@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.
The marketplace doesn't need super definitive standards, it just needs consistency.
@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.
The marketplace doesn't need super definitive standards, it just needs consistency.
You can't have sufficient consistency without sufficiently definitive standards.
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.
The marketplace doesn't need super definitive standards, it just needs consistency.
You can't have sufficient consistency without sufficiently definitive standards.
Disagree.
We have definitive standards and we still do not have consistency. What does that tell you?
Opposing forces to consistency are skewing the marketplace valuations, hence the hand wringing, and this thread.
Define and vanquish the opposing forces and then we can finish this thread.
@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.
The marketplace doesn't need super definitive standards, it just needs consistency.
You can't have sufficient consistency without sufficiently definitive standards.
Disagree.
We have definitive standards and we still do not have consistency. What does that tell you?
Opposing forces to consistency are skewing the marketplace valuations, hence the hand wringing, and this thread.
Define and vanquish the opposing forces and then we can finish this thread.
We don't have definitive standards. Things like "luster", "strength of strike" and "eye appeal" are inherently fuzzy. Even in circulated grades, the degree that strike plays a role is squishy. There's also no official guidance on what to do when one side is XF and the other is VF.
@Typekat said:
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!
And if you include CAC as delineating A/B coins, you can add another 10 "grades" (they don't consider "+" grades).
@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.
The marketplace doesn't need super definitive standards, it just needs consistency.
You can't have sufficient consistency without sufficiently definitive standards.
Disagree.
We have definitive standards and we still do not have consistency. What does that tell you?
Opposing forces to consistency are skewing the marketplace valuations, hence the hand wringing, and this thread.
Define and vanquish the opposing forces and then we can finish this thread.
I don't think we have definitive standards. Please take any MS or Proof grade from 60 to 69 and show me a definitive standard that can be applied on a practical basis and result in a high level of consistency.
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.
The marketplace doesn't need super definitive standards, it just needs consistency.
You can't have sufficient consistency without sufficiently definitive standards.
Disagree.
We have definitive standards and we still do not have consistency. What does that tell you?
Opposing forces to consistency are skewing the marketplace valuations, hence the hand wringing, and this thread.
Define and vanquish the opposing forces and then we can finish this thread.
I don't think we have definitive standards. Please take any MS or Proof grade from 60 to 69 and show me a definitive standard that can be applied on a practical basis and result in a high level of consistency.
The gem grades are especially problematic as strike, luster, and eye appeal become more important than marks.
@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.
The marketplace doesn't need super definitive standards, it just needs consistency.
You can't have sufficient consistency without sufficiently definitive standards.
Disagree.
We have definitive standards and we still do not have consistency. What does that tell you?
Opposing forces to consistency are skewing the marketplace valuations, hence the hand wringing, and this thread.
Define and vanquish the opposing forces and then we can finish this thread.
I don't think we have definitive standards. Please take any MS or Proof grade from 60 to 69 and show me a definitive standard that can be applied on a practical basis and result in a high level of consistency.
The gem grades are especially problematic as strike, luster, and eye appeal become more important than marks.
Even considering only marks, there are an infinite number of combinations of them on different coins. No so-called definitive standard can provide the "correct" grade while evaluating the combination of size, shape, number, location, depth, etc. of the marks.
Next, add in other components of grading and the task makes consistency that much more difficult.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
There are standards. We know what a f15 is, we know what an MS65 is, etc. 40 years of TPGs and before that ANA books etc. photo grade and we have no definitive standards?
Maybe the more definitive .....the more subjective dispute.
Sorry, not joining the mutual admiration society this year.
@fathom said:
There are standards. We know what a f15 is, we know what an MS65 is, etc. 40 years of TPGs and before that ANA books etc. photo grade and we have no definitive standards?
Maybe the more definitive .....the more subjective dispute.
Sorry, not joining the mutual admiration society this year.
Then please present us with the MS65 "standard" that can be applied in a way that results in highly consistent grading results. The written definitions I've seen don't necessarily enable someone to distinguish a 65 from a 64 or a 66.
