I believe that a far greater contributor to gradeflation is the regrade process. In the case of regrades, chances of an upgrade far exceed those of a downgrade. That’s in large part because if a coin downgrades, the grading company is on the hook for the reduced difference in value.
Too bad the grading companies don't accept responsibility for CACG downgrades.
Why would they be held responsible for the standards of a different company?
I believe that a far greater contributor to gradeflation is the regrade process. In the case of regrades, chances of an upgrade far exceed those of a downgrade. That’s in large part because if a coin downgrades, the grading company is on the hook for the reduced difference in value.
Too bad the grading companies don't accept responsibility for CACG downgrades.
Why would they be held responsible for the standards of a different company?
Provocative article from Warren Mills (RCNH), quoted below:
Commercial Grading a Sham and a Shame
A coin may have the look of an XF and you may grade it XF without punishing the coin for a wipe, nick, cleaning or > scratches, however, that coin should be punished.
And they are punished. It's what we call "net grading", and there's nothing wrong with it in theory. If the net grade is fair, all things considered, it's "accurate" enough, and buyers can simply look at the coin and make a decision. The problem is that, in practice, net grading coins with "issues" is more difficult, more subjective and far more erratic than grading perfectly original and problem free coins. And after more than 100 million coins have been graded, it's not surprising that the market is drowning in a sea of unwanted turds confused about grading.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
It feels like some people get hung up on the “true” grade of a coin. But there is really no such thing. Each grading company adopts standards that have changed over time and will continue to change, some subtly and some not so much.
The only way to judge one grading regime vs another is by the amount of useful ranking information they convey to the collector at each grade level. By that metric, I think the current tpg standards do a pretty good job. But they cannot please everyone.
If a collector desires a ranking system that (for instance) calls every coin with any “rub” AU, so be it. But I don’t believe this will be the fairest or most accurate coin ranking system possible.
@MrEureka said:
.> @Catbert said:
Provocative article from Warren Mills (RCNH), quoted below: Commercial Grading a Sham and a Shame
Mills is obviously super-knowledgeable about coins, the market, and a top-notch grader. Well-worth reading for his insights for sure. Not sure why he thinks that gold and silver prices are manipulated (I see that alot) and doesn't realize the difference between a bank custodian and bank proprietary trading account.
He also think that overgrading has led to multi-year declines in coin prices. I see no link there. If anything, looser grading was a result of RISING prices and/or bubbles. But regardless, these lesser-quality overgraded (?) coins would find their own level and NOT drag down the entire coin type or sector. Overgrading of 1924 Saints won't impact MCMVII HR's.
This was interesting from one of his blog posts from a few quarters back:
"...I’d say about 25% or more of CAC’d 18th century to early 19th century coins should not have a sticker. I like them from Circulated to Uncirculated." He clearly is one of the "toughest" technical graders that I have read about.
Of Note: was super-bullish on the coin industry/hobby based on his FUN observations.
I've been away for a week and could not defend my opinion but others have - better than I could have. Apparently this poster does not understand the words "NO TRACE OF WEAR." I guess for some coin dealers everything is relative and making excuses for not being able to know the diference betwen MS and AU makes them better numismatists than older collectors.
@Rexfors wrote: "Actually, not really. The line between MS and AU is decided by humans, so there is no “true” AU or “true” MS. But I see the current line as more sensical and more “technical” than prior attempts, and because of that more useful and more consistent. I think people are often actually upset that the line is not less technical without realizing that that is what they are complaining about - I hear a lot of complaints about current “market grading” in the same breath as complaints that weak strikes should be punished or called AU, which is contradictory.
I'm human and I have no problem telling the difference between AU, MS, and weak strikes. Therefore, in my opinion there is a true line. Perhaps those collectors who cannot tell the difference should take the authentication seminar during the summer at Colorado College. We used stereo microscopes in class and my eyes were opened!
LOL, of course this member can argue that te current AU/MS line is more consistant! That's because collectors and dealers who cannot grade have made the line a mile wide and all kinds to things qualify as MS today. As Mr. Bowers said, AU's are now MS. That does not make the old system wrong or in need of change. Greed and relative thinking did.
PS Anyone who thinks a weak strike makes a coin AU sounds like someone who might agree with Mr. Rex on a lot of other things.
@fathom said:
If you drill down to the cause of gradeflation it comes down to this IMO:
If a coin certification is a form of "review" then you can pretty much count on economic interests forcing good coins into better holders. Just as a good movie review or a good car review or any opinion is forced by economic interests to a better review, so with coins. Too many collectors chasing too few coins.
Just to take a small example why would so many PL Morgans end up in DMPL OGH holders during that period?
Probably will take a market crash to reset, the demand is still there for high grade plastic.
I believe that a far greater contributor to gradeflation is the regrade process. In the case of regrades, chances of an upgrade far exceed those of a downgrade. That’s in large part because if a coin downgrades, the grading company is on the hook for the reduced difference in value.
So over time, countless coins continue to be resubmitted over and over again, until they end up at their their final(?) maxed-out grade.
Please alow me to disagree. You can send a coin back a million times and if it was graded correctly the first time or whenever (second or third?) the grade will remain the same UNLESS the grading standards are changed. The cause of gradeflation is just that. I have several different grading guides and looking at those and looking at Online Photograde you can see a noticibel change. The only other thing I readc was that the value of rare coins has increased over the years and the increased price must be reflected by a higher grade.
@Pumpkinhead said:
Doesn’t a number on a holder suggest some sort of objective (and non “time sensitive”) standards? It really has to be perplexing to a non-collector to see OGH 65’s, NGC 65’s, PCGS 65’s, CAC 65’s (even NGC vs PCGS CAC 65’s) valued at and frequently sell for wildly disparate sums.
Sorry, I never saw this company. What is an OGH-65?
@Rexford said:
All of the CAC graders are ex-PCGS or ex-NGC, and there are graders currently working at PCGS and NGC who have > been grading for 30+ years. Is there a logical reason for feeling that CACG graders have the best common sense?
From what I have read...the answer is NO.....BUT....those CACG graders are going in EXPECTING to adhere to "technical grading" and come from a culture (CAC and JA) where it was adhered to more than at other TPGs. In theory or in practice, take your pick.
Reading some of the Warren Mills commentaries, he's not sold on CAC or CACG for expertise in all coin types and series and dates....but sees them as a "healthy" correction to the disregarding of altered surfaces, wear/rub, etc.
@Pumpkinhead said:
Doesn’t a number on a holder suggest some sort of objective (and non “time sensitive”) standards? It really has to be perplexing to a non-collector to see OGH 65’s, NGC 65’s, PCGS 65’s, CAC 65’s (even NGC vs PCGS CAC 65’s) valued at and frequently sell for wildly disparate sums.
Sorry, I never saw this company. What is an OGH-65?
@fathom said:
If you drill down to the cause of gradeflation it comes down to this IMO:
If a coin certification is a form of "review" then you can pretty much count on economic interests forcing good coins into better holders. Just as a good movie review or a good car review or any opinion is forced by economic interests to a better review, so with coins. Too many collectors chasing too few coins.
Just to take a small example why would so many PL Morgans end up in DMPL OGH holders during that period?
Probably will take a market crash to reset, the demand is still there for high grade plastic.
