graded lower now than they were (or would have been graded) many years ago". It follows logically that with the inconsistency in grading that if coins were cracked out/resubmitted that this would happen, but that isn't what collectors do, submit random coins to see if they'll grade lower. One thing we do know is that overall the upgrade on re-submissions is below 50%(generally speaking, based on forum members comments). That in itself isn't even good evidence because it may mean the coin is correctly graded or too high. Collectors just don't submit and hope for a down-grade.
My thinking on "grade-flation has changed over the years. Right now I think it would take more than the random impressions of collectors at a coin forum to prove/disprove any perception. I suggest those that feel strongly about it and are convinced of their position should undertake an experiment. I doubt anyone will.
As a former grader, do you think you still grade the same as you did 30 some years ago?? Were you grading more strictly while working for NGC??
I'd like to think I grade the same I did 30 years ago. However, seeing as how I believe that overall, grading is looser now, the large pool of coins I see, likely affects my grading.
Having said that, ideally, I do grade the same despite that, but at the same time, I'm aware of the overall looser standards. So for example, I might grade an ungraded coin X, but expect that it will be graded X+1. Or I examine a coin graded 67, but grade it 66. And so on.
If there were truly a looser standard of any significance, shouldn't virtually all old holders upgrade? If not - and they don't - doesn't that mean the looseness is half a grade or less?
I wonder what type of coins we're going to see migrating from one PQ service and another? CAC to CMQ and back? And NGC has its "green" label service. A really useful sticker would be on Anacs and Icg slabs to indicate strong for grade or PQ. Every trip to a grading service can be an agonizing wait and frankly wasteful if the coins are getting cracked out and return with the same grade.
@Maywood said: @MFeld said: there’s no doubt that countless coins are graded higher now than they were (or would have been graded) many years ago.
This is a valid point which we can know because of TPG imaging and auction archives. What can't be known is the opposite, "that countless coins are graded lower now than they were (or would have been graded) many years ago". It follows logically that with the inconsistency in grading that if coins were cracked out/resubmitted that this would happen, but that isn't what collectors do, submit random coins to see if they'll grade lower. One thing we do know is that overall the upgrade on re-submissions is below 50%(generally speaking, based on forum members comments). That in itself isn't even good evidence because it may mean the coin is correctly graded or too high. Collectors just don't submit and hope for a down-grade.
My thinking on "grade-flation has changed over the years. Right now I think it would take more than the random impressions of collectors at a coin forum to prove/disprove any perception. I suggest those that feel strongly about it and are convinced of their position should undertake an experiment. I doubt anyone will.
As a former grader, do you think you still grade the same as you did 30 some years ago?? Were you grading more strictly while working for NGC??
I'd like to think I grade the same I did 30 years ago. However, seeing as how I believe that overall, grading is looser now, the large pool of coins I see, likely affects my grading.
Having said that, ideally, I do grade the same despite that, but at the same time, I'm aware of the overall looser standards. So for example, I might grade an ungraded coin X, but expect that it will be graded X+1. Or I examine a coin graded 67, but grade it 66. And so on.
If there were truly a looser standard of any significance, shouldn't virtually all old holders upgrade? If not - and they don't - doesn't that mean the looseness is half a grade or less?
I believe that a great many older-holder coins have already been upgraded, and that most of the ones still on the market have been picked over. Additionally, most of the nicer coins remaining in those holders are in private collections, not for sale. On the occasions when older-holder coins that have been off the market for long periods of time, surface, it's usually a feeding frenzy for coins that will easily upgrade by a point or more.
Long story, short, I don't think it's valid to look at older-holder coins on the market at a given time and try to use them as an indication that standards haven't loosened.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Comments
LMFAO
For the most part people buy the coins not the holders. There are; however, plenty of holder collectors and people assembling "OGH and rattler sets" out there that do drive these premiums. I've purchased plenty of coins in old holders without paying any notable premium, so an "old holder" does not guarantee any premium.
If people are buying coins and not holders and old holders are selling for more money than new holders at the same grade, then doesn’t that imply that older holders house better coins on average?
But he stated yesterday on his CAC forum that he has a contract with CAC to 2033, and then he will decide whether to continue with the sticker business. So he is saying publicly as of today that he will not discontinue this to at least 2033.