Words or pictures of some coins graded 65 don't address the infinite combinations of attributes and flaws on other coins that must be classified as one grade vs. another. Words like "minor" a "few", "small", "light", "nearly" "virtually", "slight" don't automatically lead to "definitive standards".
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@fathom said:
There are standards. We know what a f15 is, we know what an MS65 is, etc. 40 years of TPGs and before that ANA books etc. photo grade and we have no definitive standards?
Maybe the more definitive .....the more subjective dispute.
Sorry, not joining the mutual admiration society this year.
Then please present us with the MS65 "standard" that can be applied in a way that results in highly consistent grading results. The written definitions I've seen don't necessarily enable someone to distinguish a 65 from a 64 or a 66.
Words or pictures of some coins graded 65 don't address the infinite combinations of attributes and flaws on other coins that must be classified as one grade vs. another. Words like "minor" a "few", "small", "light", "nearly" "virtually", "slight" don't automatically lead to "definitive standards".
You are correct on subjective differences, your opinion weighs heavily here as it should.
But the market has to get to a place where Saints are graded definitively and not liberal as you previously acknowledged.
"They stood on the shoulders of giants" - so did Microsoft."
XEROX invented the Windows concept/software.
Steve Jobs and Bill Gates as partners saw the future.
Got it from Xerox and ran with it to become Billionaires.
Visionaries see the future in things others can't and usually become very rich!
@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 do know what goes on in several grading rooms by professionals with equal and MUCH more experience than you. The way I read the post, @married was not writing about greed and relative thinking occurring in a grading room. He is writing about something that is well known in the profession and something that is taught in advanced grading seminars. For a coin to jump to a grade that increases its value substantially, it must be all there and then some. This happens inside and outside a TPGS. I have been personally told several times at two different TPGS's that a coin I graded MS-65 - because it was - cannot be given that grade because its value would go from say 8K to 125K!
Furthermore, I too have a suggestion: Anyone who does not understand that both the time period and market conditions CHANGES THE VALUE and affects the commercial grades assigned to coins might want to stay out of discussions about grading.
@Insider3, I disagree strongly with your statement: “For a coin to jump to a grade that increases its value substantially, it must be all there and then some.”
I’ve seen too many coins that jumped to grades which increased their value substantially, but which weren’t “all there and then some”. Among the coins in that group are some extremely well known rarities. Others include quantities of coins that became pop top examples, after jumping a point in grade, if not more. Surely, you’ve seen some such coins and they aren’t “all there and then some” at their new and improved grades.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
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 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.
They are graded liberally in the commercial market. But please answer his question. Is the 1933 Saint AU or MS in your opinion?
Does it matter if it's one of one?
Should rarity be a grading consideration or should all coins within the series be graded using the same criteria?
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
@MFeld said: @Insider3, I disagree strongly with your statement: “For a coin to jump to a grade that increases its value substantially, it must be all there and then some.”
I’ve seen too many coins that jumped to grades which increased their value substantially, but which weren’t “all there and then some”. Among the coins in that group are some extremely well known rarities. Others include quantities of coins that became pop top examples, after jumping a point in grade, if not more. Surely, you’ve seen some such coins and they aren’t “all there and then some” at their new and improved grades.
My statement is a generalization covering 90% of all issues not the 10% of rare coins or condition rarities bumped for registry sets, gradeflation, collections of famous people, obvious overgrading, mistakes, or whatever else the case. It's the every-day stuff sent to a TPGS. That's he trouble with texting! It takes time to get a point across without leaving something someone can find to disagree with. I think you work for an auction company so you must see more of this than I do.
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 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.
They are graded liberally in the commercial market. But please answer his question. Is the 1933 Saint AU or MS in your opinion?
Does it matter if it's one of one?
Not to me. I don't know enough to grade commercially - that's why I've never been a finalizer at a top TPGS. . A 1933 Saint is just another Saint to me and that one has an obvious AU obverse with some damage from mishandling that did not happen in a bag, roll, or coin cabinet. Nevertheless I can appreciate exactly what it is.