I believe that a far greater contributor to gradeflation is the regrade process. In the case of regrades, chances of an upgrade far exceed those of a downgrade. That’s in large part because if a coin downgrades, the grading company is on the hook for the reduced difference in value.
So over time, countless coins continue to be resubmitted over and over again, until they end up at their their final(?) maxed-out grade.
Please alow me to disagree. You can send a coin back a million times and if it was graded correctly the first time or whenever (second or third?) the grade will remain the same UNLESS the grading standards are changed. The cause of gradeflation is just that. I have several different grading guides and looking at those and looking at Online Photograde you can see a noticibel change. The only other thing I readc was that the value of rare coins has increased over the years and the increased price must be reflected by a higher grade.
Respectfully, Mark knows 10x more about this than you do.
You continue to assume that the number on the holder is always accurate and narrowly defined. For a coin with a value spread, there is incentive to continually resubmit. Eventually, it will slip into the next higher half grade just due to statistics. Arguably, every such coin is inaccurately maxed out even if the standard hasn't changed. This will, eventually, cause the standard to change. However, that makes resubmission the cause and the standards the effect target than the other way around.
@Married2Coins said:
I've been away for a week and could not defend my opinion but others have - better than I could have. Apparently this poster does not understand the words "NO TRACE OF WEAR." I guess for some coin dealers everything is relative and making excuses for not being able to know the diference betwen MS and AU makes them better numismatists than older collectors.
@Rexfors wrote: "Actually, not really. The line between MS and AU is decided by humans, so there is no “true” AU or “true” MS. But I see the current line as more sensical and more “technical” than prior attempts, and because of that more useful and more consistent. I think people are often actually upset that the line is not less technical without realizing that that is what they are complaining about - I hear a lot of complaints about current “market grading” in the same breath as complaints that weak strikes should be punished or called AU, which is contradictory.
I'm human and I have no problem telling the difference between AU, MS, and weak strikes. Therefore, in my opinion there is a true line. Perhaps those collectors who cannot tell the difference should take the authentication seminar during the summer at Colorado College. We used stereo microscopes in class and my eyes were opened!
LOL, of course this member can argue that te current AU/MS line is more consistant! That's because collectors and dealers who cannot grade have made the line a mile wide and all kinds to things qualify as MS today. As Mr. Bowers said, AU's are now MS. That does not make the old system wrong or in need of change. Greed and relative thinking did.
PS Anyone who thinks a weak strike makes a coin AU sounds like someone who might agree with Mr. Rex on a lot of other things.
You do not know the thinking processes that go on inside a grading room, so you are purely conjecturing when you say that “greed and relative thinking” have resulted in changes in grading processes, when you describe the TPGs’ approach to the AU/MS line in general, and when you theorize about the reasons for “gradeflation” (a somewhat meaningless and fear-mongering term) and about market value playing a role in any changes that may have occurred. I would suggest you stay out of these conversations.
To your last point, anyone who thinks a weak strike makes a coin AU is in disagreement with me, as should have been clear from every comment on the subject that I have ever written. Simply because I can recognize that the line between AU and MS is decided by humans, and thus not technically objective, does not mean that I don’t have a line that I adhere to and feel is a proper approach.
As this isn’t the first time you have responded to my comments with ridiculousness and twisting of my words, I am now blocking you. I don’t need any more of these notifications, frankly.
I mostly agree with Mark's assessment. The behavior of cracking out and resubmitting coins en masse until they are maxed out in their holders has likely resulted in the average holdered coin becoming closer to maxed out. Outside of particular types and particular physical characteristics (and in my view an improvement regarding technical wear on weakly struck coins), I do not actually feel that grading has massively changed. A 64 is still essentially a 64. In the initial years of the TPGs it is true that many coins were graded tightly relative to now, but for those who argue that this line was ideal or technical and that CAC is following this line, the overwhelming preponderance of old holders with gold CAC stickers would seem to counter that.
@hfjacinto said:
I've only been on here about a year and i've learned that some posters are mean, a few are really pretentious and others think they are nice and really aren't. I also learned that dissing PCGS or CAC is a mortal sin on here, even if either did something wrong.
But not all is bad, I also learned a lot from some of you (especially the early history of TPG), but others really need to check their egos and pocketbooks.
Sorry I couldn't help myself.
Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value. Zero. Voltaire. Ebay coinbowlllc
Commercial grading is a term I have seen used for mail order raw coins. As far as some players angle trying tar and feather our hosts or another grading company using that term (one of 5 accepted by eBay) - way out there.
Yes agree there are a number of posters here pushing their own angle and very hostile to anybody who is not in their orbit.
@Married2Coins said:
We used stereo microscopes in class and my eyes were opened!
I don't doubt that....but are we going to all carry stereo microscopes to coin shows or dealers ?
Seriously...we have some super-savvy experts here....guys with DECADES of experience who have done this for a living....some actual TPG graders....some great threads with informative back-and-forths....and yet....we STILL can't define what rub/wear/friction is to delineate a line between MS and AU !!
I'll repeat a hypothetical that got lost in one of my earlier posts: someone got an MCMVII HR Saint straight off the presses....as mint state as can be....it's kept in a velvet pouch....passed down to a son or daughter 40 or 50 years later.....pristinely take care of, only removed 1 or 2 times every few years from a SDB, slid out of the velvet pouch and then put back in.
We look at that coin today...we see "wear" or "friction" on the Liberty high points....is that coin MS or AU ??? Is the sliding or friction of gently placing in and taking out the coin from an otherwise very common protective pouch for most of the last century going to be considered wear or give the APPEARANCE of wear ?
@Married2Coins said:
PS Anyone who thinks a weak strike makes a coin AU sounds like someone who might agree with Mr. Rex on a lot >of other things.
Correct me if I am wrong...but Rexford was saying that weak strikes could give the APPEARANCE of wear/rub/friction on otherwise MS coins.
So it seems to me that if someone doesn't believe in the Weak Strike Theory...and they assume the coin has seen wear.....they would NOT be agreeing with Rex.
@Married2Coins said:
We used stereo microscopes in class and my eyes were opened!
I don't doubt that....but are we going to all carry stereo microscopes to coin shows or dealers ?
Seriously...we have some super-savvy experts here....guys with DECADES of experience who have done this for a living....some actual TPG graders....some great threads with informative back-and-forths....and yet....we STILL can't define what rub/wear/friction is to delineate a line between MS and AU !!
I'll repeat a hypothetical that got lost in one of my earlier posts: someone got an MCMVII HR Saint straight off the presses....as mint state as can be....it's kept in a velvet pouch....passed down to a son or daughter 40 or 50 years later.....pristinely take care of, only removed 1 or 2 times every few years from a SDB, slid out of the velvet pouch and then put back in.
We look at that coin today...we see "wear" or "friction" on the Liberty high points....is that coin MS or AU ??? Is the sliding or friction of gently placing in and taking out the coin from an otherwise very common protective pouch for most of the last century going to be considered wear or give the APPEARANCE of wear ?
Me, I have no idea.
If the coin exhibits “wear” or “friction” on the high points, I’m of the opinion that it should grade AU.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Don't think there is any argument that if there is complete, undisturbed luster on a weak stricken coin it is still MS. Don't think it fools astute graders who get to know those years when strikes are soft/weak, i.e. 1901 P Morgan. While an 85-O also has some strike weakness, the luster is usually better then average so not so difficult to grade. I think those years when the luster is poor it is more difficult to determine MS vs AU, also a 1901 P.