Good morning pcgscacgold. I have stated publicly that the end date for stickering, or the decision, will be made when my contract expires. Jan 1, 2033. John A
Yes, that is the latest “clarification”, which differs from all of his prior statements. As such, I think we have to go with the latest.
Steve
My collecting “Pride & Joy” is my PCGS Registry Dansco 7070 Set:
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/type-sets/design-type-sets/complete-dansco-7070-modified-type-set-1796-date/publishedset/213996
No. I'm saying there's extra demand for them because of the plastic, not the coin. Whereas a collector like myself will buy a coin in any generation of holder, if there's a group of collectors going for rattler sets and a nice example comes along, they HAVE to bid competitively because the supply (in many cases) is low and uncertain. Thus the old holders have a higher demand which will result in higher prices regardless of the contents.
The problem for me is the published criteria for the new service is too vague. How can you say a coin will get a gold sticker if the coin looks like a wonder? That’s meaningless criteria as opposed to CAC criteria for obtaining gold.
I don’t think the published criteria for the two companies are meaningfully different. On a practical basis, it appears that each will will award a gold/different sticker to coins which they believe to be clearly/obviously under-graded.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
So which is it? Are people buying the coin or the holder? Because you’ve stated it both ways!
People aren’t buying old holders for the “nostalgia”,slabbed crickets, 108 rattlers and regency holders excepted. They are buying the old holders because there is a perception that the coins in those holders are more likely to be under-graded. I’m really struggling with the fact that you are in denial on gradeflation!
Under their list of coins that qualify it is interesting that world coins are not included 👍
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
Probably because they know John Dannreuther will eventually be doing this in world coins !
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
Contracts get bought out, and circumstances can change.
Sorry I was unclear. Hopefully this will help how both can be true but people buy the coins:
The supply of coins is old holders is much lower than the supply in new holders. Collectors who are assembling sets comprised of coins in older holders (for nostalgia or some other affinity that they have) have a very low supply of coins to buy from. Thus, when one comes along those collectors must compete aggressively driving the price up. Not because the coin is of higher quality, but because they don't know when the next one will come along. On top of that, those old-holder-only collectors must also compete with the buy-any-holder collectors. To summarize, there is a much higher number of "eligible" buyers for old holders than for new holders. I am assuming that there are very few if any modern-holder-only collectors.
You can prove gradeflation right now if you can tell me which coins in the PCGS photo grade system have been changed out since it was published. But the standard hasn't changed. As explained above, I will agree that natural variation and changes in process and training may contribute to short term ebbs and flows in the application of the photo grade standards. Otherwise gradeflation is an easy and convenient explanation for a theory that collectors want to believe. But like the so-called climate crisis, humans suffer from things like recency bias that spark the nostalgia of the good ol' days when grades were tighter. This even though you can find over-graded old-holder coins as well as plenty of under-graded new holder coins.
Since many collectibles today are graded,stickered I await the day when caskets may be graded,stickered. Can envision it now"RB 68", Toned brass handles 69,Doily satin liner70. And an EBF sticker denoting "Embalming By Fred". Then sonically sealed.
It was nice getting that reply from JACAC on the CAC forum (copied/quoted in several posts above). It cleared up assumptions many have been making about his continued commitment to verifying originality and quality.
Successful BST with BustDMs , Pnies20, lkeigwin, pursuitofliberty, Bullsitter, felinfoel, SPalladino (CBH's - 37 Die Marriage's)
$5 Type Set https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/u-s-coins/type-sets/half-eagle-type-set-circulation-strikes-1795-1929/album/344192
CBH Set https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/everyman-collections/everyman-half-dollars/everyman-capped-bust-half-dollars-1807-1839/album/345572
Yes, but his current statement (which is great), is different from what he has said in the past (but that’s OK).
Steve
My collecting “Pride & Joy” is my PCGS Registry Dansco 7070 Set:
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/type-sets/design-type-sets/complete-dansco-7070-modified-type-set-1796-date/publishedset/213996
I don’t think there is really a need for CMQ as it is basically a spinoff of CAC. QA fills a void of modern coins CAC doesn’t grade. Photo Seal is specialized for IHC collectors. As long as a sticker service fills a need that makes sense.
I agree, but my guess is that Stack’s is doing this now, to position themselves for down the road to be #1 to fill the void for when/if CAC stops stickering.