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 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.
They are graded liberally in the commercial market. But please answer his question. Is the 1933 Saint AU or MS in your opinion?
Does it matter if it's one of one?
Not to me. I don't know enough to grade commercially - that's why I've never been a finalizer at a top TPGS. . A 1933 Saint is just another Saint to me and that one has an obvious AU obverse with some damage from mishandling that did not happen in a bag, roll, or coin cabinet. Nevertheless I can appreciate exactly what it is.
I'm not saying it doesn't matter to the grade. I'm saying it doesn't matter to the value. A coin like that doesn't even need to be graded. Just stick it on an "authentic" holder
@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.
The marketplace doesn't need super definitive standards, it just needs consistency.
You can't have sufficient consistency without sufficiently definitive standards.
Disagree.
We have definitive standards and we still do not have consistency. What does that tell you?
Opposing forces to consistency are skewing the marketplace valuations, hence the hand wringing, and this thread.
Define and vanquish the opposing forces and then we can finish this thread.
I don't think we have definitive standards. Please take any MS or Proof grade from 60 to 69 and show me a definitive standard that can be applied on a practical basis and result in a high level of consistency.
I find that 60 and 69 are easy. so is 61, 67, and 68. 62 is easy = AU. The tough grades are 64, 65, and 66. I'll bet very few of you have ever looked at the chart for luster, marks, etc in the ANA guide. Furthermore, if you think about it, I'll bet most professionals know what every MS-# is for their personal standards. Therefore, in utopia, we should be able to get a bunch of KNOWLEDGEABLE professionals together with just a small amount of disagreement.
Oops! I just described any of the top TPGS's. So who has the problem? The dealers and collectors who don't agree with the assigned grade? IMO, the dirty little secret is no person making money in this industry wants a set. fixed in stone, precise, never changing grade on a coin. It can be done tomorrow for the special coins such as the 1804 dollar or 1933 Saint. Get the top ten graders in the country together in a room. Hand them a coin. Finalize the grade consensus and image it. Any of the ten that disagree too much get replaced.
@jmlanzaf said:
How many times do you hear someone ask for reconsideration of a grade to go down rather than up?
Not many, I'm sure, but I'll bet there's been a few. In fact, one of the better 1927-D's had its owner specifically request a lower grade so it could CAC sticker !!
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 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.
They are graded liberally in the commercial market. But please answer his question. Is the 1933 Saint AU or MS in your opinion?
Does it matter if it's one of one?
Not to me. I don't know enough to grade commercially - that's why I've never been a finalizer at a top TPGS. . A 1933 Saint is just another Saint to me and that one has an obvious AU obverse with some damage from mishandling that did not happen in a bag, roll, or coin cabinet. Nevertheless I can appreciate exactly what it is.
I'm not saying it doesn't matter to the grade. I'm saying it doesn't matter to the value. A coin like that doesn't even need to be graded. Just stick it on an "authentic" holder
Where have I read this before form other members on this and other forums? The grade does not matter - price the coin. They say grade the coin for what it is and let the buyer deside what to pay. That way the 1933 Saint can be graded AU and I thing a majority would agree yet be worth whatever it brings. Through the years, it will always be an AU and only its price will flucuate. That shold work for any coin including the Large cent with two grades determined by time and price increases.
@MFeld said:
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.
I think most would agree with you....do you believe that the more forgiving stance was a result of the coins being big with big fields.....gold being soft (as opposed to harder metals like nickel)...or something else ?
@jmlanzaf said:
There's also no official guidance on what to do when one side is XF and the other is VF.
Excellent observation. We can debate specifics all we want, and yet.....the most basic element is that every coin has 2 sides. We assume they are similar and sometimes there can be a HUGE difference in the obverse vs. reverse.
I've never read any guide or grading manual that says what to do in those cases. 50-50 ? 60-40 ? Lower-graded side determines ?
Rex, was wondering if you saw JA's 2022 interview with CoinWeek where he talks about the 1985 Type sets being hit with market grading and not really being judgemental about it, but more as a necessary accomodation between grading and business ?