If someone took a recent ASE which is normally MS68-70 from the Mint and put it in a pouch that was removed every year once or twice for 50 years, and it slid across the pouch, good chance the luster would be broken on the high points and be an AU coin.
@Pumpkinhead said:
Doesn’t a number on a holder suggest some sort of objective (and non “time sensitive”) standards? It really has to be perplexing to a non-collector to see OGH 65’s, NGC 65’s, PCGS 65’s, CAC 65’s (even NGC vs PCGS CAC 65’s) valued at and frequently sell for wildly disparate sums.
Sorry, I never saw this company. What is an OGH-65?
@fathom said:
If you drill down to the cause of gradeflation it comes down to this IMO:
If a coin certification is a form of "review" then you can pretty much count on economic interests forcing good coins into better holders. Just as a good movie review or a good car review or any opinion is forced by economic interests to a better review, so with coins. Too many collectors chasing too few coins.
Just to take a small example why would so many PL Morgans end up in DMPL OGH holders during that period?
Probably will take a market crash to reset, the demand is still there for high grade plastic.
I believe that a far greater contributor to gradeflation is the regrade process. In the case of regrades, chances of an upgrade far exceed those of a downgrade. That’s in large part because if a coin downgrades, the grading company is on the hook for the reduced difference in value.
So over time, countless coins continue to be resubmitted over and over again, until they end up at their their final(?) maxed-out grade.
Please alow me to disagree. You can send a coin back a million times and if it was graded correctly the first time or whenever (second or third?) the grade will remain the same UNLESS the grading standards are changed. The cause of gradeflation is just that. I have several different grading guides and looking at those and looking at Online Photograde you can see a noticibel change. The only other thing I readc was that the value of rare coins has increased over the years and the increased price must be reflected by a higher grade.
Respectfully, Mark knows 10x more about this than you do.
You continue to assume that the number on the holder is always accurate and narrowly defined. For a coin with a value spread, there is incentive to continually resubmit. Eventually, it will slip into the next higher half grade just due to statistics. Arguably, every such coin is inaccurately maxed out even if the standard hasn't changed. This will, eventually, cause the standard to change. However, that makes resubmission the cause and the standards the effect target than the other way around.
Respectfully, Mr. Feld knows way more than I ever will. I'm sure you do also however; When I disagee with either of you - I back up my opinion. Furthermore, I may be a nobody but I consider myself a very advanced student of coin gradeing in America. I started out with Penny Whimsey in the 1960's and have every book I can find about grading including the EAC reference. I have read every issue of "Numismatic sScrapbook" and the "Numismatist" published starting with the 1940's. One of my favorite books (purchased one summer at the ANA library sale) is Grading Coins: A Collection of Readings. That's one reason I mostly post one threads about grading where I feel I can add something.
You know what they say about assumptions. Therefore first, please don't assume anything from me and please only pay attention to what I post. Only an ignorant collector would believe ALL TPGS LABELS and that's because of a long list of reasons I don't need to post for 5 star members in this thread. Secondly, I'll bet a lot of us know about the value spread. They taught us in advances grading that TPGS know where to draw the line and get hyper-conservative before crossing it. Someone on your level is reported to have said that any coin worth grading is worth sending in again. So I should expect that a 65 "C" coin with a large value at that level to be gradded only 64 or 64+ several times before IT IS FINALLY GRADED CORRECTLY AS A 65!
@Married2Coins said:
I've been away for a week and could not defend my opinion but others have - better than I could have. Apparently this poster does not understand the words "NO TRACE OF WEAR." I guess for some coin dealers everything is relative and making excuses for not being able to know the diference betwen MS and AU makes them better numismatists than older collectors.
@Rexfors wrote: "Actually, not really. The line between MS and AU is decided by humans, so there is no “true” AU or “true” MS. But I see the current line as more sensical and more “technical” than prior attempts, and because of that more useful and more consistent. I think people are often actually upset that the line is not less technical without realizing that that is what they are complaining about - I hear a lot of complaints about current “market grading” in the same breath as complaints that weak strikes should be punished or called AU, which is contradictory.
I'm human and I have no problem telling the difference between AU, MS, and weak strikes. Therefore, in my opinion there is a true line. Perhaps those collectors who cannot tell the difference should take the authentication seminar during the summer at Colorado College. We used stereo microscopes in class and my eyes were opened!
LOL, of course this member can argue that te current AU/MS line is more consistant! That's because collectors and dealers who cannot grade have made the line a mile wide and all kinds to things qualify as MS today. As Mr. Bowers said, AU's are now MS. That does not make the old system wrong or in need of change. Greed and relative thinking did.
PS Anyone who thinks a weak strike makes a coin AU sounds like someone who might agree with Mr. Rex on a lot of other things.
You do not know the thinking processes that go on inside a grading room, so you are purely conjecturing when you say that “greed and relative thinking” have resulted in changes in grading processes, when you describe the TPGs’ approach to the AU/MS line in general, and when you theorize about the reasons for “gradeflation” (a somewhat meaningless and fear-mongering term) and about market value playing a role in any changes that may have occurred. I would suggest you stay out of these conversations.
To your last point, anyone who thinks a weak strike makes a coin AU is in disagreement with me, as should have been clear from every comment on the subject that I have ever written. Simply because I can recognize that the line between AU and MS is decided by humans, and thus not technically objective, does not mean that I don’t have a line that I adhere to and feel is a proper approach.
As this isn’t the first time you have responded to my comments with ridiculousness and twisting of my words, I am now blocking you. I don’t need any more of these notifications, frankly.
First of all you are making an assumption. I never mentioned TPGS. TPG do not operate out of greed as they don't buy or sell coins. The greed and relative thinking occurs in the market. I believe you yourself ave written that a person cannot tell the difference between an AU/MS coin so the fact that some said they could at one time makes old-time grading incorrect because many of the coins that were graded AU bactk then were actually MS - relatively speaking. LOL!
I suggest you think of changing your opinion because most knowledgeable members here belive gradeflation exists, standards have changed, prices have risen and coins graded AU in the past are now commonly graded MS. Now please tell us what you disagree with in that statment.
We agree on the last point which should have been extremely clear so I am at a complete loss as to why you need to address that issue with me.
Finally, blocking a person so that they cannot debate your opinions is not something I should expect form a 5* member here. Fortunately, you will not need to answer my last question:
@Rexford, Do you believe gradeflation exists, standards have changed especially for MS, prices have risen, and coins graded AU in the past are now commonly graded MS?
@Cougar1978 said:
Commercial grading is a term I have seen used for mail order raw coins. As far as some players angle trying tar and feather our hosts or another grading company using that term (one of 5 accepted by eBay) - way out there.
Yes agree there are a number of posters here pushing their own angle and very hostile to anybody who is not in their orbit.
There is a difference to being hostile and firm in their beliefs. I don't find any comments made here to be hostile to me or any other poster. I imagine the five * guys get a little tired of debating the same subjects every few months with lesser members. Unfortunately, IMHO, this thread has lost an important contributer, apparently due to my firm yet well-meaning opposition. I makes me very sad. Really.
If a TPG never upgraded a coin or did so once every blue moon nobody would ever resubmit a coin which would be bad for their business model.