Steve
My collecting “Pride & Joy” is my PCGS Registry Dansco 7070 Set:
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/type-sets/design-type-sets/complete-dansco-7070-modified-type-set-1796-date/publishedset/213996
I don’t think there is really a need for CMQ as it is basically a spinoff of CAC. QA fills a void of modern coins CAC doesn’t grade. Photo Seal is specialized for IHC collectors. As long as a sticker service fills a need that makes sense.> @winesteven said:
Do you think JA made the statement he did about deciding to stay the course to at least 2033 to discourage people from gravitating to CMQ and protect the interests of CAC. I do think so. He didn’t even say he would not necessarily not renew the contract even past 2033
I can't believe it's been 12 years since he sold his set for a beach house. David Hall has always treated this board right and I wish him all the best.
https://coinweek.com/david-halls-10-lib-gold-coin-collection-sold-for-4-million-to-legend-numismatics/
You are forgetting that there are collectors like me who like the aesthetics of the older holders. I prefer the older blue holders. Sleek not too thick, NO Prongs, light blue font. Lovely. People can keep their newer holders. Not for me, as I enjoy the unobstructed viewing experience and lighter weight holders.
No. It implies that people THINK they do. After 30 years of breakouts, what are the odds?
It's at least possible that it's not "grade inflation" so much as the tendency of coins to be submitted and resubmitted until they max out. Grading isn't exact. The difference between a 65 and 66 can be a matter of opinion. If you had a coin that you submitted 100x and got 95 65s, 2 64s and 3 66s, that would mean scientifically that it is a 65 with some variance in the "measurement". But that coin will invariably end up in the 66 holder because people keep submitting until they get the result they want, even if it is an outlier.
"Was it C*C who initiated this whole regrading and recertification process because they made us believe that coins previously examined were now subject to inaccuracy ?"
Unfortunately, it was inaccurate and inconsistent grading by the TPG's that created the need for and success of CAC.
I agree with @DeplorableDan, @FlyingAl's, and @coinbuf concerns listed in the order posted.
"With CAC I never saw a conflict because John only operates at wholesale levels, but are these stickers going to show up in disproportionate amounts on coins being offered in Stacks auctions?"
"CAC would also not earn a commission from any sale of their coins through their own sponsored selling platform (which they do not have but Stacks does)."
"One would have vested interest in a coins performance on the auction block, which in theory could be dramatically changed by the application of their own sticker. The other buys wholesale and sells wholesale behind the scenes, acting as a market maker."
"JA does operate as a dealer, but in the wholesale side of the market. He doesn't operate a retail coin selling operation (that I know of) and he doesn't operate an auction company. As others have said I see this as a potential conflict of interest."
@Maywood said "To believe that Stack's/HRH would "sticker" coins to influence their auction performance seems pretty cynical. It's the same line of thinking that supposes certain submitters at PCGS receive preferential grading."
@Manifest_Destiny response nailed it.
"Cynicism has served me well over the years. That aside, think about how GC does business with CAC. When you consign, they will send coins to CAC they feel will help add value. If Stacks has the same model with CMQ, that's a conflict of interest. Even if they encourage consignors to submit (wink, wink) on their own to CMQ, that's still a problem. If Stacks has zero direct or indirect business with CMQ, then fine. We'll just have to hope for the best."
In addition, the vast majority of dealers and collectors I've asked believe that certain submitters do receive preferential grading from TPG's.
@ProofCollection asks "The standards haven't changed (has PCGS updated any photo grade contents since it was published?)."
The answer is yes they have changed images. There is no question that the standards have changed and the adherence to those standards has varied over time. NGC has been much more open and publicly announced grading standard changes. The reasons for this include grader turnover, management instructions and metrics, market grading, market conditions, etc.
Perception is reality. The perception of that old holders are more stringently graded has led to the reality of higher prices.
You gentlemen are arguing semantics and ignoring the issue of gradeflation. It doesn’t matter how it happened or why - whether through resubmissions, unintentional loosening of the application of standards or changes in the standards itself - it has happened and is a problem.
It’s a big reason CAC was founded and is so popular.
Spot-on.