Any thoughts in general or on the 1985 Type Set environment he was talking about ?
@MrEureka said:
It’s also a great example of a coin that we know never circulated.
And hi-res photos of the Langbord Ten would also be very useful to see because while most were graded MS, we could see a bunch of coins that we know (1) never circulated and (2) were not handled with any frequency (based on the only 2 people apparently remotely aware of their existence).
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 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.
They are graded liberally in the commercial market. But please answer his question. Is the 1933 Saint AU or MS in your opinion?
Does it matter if it's one of one?
That’s the exact reason I chose this coin.
It’s also a great example of a coin that we know never circulated.
But "uncirculated " vs "circulated" are not meant literally. Take a coin out of a mint set and carry it as a pocket piece for a few years. It never "circulated" but it certainly would no longer grade "uncirculated".
@jmlanzaf said:
But "uncirculated " vs "circulated" are not meant literally. Take a coin out of a mint set and carry it as a pocket >piece for a few years. It never "circulated" but it certainly would no longer grade "uncirculated".
But that to me IS "circulated" because while it's not circulating per se among various places of business and going in and out of a cash register or a merchants hand....but carrying something in one's pocket (presumably to spend) to me counts as circulated.
JA: “The Farouk-Fenton-Weitzman 1933 Double Eagle is a legendary and unique coin of great importance. It has a few obverse abrasions, typical of Saints in the 1930s, which are overwhelmed by amazing mint luster. The eye appeal of this great rarity is off the charts!”
I'm not going to comment on if it should have CAC Stickered -- you folks are better than me on that. But I was VERY surprised to see that JA said that the eye appeal is "off the charts." To me, it's a pretty non-descript Saint. Maybe I haven't seen good/Hi-Res photos but those who have seen it have said it really doesn't stand out compared to other Type 6's.....an MCMVII HR....let alone an MCMVII UHR.
As EliteCollection has probably the finest collection of Saints ever assembled, he's in a better position to compare the "eye appeal" of the 1933 DE compared to others (I'd love to see it side-by-side with the Norweb 1908-S). Hopefully he'll offer some thoughts on the 1933 in absolute and relative terms.
I'm sure a few of you have seen the 1933 up-close....love to hear your thoughts, too.
@jmlanzaf said:
But "uncirculated " vs "circulated" are not meant literally. Take a coin out of a mint set and carry it as a pocket >piece for a few years. It never "circulated" but it certainly would no longer grade "uncirculated".
But that to me IS "circulated" because while it's not circulating per se among various places of business and going in and out of a cash register or a merchants hand....but carrying something in one's pocket (presumably to spend) to me counts as circulated.
This comes up a lot. I think it's just a confusion of terms. Unc and AU are not absolute terms describing whether a coin circulated or not. They are describing whether the coin has the qualities of an UNC or an AU coin.
That's why MS is mint-state, the coin, when it comes to luster breaks/rub is in the condition it left the mint in, whether it circulated or not.
@jmlanzaf said:
But "uncirculated " vs "circulated" are not meant literally. Take a coin out of a mint set and carry it as a pocket >piece for a few years. It never "circulated" but it certainly would no longer grade "uncirculated".
But that to me IS "circulated" because while it's not circulating per se among various places of business and going in and out of a cash register or a merchants hand....but carrying something in one's pocket (presumably to spend) to me counts as circulated.
Circulated is a condition not a history. A coin that has slid around in a velvet box in your dresser also never circulated but may no longer be "uncirculated". A coin could very well not be "Uncirculated" at the moment it left the mint.
@jmlanzaf said:
But "uncirculated " vs "circulated" are not meant literally. Take a coin out of a mint set and carry it as a pocket >piece for a few years. It never "circulated" but it certainly would no longer grade "uncirculated".
But that to me IS "circulated" because while it's not circulating per se among various places of business and going in and out of a cash register or a merchants hand....but carrying something in one's pocket (presumably to spend) to me counts as circulated.