If a team of knowledgeable numismatic experts graded a coin correctly in the first place - fewer coins would get upgrades UNTIL the grading standards, TPGS personnel, or conditions of the market changed.
@fathom said:
If you drill down to the cause of gradeflation it comes down to this IMO:
If a coin certification is a form of "review" then you can pretty much count on economic interests forcing good coins into better holders. Just as a good movie review or a good car review or any opinion is forced by economic interests to a better review, so with coins. Too many collectors chasing too few coins.
Just to take a small example why would so many PL Morgans end up in DMPL OGH holders during that period?
Probably will take a market crash to reset, the demand is still there for high grade plastic.
I believe that a far greater contributor to gradeflation is the regrade process. In the case of regrades, chances of an upgrade far exceed those of a downgrade. That’s in large part because if a coin downgrades, the grading company is on the hook for the reduced difference in value.
So over time, countless coins continue to be resubmitted over and over again, until they end up at their their final(?) maxed-out grade.
Please alow me to disagree. You can send a coin back a million times and if it was graded correctly the first time or whenever (second or third?) the grade will remain the same UNLESS the grading standards are changed. The cause of gradeflation is just that. I have several different grading guides and looking at those and looking at Online Photograde you can see a noticibel change. The only other thing I readc was that the value of rare coins has increased over the years and the increased price must be reflected by a higher grade.
1) How do you determine that a coin was graded “correctly”?
2) Grades can and do change frequently, with or without changes in “grading standards”. As “grading standards” are in part, subjective, And even if they don’t change, they’re not always adhered to.
3) Increased prices need not be reflected by higher grades. Why can’t a coin of grade X increase or decrease in value, without its grade changing? The price is different, but the coin is the same.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@Married2Coins said:
PS Anyone who thinks a weak strike makes a coin AU sounds like someone who might agree with Mr. Rex on a lot >of other things.
Correct me if I am wrong...but Rexford was saying that weak strikes could give the APPEARANCE of wear/rub/friction on otherwise MS coins.
So it seems to me that if someone doesn't believe in the Weak Strike Theory...and they assume the coin has seen wear.....they would NOT be agreeing with Rex.
Right ?
I understood that @Rexford was talking about "some people," not himself! I was talking about "some people" who couldn't grade also and not Rexford. Our posts in English were very clear.
PS Everyone here should know that coins with weak strikes (especially after their original surface show some wear) can appear circulated. I think I remember that our ANA class had a really flat Buffalo nickel that looks VF+ in a MS-64 slab. Most of the students missed that one.
@Married2Coins said:
We used stereo microscopes in class and my eyes were opened!
I don't doubt that....but are we going to all carry stereo microscopes to coin shows or dealers ?
Seriously...we have some super-savvy experts here....guys with DECADES of experience who have done this for a living....some actual TPG graders....some great threads with informative back-and-forths....and yet....we STILL can't define what rub/wear/friction is to delineate a line between MS and AU !!
I'll repeat a hypothetical that got lost in one of my earlier posts: someone got an MCMVII HR Saint straight off the presses....as mint state as can be....it's kept in a velvet pouch....passed down to a son or daughter 40 or 50 years later.....pristinely take care of, only removed 1 or 2 times every few years from a SDB, slid out of the velvet pouch and then put back in.
We look at that coin today...we see "wear" or "friction" on the Liberty high points....is that coin MS or AU ??? Is the sliding or friction of gently placing in and taking out the coin from an otherwise very common protective pouch for most of the last century going to be considered wear or give the APPEARANCE of wear ?
Me, I have no idea.
I have no idea either because we have the story but not the coin. The history of a coin does not and should not matter. Additionally, please don't include me with the professional experts here who cannot tell the difference between AU and MS. As a cion roll hunter, I've taken "new" quarters out of circulation without a trace of wear and I'm a real conservative old jerk when it comes to the AU/BU line.
@coastaljerseyguy said:
Don't think there is any argument that if there is complete, undisturbed luster on a weak stricken coin it is still MS. Don't think it fools astute graders who get to know those years when strikes are soft/weak, i.e. 1901 P Morgan. While an 85-O also has some strike weakness, the luster is usually better then average so not so difficult to grade. I think those years when the luster is poor it is more difficult to determine MS vs AU, also a 1901 P.
If someone took a recent ASE which is normally MS68-70 from the Mint and put it in a pouch that was removed every year once or twice for 50 years, and it slid across the pouch, good chance the luster would be broken on the high points and be an AU coin.
I don't think so. It might have some hairlines on the high points but not friction wear. I'll bet you could lslide a SE gently back and forthseveral times on aclean velvet jeweler's pad and not see any change at 5X. I'm not coing to try this on my SE though - LOL!
BOTH according to present day scholars. However, if that were still in the family with a 40 year old certificate it would still be a 55. The EAC guys may also grade it 55. And today, AU's are commonly graded MS-62 which reflects the price the coin is worth.
I've seen auctions wher coins as this are graded MS-62 and the last thing in the description of ths wonderful Large cent is "EAC-55.
@fathom said:
If you drill down to the cause of gradeflation it comes down to this IMO:
If a coin certification is a form of "review" then you can pretty much count on economic interests forcing good coins into better holders. Just as a good movie review or a good car review or any opinion is forced by economic interests to a better review, so with coins. Too many collectors chasing too few coins.
Just to take a small example why would so many PL Morgans end up in DMPL OGH holders during that period?
Probably will take a market crash to reset, the demand is still there for high grade plastic.
I believe that a far greater contributor to gradeflation is the regrade process. In the case of regrades, chances of an upgrade far exceed those of a downgrade. That’s in large part because if a coin downgrades, the grading company is on the hook for the reduced difference in value.
So over time, countless coins continue to be resubmitted over and over again, until they end up at their their final(?) maxed-out grade.
Please alow me to disagree. You can send a coin back a million times and if it was graded correctly the first time or whenever (second or third?) the grade will remain the same UNLESS the grading standards are changed. The cause of gradeflation is just that. I have several different grading guides and looking at those and looking at Online Photograde you can see a noticibel change. The only other thing I readc was that the value of rare coins has increased over the years and the increased price must be reflected by a higher grade.
1) How do you determine that a coin was graded “correctly”?
2) Grades can and do change frequently, with or without changes in “grading standards”. As “grading standards” are in part, subjective, And even if they don’t change, they’re not always adhered to.
3) Increased prices need not be reflected by higher grades. Why can’t a coin of grade X increase or decrease in value, without its grade changing? The price is different, but the coin is the same.
@fathom said:
If you drill down to the cause of gradeflation it comes down to this IMO:
If a coin certification is a form of "review" then you can pretty much count on economic interests forcing good coins into better holders. Just as a good movie review or a good car review or any opinion is forced by economic interests to a better review, so with coins. Too many collectors chasing too few coins.
Just to take a small example why would so many PL Morgans end up in DMPL OGH holders during that period?
Probably will take a market crash to reset, the demand is still there for high grade plastic.
I believe that a far greater contributor to gradeflation is the regrade process. In the case of regrades, chances of an upgrade far exceed those of a downgrade. That’s in large part because if a coin downgrades, the grading company is on the hook for the reduced difference in value.
So over time, countless coins continue to be resubmitted over and over again, until they end up at their their final(?) maxed-out grade.