If anyone doesn't think gradeflation is real, look through this book and see what the 70's grading standards were for buffalo nickels or walking halves. Rick Snow did a write up several years ago on gradeflation about indian cents with specific examples, and that was just addressing the slab era. Market grading is just a nice way of saying gradeflation. Human nature is such that people are always looking so shave off just a little extra, no matter what they're involved in.
I would be very reluctant to consign a coin with SB in the future that doesn’t have a griff or green sticker. SB both auctions and sells coins and now are “self stickering” coins which is potentially a big conflict of interest. The CEO of Stacks and David Hall (who still actively sells coins with his own company) are two of the starters of CMQ. This to me from an optics perspective is a bad look.
Of course time will tell what happens down the road.
Reality it reality. And then there are urban legends, lore, and prevailing beliefs. Believing in urban legends doesn't make the legends real, and neither does a belief become legitimate because it is prevailing. 2 Years ago there were plenty of myths and beliefs about Covid that turned out to be complete hooey now that more information has been provided and studies have been published.
I get why collectors believe what they do about gradeflation but I also believe there are valid and logical explanations for why people have formed these opinions that don't support the underlying assertions such as the argument @jmlanzaf made above.
The theory about old holders falls apart because if they are under-graded and there is any profit to be made, in most cases (of course there are exceptions) the coins will be cracked out and re-submitted by now. I've done pretty well recently buying undergraded coins and sending them in for regrades and most of them have been in modern holders.
Take a look at the prices for old holders. The perception that they are better coins has resulted in the reality of higher prices.
No one is talking about urban legends or covid.
The fact that so many have been cracked and resubmitted over the years just provides further evidence for my point.
Regardless, the discussion of old holders is ancillary to the main point - TPG gradeflation has occurred - the cause of it is debatable.
OK, so the higher prices for old holders is only because of a perception about coin quality and not a result of having a larger pool of buyers for old holders or the extra competitiveness due to the small and uncertain and diminishing supply?
Does it need to be one or the other? Can't it be a combination? Although I would argue that 95% of it is due to gradeflation. As someone who has seen many, MANY coins cracked out of old holders and resubmitted resulting in 1 or 2 grades higher is proof. Holder collectors exist but are a small minority of the overall collector base. Old holders command premiums because a MS63 20 or 30 years ago is the MS-64 or 65 of today (potentially).
Numismatic Asset Management
"helping rare coin buyers avoid critical mistakes"
Actually, YOU argued against it. Perception is reality means that there may not actually be grade inflation. It is not semantic.
What is the CAC sticker rate for newer holders vs OGH?
That’s not a meaningful comparison if a large portion of OGHs have been cracked for upgrade (many before CAC was founded).
You are hung up on the semantics - but I think the pricing of coins in various holders speaks for itself.
Why do ANACS soapboxes sell for more than yellow label? Why do NGC fatties sell for more? It’s not just a bunch of people collecting plastic and ignoring the coins.
@jmlanzaf
Here is a thought experiment. For the sake of argument, let’s say that PCGS, NGC and ANACS have the same standards today as they had in 1986 and that these standards are applied in the same way.
We know that dealers and collectors crack coins out to try for upgrades - some dealers make a living doing it. If there is no change in standards over time, then the simple explanation is that crack outs are a result of inconsistency in grading coins on the bubble of being assigned the next grade up. Over time, as crack out practitioners arbitrage the inconsistencies, the average grade of coins moves up - all the A coins end up as C coins at the next higher grade. Sounds a lot like gradeflation to me! Inconsistency is one potential cause of gradeflation.
Certainly one man's opinion but that logo design went to the lowest bidder for sure.
What a train wreck.
"Inspiration exists, but it has to find you working" Pablo Picasso
Gentlemen, there’s no need to even discuss different holders in order to try to make a point.
Whether one wants to call it a change in standards or a change in how the standards are applied, there’s no doubt that countless coins are graded higher now than they were (or would have been graded) many years ago.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@MFeld said: there’s no doubt that countless coins are graded higher now than they were (or would have been graded) many years ago.
This is a valid point which we can know because of TPG imaging and auction archives. What can't be known is the opposite, "that countless coins are graded lower now than they were (or would have been graded) many years ago". It follows logically that with the inconsistency in grading that if coins were cracked out/resubmitted that this would happen, but that isn't what collectors do, submit random coins to see if they'll grade lower. One thing we do know is that overall the upgrade on re-submissions is below 50%(generally speaking, based on forum members comments). That in itself isn't even good evidence because it may mean the coin is correctly graded or too high. Collectors just don't submit and hope for a down-grade.