IMO, the old timers made a mistake using the word "uncirculated." A coin with no wear is "Mint State." No matter what its history. For that reason (eliminating confusion to beginners) I stopped using Uncirculated in my writing.
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 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.
They are graded liberally in the commercial market. But please answer his question. Is the 1933 Saint AU or MS in your opinion?
Does it matter if it's one of one?
That’s the exact reason I chose this coin.
It’s also a great example of a coin that we know never circulated.
But "uncirculated " vs "circulated" are not meant literally. Take a coin out of a mint set and carry it as a pocket piece for a few years. It never "circulated" but it certainly would no longer grade "uncirculated".
And we return to "cabinet friction"...
I think that a coin carried as a pocket piece does qualify as one that has circulated.> @Insider3 said:
@jmlanzaf said:
But "uncirculated " vs "circulated" are not meant literally. Take a coin out of a mint set and carry it as a pocket >piece for a few years. It never "circulated" but it certainly would no longer grade "uncirculated".
But that to me IS "circulated" because while it's not circulating per se among various places of business and going in and out of a cash register or a merchants hand....but carrying something in one's pocket (presumably to spend) to me counts as circulated.
IMO, the old timers made a mistake using the word "uncirculated." A coin with no wear is "Mint State." No matter what its history. For that reason (eliminating confusion to beginners) I stopped using Uncirculated in my writing.
Well said!
Now for the more difficult part… what word do you use for a coin that hasn’t seen circulation, but which displays rub, cabinet friction, wear or whatever you’re going to call it?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
MFeld asked: "...what word do you use for a coin that hasn’t seen circulation, but which displays rub, cabinet friction, wear or whatever you’re going to call it?
Not hard at all and you know the "trap" in your question.
"About Uncirculated" is the term used in the grading guides; however, "About Mint State" makes more sense. Nevertheless, when I throw the terms "Uncirculated" (a grade), "uncirculated" (a coin that appears to have never circulated in commerce), and "circulated" (a coin showing evidence of some degree of handling) around in a grading class (due to old habits) EVERYONE with a brain that is paying attention knows what I'm talking about.
@Insider3 said:
MFeld asked: "...what word do you use for a coin that hasn’t seen circulation, but which displays rub, cabinet friction, wear or whatever you’re going to call it?
Not hard at all and you know the "trap" in your question.
"About Uncirculated" is the term used in the grading guides; however, "About Mint State" makes more sense. Nevertheless, when I throw the terms "Uncirculated" (a grade), "uncirculated" (a coin that appears to have never circulated in commerce), and "circulated" (a coin showing evidence of some degree of handling) around in a grading class (due to old habits) EVERYONE with a brain that is paying attention knows what I'm talking about.
@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 do know what goes on in several grading rooms by professionals with equal and MUCH more experience than you. The way I read the post, @married was not writing about greed and relative thinking occurring in a grading room. He is writing about something that is well known in the profession and something that is taught in advanced grading seminars. For a coin to jump to a grade that increases its value substantially, it must be all there and then some. This happens inside and outside a TPGS. I have been personally told several times at two different TPGS's that a coin I graded MS-65 - because it was - cannot be given that grade because its value would go from say 8K to 125K!
Furthermore, I too have a suggestion: Anyone who does not understand that both the time period and market conditions CHANGES THE VALUE and affects the commercial grades assigned to coins might want to stay out of discussions about grading.
I'm not going to respond to that point, because it's really an entirely different topic - you are giving married2coins way too much credit and missing prior context. He has been very clear that when he says greed, he means it.
In another thread, as I described the grading approach to a particular world coin certified as MS65, he tried to explain to me that it was truly AU and was only called a 65 because it was worth more in the market that way. As an ex- world grader, can assure you that my thought process was never, "hmm, if I called this a 58 it would be worth X amount, but the market will like this coin, so I'll bump it 5 or 6 grades." If I called a coin a 64, my thought process was "this coin is physically superior to a 63 and physically inferior to a 65." It's very entitled for this commenter to try to explain my job and motives to me.