Please alow me to disagree. You can send a coin back a million times and if it was graded correctly the first time or whenever (second or third?) the grade will remain the same UNLESS the grading standards are changed. The cause of gradeflation is just that. I have several different grading guides and looking at those and looking at Online Photograde you can see a noticibel change. The only other thing I readc was that the value of rare coins has increased over the years and the increased price must be reflected by a higher grade.
1) How do you determine that a coin was graded “correctly”?
2) Grades can and do change frequently, with or without changes in “grading standards”. As “grading standards” are in part, subjective, And even if they don’t change, they’re not always adhered to.
3) Increased prices need not be reflected by higher grades. Why can’t a coin of grade X increase or decrease in value, without its grade changing? The price is different, but the coin is the same.
The higher grade is always the correct one. 😀
Stop joking, everyone will believe you. That would be the "Peter Principal" applied to coins. I'm guessing that many of the coins in the highest grades are overgraded but what do I know. They trade way above what I can afford. Hey, dress up a MS-64+ in a rainbow of colors and you'll have a commercial MS-67.
Guarantee? Authentication, yes. However, if we had access to the results of every coin resubmitted to all the TPGS that guarantee a grade, I'll bet the number of coins bought back or whatever they do would be less than 20% because everyone says that each TPGS has their own standards.
If the coin exhibits “wear” or “friction” on the high points, I’m of the opinion that it should grade AU.
Mark, how would you feel about a Saint like the below, which graded as a gem? For that point, what about most MS Saints?
I'm surprised that you cannot answer your own question as the grade of that coin SCREAMS OUT THE OBVIOUS! Since Mr. Feld is probably in bed, why don't you go first? Hint: The answer is in your own post I quoted here.
If the coin exhibits “wear” or “friction” on the high points, I’m of the opinion that it should grade AU.
Mark, how would you feel about a Saint like the below, which graded as a gem? For that point, what about most MS Saints?
I'm surprised that you cannot answer your own question as the grade of that coin SCREAMS OUT THE OBVIOUS! Since Mr. Feld is probably in bed, why don't you go first? Hint: The answer is in your own post I quoted here.
Ah, but Mr. Feld stated that such a coin should grade AU. Surely this is such an example of commercial grading then, no?
If the coin exhibits “wear” or “friction” on the high points, I’m of the opinion that it should grade AU.
Mark, how would you feel about a Saint like the below, which graded as a gem? For that point, what about most MS Saints?
I'm surprised that you cannot answer your own question as the grade of that coin SCREAMS OUT THE OBVIOUS! Since Mr. Feld is probably in bed, why don't you go first? Hint: The answer is in your own post I quoted here.
Ah, but Mr. Feld stated that such a coin should grade AU. Surely this is such an example of commercial grading then, no?
Yes. To call that coin AU would be crazy! However, IMO, that coin is AU based on my two good eyes, a mental condition (crazy), and the fact that I have no connection to that coin, its history or ownership. I am an independent examiner with a personal opinion.
PS This must be the specimen that I heard was beat up. The reverse of that coin is outstanding!
@fathom said:
If you drill down to the cause of gradeflation it comes down to this IMO:
If a coin certification is a form of "review" then you can pretty much count on economic interests forcing good coins into better holders. Just as a good movie review or a good car review or any opinion is forced by economic interests to a better review, so with coins. Too many collectors chasing too few coins.
Just to take a small example why would so many PL Morgans end up in DMPL OGH holders during that period?
Probably will take a market crash to reset, the demand is still there for high grade plastic.
I believe that a far greater contributor to gradeflation is the regrade process. In the case of regrades, chances of an upgrade far exceed those of a downgrade. That’s in large part because if a coin downgrades, the grading company is on the hook for the reduced difference in value.
So over time, countless coins continue to be resubmitted over and over again, until they end up at their their final(?) maxed-out grade.
Please alow me to disagree. You can send a coin back a million times and if it was graded correctly the first time or whenever (second or third?) the grade will remain the same UNLESS the grading standards are changed. The cause of gradeflation is just that. I have several different grading guides and looking at those and looking at Online Photograde you can see a noticibel change. The only other thing I readc was that the value of rare coins has increased over the years and the increased price must be reflected by a higher grade.
1) How do you determine that a coin was graded “correctly”?
2) Grades can and do change frequently, with or without changes in “grading standards”. As “grading standards” are in part, subjective, And even if they don’t change, they’re not always adhered to.
3) Increased prices need not be reflected by higher grades. Why can’t a coin of grade X increase or decrease in value, without its grade changing? The price is different, but the coin is the same.
The higher grade is always the correct one. 😀
Please say you are joking. Many here have learned to value your opinion. Besides, that sounds like the "Peter Principal" applied to coins. I just read somewhere on CU recently about all the overgraded coins that are in tombs.
@fathom said:
If you drill down to the cause of gradeflation it comes down to this IMO:
If a coin certification is a form of "review" then you can pretty much count on economic interests forcing good coins into better holders. Just as a good movie review or a good car review or any opinion is forced by economic interests to a better review, so with coins. Too many collectors chasing too few coins.
Just to take a small example why would so many PL Morgans end up in DMPL OGH holders during that period?
Probably will take a market crash to reset, the demand is still there for high grade plastic.
I believe that a far greater contributor to gradeflation is the regrade process. In the case of regrades, chances of an upgrade far exceed those of a downgrade. That’s in large part because if a coin downgrades, the grading company is on the hook for the reduced difference in value.
So over time, countless coins continue to be resubmitted over and over again, until they end up at their their final(?) maxed-out grade.
Please alow me to disagree. You can send a coin back a million times and if it was graded correctly the first time or whenever (second or third?) the grade will remain the same UNLESS the grading standards are changed. The cause of gradeflation is just that. I have several different grading guides and looking at those and looking at Online Photograde you can see a noticibel change. The only other thing I readc was that the value of rare coins has increased over the years and the increased price must be reflected by a higher grade.
1) How do you determine that a coin was graded “correctly”?
2) Grades can and do change frequently, with or without changes in “grading standards”. As “grading standards” are in part, subjective, And even if they don’t change, they’re not always adhered to.
3) Increased prices need not be reflected by higher grades. Why can’t a coin of grade X increase or decrease in value, without its grade changing? The price is different, but the coin is the same.
The higher grade is always the correct one. 😀
Stop joking, everyone will believe you. That would be the "Peter Principal" applied to coins. I'm guessing that many of the coins in the highest grades are overgraded but what do I know. They trade way above what I can afford. Hey, dress up a MS-64+ in a rainbow of colors and you'll have a commercial MS-67.
I'm not kidding, not completely. How many times do you hear someone ask for reconsideration of a grade to go down rather than up? How many times do you hear someone say they resubmitted X times until they finally got the +?
People fall in love with their coins and as we often say in this forum, "ownership adds a point" to the grade.
@fathom said:
If you drill down to the cause of gradeflation it comes down to this IMO:
If a coin certification is a form of "review" then you can pretty much count on economic interests forcing good coins into better holders. Just as a good movie review or a good car review or any opinion is forced by economic interests to a better review, so with coins. Too many collectors chasing too few coins.
Just to take a small example why would so many PL Morgans end up in DMPL OGH holders during that period?
Probably will take a market crash to reset, the demand is still there for high grade plastic.
I believe that a far greater contributor to gradeflation is the regrade process. In the case of regrades, chances of an upgrade far exceed those of a downgrade. That’s in large part because if a coin downgrades, the grading company is on the hook for the reduced difference in value.