My thinking on "grade-flation has changed over the years. Right now I think it would take more than the random impressions of collectors at a coin forum to prove/disprove any perception. I suggest those that feel strongly about it and are convinced of their position should undertake an experiment. I doubt anyone will.
As a former grader, do you think you still grade the same as you did 30 some years ago?? Were you grading more strictly while working for NGC??
Guys
I collect the old rattlers not due to potential upgrades (most that took that approach have done that already). I prefer the rattler look and the price doesn’t really matter to me because supply is limited. I may never find an 18XX Morgan in 65 rattler again; therefore if I do, I’ll pay a premium for my set. Definitely not paying more for the crack out game, but for limited supply left in rattlers at grades I like (65).
I'd like to think I grade the same I did 30 years ago. However, seeing as how I believe that overall, grading is looser now, the large pool of coins I see, likely affects my grading.
Having said that, ideally, I do grade the same despite that, but at the same time, I'm aware of the overall looser standards. So for example, I might grade an ungraded coin X, but expect that it will be graded X+1. Or I examine a coin graded 67, but grade it 66. And so on.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
My thinking has always been that as an individuals pool of coins viewed grows over the years(experience), so does our ability to assess/grade them. Viewed from the perspective of a professional grader working at a TPG(actually, a group of three), there should be a better idea of what constitutes a specific grade today versus 30 years ago. I don't know if that's what collectors see as grade-flation. To me, people seem to be suggesting that the TPG's are looking at a coin and know it's an MS66 but call it an MS67.
So, Mark, how soon can we expect to see the MFA stricker? Mark Feld Approved...that I would pay up for...
I don't disagree about greater experience over time (and perhaps about a better idea regarding a specific grade). But I've seen too many instances in which a coin that was graded a short time ago, got resubmitted, and garnered a higher grade - sometimes by more than a point. Said differently, I don't think increased experience accounts for a lot of the more liberal grading.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I welcome them entering the fray (especially David Hall) to give CAC some competition.
Totally agree. Competition is always good for the coin consumer.
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
Because perception is reality when it comes to pricing. That doesn't make it real.
My argument is not at all semantic. Kindly stop saying that.
To your own counterpoint, you're suggesting that fewer CAC in old holders is because of crack outs. It might be, but that was my original point: you can't expect older holders to automatically upgrade. So maybe the coins left in old holders are all overgraded or just right.
Crack out upgrades also happen with new coins. Is the crack out success rate higher, lower, or the same for newer holders? I don't know. But it should be lower if grade inflation is real.
Edited: maybe I should say that I see no evidence of a loosening of standards?
Thanks very much for the nice thought, but if you ever see such a sticker, it will be counterfeit.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I agree. You might well see a gradual move of all coins the highest possible grade they can achieve. You also rarely see coins migrate down because no one submits for a lower grade. That is different, however, than the suggestion that grading standards have loosened. Is that what you mean by semantic? If so, I retract.
But if that is the reason for the "grade inflation" as you're calling it, it argues for a completely different view of old holders. They contain inferior coins that didn't merit cracking out.
If grade inflation is due to looser standards, then one would expect older holders to hold superior coins.
If there were truly a looser standard of any significance, shouldn't virtually all old holders upgrade? If not - and they don't - doesn't that mean the looseness is half a grade or less?
I wonder what type of coins we're going to see migrating from one PQ service and another? CAC to CMQ and back? And NGC has its "green" label service. A really useful sticker would be on Anacs and Icg slabs to indicate strong for grade or PQ. Every trip to a grading service can be an agonizing wait and frankly wasteful if the coins are getting cracked out and return with the same grade.
I believe that a great many older-holder coins have already been upgraded, and that most of the ones still on the market have been picked over. Additionally, most of the nicer coins remaining in those holders are in private collections, not for sale. On the occasions when older-holder coins that have been off the market for long periods of time, surface, it's usually a feeding frenzy for coins that will easily upgrade by a point or more.
Long story, short, I don't think it's valid to look at older-holder coins on the market at a given time and try to use them as an indication that standards haven't loosened.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.