@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 do know what goes on in several grading rooms by professionals with equal and MUCH more experience than you. The way I read the post, @married was not writing about greed and relative thinking occurring in a grading room. He is writing about something that is well known in the profession and something that is taught in advanced grading seminars. For a coin to jump to a grade that increases its value substantially, it must be all there and then some. This happens inside and outside a TPGS. I have been personally told several times at two different TPGS's that a coin I graded MS-65 - because it was - cannot be given that grade because its value would go from say 8K to 125K!
Furthermore, I too have a suggestion: Anyone who does not understand that both the time period and market conditions CHANGES THE VALUE and affects the commercial grades assigned to coins might want to stay out of discussions about grading.
I'm not going to respond to that point, because it's really an entirely different topic - you are giving married2coins way too much credit and missing prior context. He has been very clear that when he says greed, he means it.
In another thread, as I described the grading approach to a particular world coin certified as MS65, he tried to explain to me that it was truly AU and was only called a 65 because it was worth more in the market that way. As an ex- world grader, can assure you that my thought process was never, "hmm, if I called this a 58 it would be worth X amount, but the market will like this coin, so I'll bump it 5 or 6 grades." If I called a coin a 64, my thought process was "this coin is physically superior to a 63 and physically inferior to a 65." It's very entitled for this commenter to try to explain my job and motives to me.
As far as I know neither that commentator nor I have the faintest clue who you are and it does not matter to me. Everyone here has an opinion. Although I seem to disagree with many of your posts, I appreciate that you have earned a glowing reputation in this forum making what you say "better" than others. Nevertheless, as I remember, I saw that Russian coin and decided to keep my fingers off the keyboard. That may be the thread that you ducked out of. IMO, the coin was an AU and @Married was holding his own in the thread. I should expect expert foreign coin dealers/graders to grade coins differently.
Anyway, just as you, I don't consider the value/rarity/age of any coin I grade either but I have to believe that when professionals above my pay grade tell me particular coins don't make a certain grade because of a price jump I have to believe they know far better than I. Why would they lie about it? After all EVERYONE knows that's what goes on in the US market only they are not afraid to admit it!
@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 do know what goes on in several grading rooms by professionals with equal and MUCH more experience than you. The way I read the post, @married was not writing about greed and relative thinking occurring in a grading room. He is writing about something that is well known in the profession and something that is taught in advanced grading seminars. For a coin to jump to a grade that increases its value substantially, it must be all there and then some. This happens inside and outside a TPGS. I have been personally told several times at two different TPGS's that a coin I graded MS-65 - because it was - cannot be given that grade because its value would go from say 8K to 125K!
Furthermore, I too have a suggestion: Anyone who does not understand that both the time period and market conditions CHANGES THE VALUE and affects the commercial grades assigned to coins might want to stay out of discussions about grading.
I'm not going to respond to that point, because it's really an entirely different topic - you are giving married2coins way too much credit and missing prior context. He has been very clear that when he says greed, he means it.
In another thread, as I described the grading approach to a particular world coin certified as MS65, he tried to explain to me that it was truly AU and was only called a 65 because it was worth more in the market that way. As an ex- world grader, can assure you that my thought process was never, "hmm, if I called this a 58 it would be worth X amount, but the market will like this coin, so I'll bump it 5 or 6 grades." If I called a coin a 64, my thought process was "this coin is physically superior to a 63 and physically inferior to a 65." It's very entitled for this commenter to try to explain my job and motives to me.
As far as I know neither that commentator nor I have the faintest clue who you are and it does not matter to me. Everyone here has an opinion. Although I seem to disagree with many of your posts, I appreciate that you have earned a glowing reputation in this forum making what you say "better" than others. Nevertheless, as I remember, I saw that Russian coin and decided to keep my fingers off the keyboard. That may be the thread that you ducked out of. IMO, the coin was an AU and @Married was holding his own in the thread. I should expect expert foreign coin dealers/graders to grade coins differently.