So over time, countless coins continue to be resubmitted over and over again, until they end up at their their final(?) maxed-out grade.
Please alow me to disagree. You can send a coin back a million times and if it was graded correctly the first time or whenever (second or third?) the grade will remain the same UNLESS the grading standards are changed. The cause of gradeflation is just that. I have several different grading guides and looking at those and looking at Online Photograde you can see a noticibel change. The only other thing I readc was that the value of rare coins has increased over the years and the increased price must be reflected by a higher grade.
1) How do you determine that a coin was graded “correctly”?
2) Grades can and do change frequently, with or without changes in “grading standards”. As “grading standards” are in part, subjective, And even if they don’t change, they’re not always adhered to.
3) Increased prices need not be reflected by higher grades. Why can’t a coin of grade X increase or decrease in value, without its grade changing? The price is different, but the coin is the same.
The higher grade is always the correct one. 😀
Not as far as potential buyers are concerned.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@fathom said:
If you drill down to the cause of gradeflation it comes down to this IMO:
If a coin certification is a form of "review" then you can pretty much count on economic interests forcing good coins into better holders. Just as a good movie review or a good car review or any opinion is forced by economic interests to a better review, so with coins. Too many collectors chasing too few coins.
Just to take a small example why would so many PL Morgans end up in DMPL OGH holders during that period?
Probably will take a market crash to reset, the demand is still there for high grade plastic.
I believe that a far greater contributor to gradeflation is the regrade process. In the case of regrades, chances of an upgrade far exceed those of a downgrade. That’s in large part because if a coin downgrades, the grading company is on the hook for the reduced difference in value.
So over time, countless coins continue to be resubmitted over and over again, until they end up at their their final(?) maxed-out grade.
Please alow me to disagree. You can send a coin back a million times and if it was graded correctly the first time or whenever (second or third?) the grade will remain the same UNLESS the grading standards are changed. The cause of gradeflation is just that. I have several different grading guides and looking at those and looking at Online Photograde you can see a noticibel change. The only other thing I readc was that the value of rare coins has increased over the years and the increased price must be reflected by a higher grade.
1) How do you determine that a coin was graded “correctly”?
2) Grades can and do change frequently, with or without changes in “grading standards”. As “grading standards” are in part, subjective, And even if they don’t change, they’re not always adhered to.
3) Increased prices need not be reflected by higher grades. Why can’t a coin of grade X increase or decrease in value, without its grade changing? The price is different, but the coin is the same.
The higher grade is always the correct one. 😀
Stop joking, everyone will believe you. That would be the "Peter Principal" applied to coins. I'm guessing that many of the coins in the highest grades are overgraded but what do I know. They trade way above what I can afford. Hey, dress up a MS-64+ in a rainbow of colors and you'll have a commercial MS-67.
I'm not kidding, not completely. How many times do you hear someone ask for reconsideration of a grade to go down rather than up? How many times do you hear someone say they resubmitted X times until they finally got the +?
People fall in love with their coins and as we often say in this forum, "ownership adds a point" to the grade.
That speaks to what most people like/want/profit by, not to the higher grades being the "correct" ones.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@fathom said:
If you drill down to the cause of gradeflation it comes down to this IMO:
If a coin certification is a form of "review" then you can pretty much count on economic interests forcing good coins into better holders. Just as a good movie review or a good car review or any opinion is forced by economic interests to a better review, so with coins. Too many collectors chasing too few coins.
Just to take a small example why would so many PL Morgans end up in DMPL OGH holders during that period?
Probably will take a market crash to reset, the demand is still there for high grade plastic.
I believe that a far greater contributor to gradeflation is the regrade process. In the case of regrades, chances of an upgrade far exceed those of a downgrade. That’s in large part because if a coin downgrades, the grading company is on the hook for the reduced difference in value.
So over time, countless coins continue to be resubmitted over and over again, until they end up at their their final(?) maxed-out grade.
Please alow me to disagree. You can send a coin back a million times and if it was graded correctly the first time or whenever (second or third?) the grade will remain the same UNLESS the grading standards are changed. The cause of gradeflation is just that. I have several different grading guides and looking at those and looking at Online Photograde you can see a noticibel change. The only other thing I readc was that the value of rare coins has increased over the years and the increased price must be reflected by a higher grade.
1) How do you determine that a coin was graded “correctly”?
2) Grades can and do change frequently, with or without changes in “grading standards”. As “grading standards” are in part, subjective, And even if they don’t change, they’re not always adhered to.
3) Increased prices need not be reflected by higher grades. Why can’t a coin of grade X increase or decrease in value, without its grade changing? The price is different, but the coin is the same.
The higher grade is always the correct one. 😀
Stop joking, everyone will believe you. That would be the "Peter Principal" applied to coins. I'm guessing that many of the coins in the highest grades are overgraded but what do I know. They trade way above what I can afford. Hey, dress up a MS-64+ in a rainbow of colors and you'll have a commercial MS-67.
I'm not kidding, not completely. How many times do you hear someone ask for reconsideration of a grade to go down rather than up? How many times do you hear someone say they resubmitted X times until they finally got the +?
People fall in love with their coins and as we often say in this forum, "ownership adds a point" to the grade.
That speaks to what most people like/want/profit by, not to the higher grades being the "correct" ones.
Which is the implication of the "joke". Of course, if I have to explain it: The collector interpretation of "correct" is almost always the higher grade.
As for the true "correct" grade, there isn't one. The standards have never been defined precisely enough to allow for a definitive correct grade.
Another statistic that we should remember is that from MS60 to MS70 there are 11 numbers.
And MS60 through MS69 can also potentially have “+” as part of their grade, so add 10 more.
So modern grading nomenclature (or, use the word ‘standards’ if you think there’s anything standard about them.) currently has 21 accepted shades of ‘uncirculated.’
(_________________________) fill in your own punchline here!
30+ years coin shop experience (ret.) Coins, bullion, currency, scrap & interesting folks. Loved every minute!
Comments
That was said in jest. : )
Sorry I confused you. That was said in jest. : )
.> @Catbert said:
And they are punished. It's what we call "net grading", and there's nothing wrong with it in theory. If the net grade is fair, all things considered, it's "accurate" enough, and buyers can simply look at the coin and make a decision. The problem is that, in practice, net grading coins with "issues" is more difficult, more subjective and far more erratic than grading perfectly original and problem free coins. And after more than 100 million coins have been graded, it's not surprising that the market is drowning in a sea of unwanted turds confused about grading.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
It feels like some people get hung up on the “true” grade of a coin. But there is really no such thing. Each grading company adopts standards that have changed over time and will continue to change, some subtly and some not so much.
The only way to judge one grading regime vs another is by the amount of useful ranking information they convey to the collector at each grade level. By that metric, I think the current tpg standards do a pretty good job. But they cannot please everyone.
If a collector desires a ranking system that (for instance) calls every coin with any “rub” AU, so be it. But I don’t believe this will be the fairest or most accurate coin ranking system possible.
Mills is obviously super-knowledgeable about coins, the market, and a top-notch grader. Well-worth reading for his insights for sure. Not sure why he thinks that gold and silver prices are manipulated (I see that alot) and doesn't realize the difference between a bank custodian and bank proprietary trading account.
He also think that overgrading has led to multi-year declines in coin prices. I see no link there. If anything, looser grading was a result of RISING prices and/or bubbles. But regardless, these lesser-quality overgraded (?) coins would find their own level and NOT drag down the entire coin type or sector. Overgrading of 1924 Saints won't impact MCMVII HR's.
This was interesting from one of his blog posts from a few quarters back:
"...I’d say about 25% or more of CAC’d 18th century to early 19th century coins should not have a sticker. I like them from Circulated to Uncirculated." He clearly is one of the "toughest" technical graders that I have read about.
Of Note: was super-bullish on the coin industry/hobby based on his FUN observations.
I've been away for a week and could not defend my opinion but others have - better than I could have. Apparently this poster does not understand the words "NO TRACE OF WEAR." I guess for some coin dealers everything is relative and making excuses for not being able to know the diference betwen MS and AU makes them better numismatists than older collectors.
@Rexfors wrote: "Actually, not really. The line between MS and AU is decided by humans, so there is no “true” AU or “true” MS. But I see the current line as more sensical and more “technical” than prior attempts, and because of that more useful and more consistent. I think people are often actually upset that the line is not less technical without realizing that that is what they are complaining about - I hear a lot of complaints about current “market grading” in the same breath as complaints that weak strikes should be punished or called AU, which is contradictory.
I'm human and I have no problem telling the difference between AU, MS, and weak strikes. Therefore, in my opinion there is a true line. Perhaps those collectors who cannot tell the difference should take the authentication seminar during the summer at Colorado College. We used stereo microscopes in class and my eyes were opened!
LOL, of course this member can argue that te current AU/MS line is more consistant! That's because collectors and dealers who cannot grade have made the line a mile wide and all kinds to things qualify as MS today. As Mr. Bowers said, AU's are now MS. That does not make the old system wrong or in need of change. Greed and relative thinking did.
PS Anyone who thinks a weak strike makes a coin AU sounds like someone who might agree with Mr. Rex on a lot of other things.
Please alow me to disagree. You can send a coin back a million times and if it was graded correctly the first time or whenever (second or third?) the grade will remain the same UNLESS the grading standards are changed. The cause of gradeflation is just that. I have several different grading guides and looking at those and looking at Online Photograde you can see a noticibel change. The only other thing I readc was that the value of rare coins has increased over the years and the increased price must be reflected by a higher grade.
Sorry, I never saw this company. What is an OGH-65?
From what I have read...the answer is NO.....BUT....those CACG graders are going in EXPECTING to adhere to "technical grading" and come from a culture (CAC and JA) where it was adhered to more than at other TPGs. In theory or in practice, take your pick.
Reading some of the Warren Mills commentaries, he's not sold on CAC or CACG for expertise in all coin types and series and dates....but sees them as a "healthy" correction to the disregarding of altered surfaces, wear/rub, etc.
Original green holder.
Respectfully, Mark knows 10x more about this than you do.
You continue to assume that the number on the holder is always accurate and narrowly defined. For a coin with a value spread, there is incentive to continually resubmit. Eventually, it will slip into the next higher half grade just due to statistics. Arguably, every such coin is inaccurately maxed out even if the standard hasn't changed. This will, eventually, cause the standard to change. However, that makes resubmission the cause and the standards the effect target than the other way around.
You do not know the thinking processes that go on inside a grading room, so you are purely conjecturing when you say that “greed and relative thinking” have resulted in changes in grading processes, when you describe the TPGs’ approach to the AU/MS line in general, and when you theorize about the reasons for “gradeflation” (a somewhat meaningless and fear-mongering term) and about market value playing a role in any changes that may have occurred. I would suggest you stay out of these conversations.
To your last point, anyone who thinks a weak strike makes a coin AU is in disagreement with me, as should have been clear from every comment on the subject that I have ever written. Simply because I can recognize that the line between AU and MS is decided by humans, and thus not technically objective, does not mean that I don’t have a line that I adhere to and feel is a proper approach.
As this isn’t the first time you have responded to my comments with ridiculousness and twisting of my words, I am now blocking you. I don’t need any more of these notifications, frankly.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
I mostly agree with Mark's assessment. The behavior of cracking out and resubmitting coins en masse until they are maxed out in their holders has likely resulted in the average holdered coin becoming closer to maxed out. Outside of particular types and particular physical characteristics (and in my view an improvement regarding technical wear on weakly struck coins), I do not actually feel that grading has massively changed. A 64 is still essentially a 64. In the initial years of the TPGs it is true that many coins were graded tightly relative to now, but for those who argue that this line was ideal or technical and that CAC is following this line, the overwhelming preponderance of old holders with gold CAC stickers would seem to counter that.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
Sorry I couldn't help myself.
Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value. Zero. Voltaire. Ebay coinbowlllc
Commercial grading is a term I have seen used for mail order raw coins. As far as some players angle trying tar and feather our hosts or another grading company using that term (one of 5 accepted by eBay) - way out there.
Yes agree there are a number of posters here pushing their own angle and very hostile to anybody who is not in their orbit.
I’ll add my two cents.
If a TPG never upgraded a coin or did so once every blue moon nobody would ever resubmit a coin which would be bad for their business model.
Except their business model is to slab millions of moderns.
I don't doubt that....but are we going to all carry stereo microscopes to coin shows or dealers ?
Seriously...we have some super-savvy experts here....guys with DECADES of experience who have done this for a living....some actual TPG graders....some great threads with informative back-and-forths....and yet....we STILL can't define what rub/wear/friction is to delineate a line between MS and AU !!
I'll repeat a hypothetical that got lost in one of my earlier posts: someone got an MCMVII HR Saint straight off the presses....as mint state as can be....it's kept in a velvet pouch....passed down to a son or daughter 40 or 50 years later.....pristinely take care of, only removed 1 or 2 times every few years from a SDB, slid out of the velvet pouch and then put back in.
We look at that coin today...we see "wear" or "friction" on the Liberty high points....is that coin MS or AU ??? Is the sliding or friction of gently placing in and taking out the coin from an otherwise very common protective pouch for most of the last century going to be considered wear or give the APPEARANCE of wear ?
Me, I have no idea.
Correct me if I am wrong...but Rexford was saying that weak strikes could give the APPEARANCE of wear/rub/friction on otherwise MS coins.
So it seems to me that if someone doesn't believe in the Weak Strike Theory...and they assume the coin has seen wear.....they would NOT be agreeing with Rex.
Right ?
Original Green Holder, referring to the early-PCGS holders through the mid-1990's when presumably grading standards were very tight.
If the coin exhibits “wear” or “friction” on the high points, I’m of the opinion that it should grade AU.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Don't think there is any argument that if there is complete, undisturbed luster on a weak stricken coin it is still MS. Don't think it fools astute graders who get to know those years when strikes are soft/weak, i.e. 1901 P Morgan. While an 85-O also has some strike weakness, the luster is usually better then average so not so difficult to grade. I think those years when the luster is poor it is more difficult to determine MS vs AU, also a 1901 P.
If someone took a recent ASE which is normally MS68-70 from the Mint and put it in a pouch that was removed every year once or twice for 50 years, and it slid across the pouch, good chance the luster would be broken on the high points and be an AU coin.
Respectfully, Mr. Feld knows way more than I ever will. I'm sure you do also however; When I disagee with either of you - I back up my opinion. Furthermore, I may be a nobody but I consider myself a very advanced student of coin gradeing in America. I started out with Penny Whimsey in the 1960's and have every book I can find about grading including the EAC reference. I have read every issue of "Numismatic sScrapbook" and the "Numismatist" published starting with the 1940's. One of my favorite books (purchased one summer at the ANA library sale) is Grading Coins: A Collection of Readings. That's one reason I mostly post one threads about grading where I feel I can add something.
You know what they say about assumptions. Therefore first, please don't assume anything from me and please only pay attention to what I post. Only an ignorant collector would believe ALL TPGS LABELS and that's because of a long list of reasons I don't need to post for 5 star members in this thread. Secondly, I'll bet a lot of us know about the value spread. They taught us in advances grading that TPGS know where to draw the line and get hyper-conservative before crossing it. Someone on your level is reported to have said that any coin worth grading is worth sending in again. So I should expect that a 65 "C" coin with a large value at that level to be gradded only 64 or 64+ several times before IT IS FINALLY GRADED CORRECTLY AS A 65!
First of all you are making an assumption. I never mentioned TPGS. TPG do not operate out of greed as they don't buy or sell coins. The greed and relative thinking occurs in the market. I believe you yourself ave written that a person cannot tell the difference between an AU/MS coin so the fact that some said they could at one time makes old-time grading incorrect because many of the coins that were graded AU bactk then were actually MS - relatively speaking. LOL!
I suggest you think of changing your opinion because most knowledgeable members here belive gradeflation exists, standards have changed, prices have risen and coins graded AU in the past are now commonly graded MS. Now please tell us what you disagree with in that statment.
We agree on the last point which should have been extremely clear so I am at a complete loss as to why you need to address that issue with me.
Finally, blocking a person so that they cannot debate your opinions is not something I should expect form a 5* member here. Fortunately, you will not need to answer my last question:
@Rexford, Do you believe gradeflation exists, standards have changed especially for MS, prices have risen, and coins graded AU in the past are now commonly graded MS?
There is a difference to being hostile and firm in their beliefs. I don't find any comments made here to be hostile to me or any other poster. I imagine the five * guys get a little tired of debating the same subjects every few months with lesser members. Unfortunately, IMHO, this thread has lost an important contributer, apparently due to my firm yet well-meaning opposition. I makes me very sad. Really.
If a team of knowledgeable numismatic experts graded a coin correctly in the first place - fewer coins would get upgrades UNTIL the grading standards, TPGS personnel, or conditions of the market changed.
1) How do you determine that a coin was graded “correctly”?
2) Grades can and do change frequently, with or without changes in “grading standards”. As “grading standards” are in part, subjective, And even if they don’t change, they’re not always adhered to.
3) Increased prices need not be reflected by higher grades. Why can’t a coin of grade X increase or decrease in value, without its grade changing? The price is different, but the coin is the same.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I understood that @Rexford was talking about "some people," not himself! I was talking about "some people" who couldn't grade also and not Rexford. Our posts in English were very clear.
PS Everyone here should know that coins with weak strikes (especially after their original surface show some wear) can appear circulated. I think I remember that our ANA class had a really flat Buffalo nickel that looks VF+ in a MS-64 slab. Most of the students missed that one.
I have no idea either because we have the story but not the coin. The history of a coin does not and should not matter. Additionally, please don't include me with the professional experts here who cannot tell the difference between AU and MS. As a cion roll hunter, I've taken "new" quarters out of circulation without a trace of wear and I'm a real conservative old jerk when it comes to the AU/BU line.
I don't think so. It might have some hairlines on the high points but not friction wear. I'll bet you could lslide a SE gently back and forthseveral times on aclean velvet jeweler's pad and not see any change at 5X. I'm not coing to try this on my SE though - LOL!
My 1847 N-1....AU55 at auction currently resides in PCGS MS62. You tell me which is right.
BOTH according to present day scholars. However, if that were still in the family with a 40 year old certificate it would still be a 55. The EAC guys may also grade it 55. And today, AU's are commonly graded MS-62 which reflects the price the coin is worth.
I've seen auctions wher coins as this are graded MS-62 and the last thing in the description of ths wonderful Large cent is "EAC-55.
Isn't that a backdoor admission of market grading (if true) ?
The higher grade is always the correct one. 😀
Yes and no. It may be more a question of liability control. Remember, the TPGs are backing their opinion with a guarantee.
If true? Backdoor? Where have you been all this time? That's what all TPGS say they do - MARKET or COMMERCIAL grading!
Stop joking, everyone will believe you. That would be the "Peter Principal" applied to coins. I'm guessing that many of the coins in the highest grades are overgraded but what do I know. They trade way above what I can afford. Hey, dress up a MS-64+ in a rainbow of colors and you'll have a commercial MS-67.
Mark, how would you feel about a Saint like the below, which graded as a gem? For that point, what about most MS Saints?
Coin Photographer.
Guarantee? Authentication, yes. However, if we had access to the results of every coin resubmitted to all the TPGS that guarantee a grade, I'll bet the number of coins bought back or whatever they do would be less than 20% because everyone says that each TPGS has their own standards.
How does that "guarantee" change with CACG ?
I'm surprised that you cannot answer your own question as the grade of that coin SCREAMS OUT THE OBVIOUS! Since Mr. Feld is probably in bed, why don't you go first? Hint: The answer is in your own post I quoted here.
Ah, but Mr. Feld stated that such a coin should grade AU. Surely this is such an example of commercial grading then, no?
Coin Photographer.
Why ask that question on CU? CAC Forum has actual graders and the owner answering questions about their company and policies.> @FlyingAl said:
Yes. To call that coin AU would be crazy! However, IMO, that coin is AU based on my two good eyes, a mental condition (crazy), and the fact that I have no connection to that coin, its history or ownership. I am an independent examiner with a personal opinion.
PS This must be the specimen that I heard was beat up. The reverse of that coin is outstanding!
Please say you are joking. Many here have learned to value your opinion. Besides, that sounds like the "Peter Principal" applied to coins. I just read somewhere on CU recently about all the overgraded coins that are in tombs.
I'm not kidding, not completely. How many times do you hear someone ask for reconsideration of a grade to go down rather than up? How many times do you hear someone say they resubmitted X times until they finally got the +?
People fall in love with their coins and as we often say in this forum, "ownership adds a point" to the grade.
It doesn't. NGC and PCGS are each in charge of their own guarantee.
Not as far as potential buyers are concerned.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I'm of the opinion that in general "MS" Saints tend to be liberally graded - as much as or more so than any other series I can think of.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
That speaks to what most people like/want/profit by, not to the higher grades being the "correct" ones.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Which is the implication of the "joke". Of course, if I have to explain it: The collector interpretation of "correct" is almost always the higher grade.
As for the true "correct" grade, there isn't one. The standards have never been defined precisely enough to allow for a definitive correct grade.
Wow! 2800 views and 150 comments on this thread.
Another statistic that we should remember is that from MS60 to MS70 there are 11 numbers.
And MS60 through MS69 can also potentially have “+” as part of their grade, so add 10 more.
So modern grading nomenclature (or, use the word ‘standards’ if you think there’s anything standard about them.) currently has 21 accepted shades of ‘uncirculated.’
(_________________________) fill in your own punchline here!
30+ years coin shop experience (ret.) Coins, bullion, currency, scrap & interesting folks. Loved every minute!