Anyway, just as you, I don't consider the value/rarity/age of any coin I grade either but I have to believe that when professionals above my pay grade tell me particular coins don't make a certain grade because of a price jump I have to believe they know far better than I. Why would they lie about it? After all EVERYONE knows that's what goes on in the US market only they are not afraid to admit it!
He was well aware of who I was at the time. And if by “holding his own” you mean spouting ridiculousness about grading approaches to coins he is not familiar with, sure. If by “ducking out” you mean me clearly stating/explaining my stance numerous times in that thread and then leaving once it devolved into said ridiculousness and personal attacks towards myself, and after which Married has continued to try to bait me in multiple other threads, then sure.
Foreign graders do not approach coins exceptionally differently than US coins, except in that there are different qualities of production, methods of production, and surface issues common to particular types to be aware of. They are grading using the Sheldon scale, not foreign grading systems, and that coin was well into mint state on the Sheldon scale.
I think there is a big mistake in conflating “everyone has an opinion” with “everyone has a valid opinion”. I wouldn’t tell my doctor how to diagnose and prescribe me, because I recognize that he is an expert in his field and I am not. I wouldn’t try to explain card grading to a card grader, or paper money grading to a paper money grader, because I don’t have expertise in those areas. If I tried to argue with any of those people, I think the right and proper thing for them to do would be to “duck out” as well - if not outright tell me off.
@GoldFinger1969 said:
JA: “The Farouk-Fenton-Weitzman 1933 Double Eagle is a legendary and unique coin of great importance. It has a >few obverse abrasions, typical of Saints in the 1930s, which are overwhelmed by amazing mint luster. The eye >appeal of this great rarity is off the charts!”
I hate putting words in people's mouths or twisting things....especially someone with JA's credentials.
But I couldn't help but notice that he says that the obverse abrasions (inlcuding the knee gouge) "...are overwhelmed by amazing mint luster" (I'll have to take his word for it, the photos aren't that great). But is this an admission of net-grading ?
He also says that "the eye appeal is off the charts" -- that's a VERY glowing plug for something that is not that quantifiable. Again, my understanding was that the 1933's had OK-to-Good "eye appeal" and luster, but then again I haven't seen the coin in person and/or via great hi-res pics.
You wonder if that coin would have CAC'd if the date had somehow been hidden.
@shish said:
Almost correct. PCGS does not assign pluses to coins graded MS-60 or MS-61.
Therefore PCGS currently has 19 accepted shades of ‘uncirculated.
If you don’t click on “Quote” at the bottom of the post you’re responding to, it’s often difficult for readers to know whose post it was or have the proper perspective.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@GoldFinger1969 said:
JA: “The Farouk-Fenton-Weitzman 1933 Double Eagle is a legendary and unique coin of great importance. It has a >few obverse abrasions, typical of Saints in the 1930s, which are overwhelmed by amazing mint luster. The eye >appeal of this great rarity is off the charts!”
I hate putting words in people's mouths or twisting things....especially someone with JA's credentials.
But I couldn't help but notice that he says that the obverse abrasions (inlcuding the knee gouge) "...are overwhelmed by amazing mint luster" (I'll have to take his word for it, the photos' aren't that great). But is this an admission of net-grading ?
He also says that "the eye appeal is off the charts" -- that's a VERY glowing plug for something that is not that quantifiable. Again, my understanding was that the 1933's had OK-to-Good "eye appeal" and luster, but then again I haven't seen the coin in person and/or via great hi-res pics.
You wonder if that coin would have CAC'd if the date had somehow been hidden.
Luster is a major component of a coin’s grade. So factoring it into a grade isn’t an example of “net-grading”.
An example of “net-grading” would be if a coin was otherwise a 65, but exhibited a very light wipe, so was downgraded (net-graded) to MS64 or MS63. Some numismatists say that all coins are net-graded - their grade starts out at 70, as is lowered for various flaws, until a final “net grade” is arrived at.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Comments
The OP commentary is a symptom of a confused marketplace.
Confused markets because of grading evolution or substandard will bifurcate or trifurcate or however many levels it takes to value or price goods.
Probably should be an A B and C valuation guide to accurate pricing, especially for the hobbyist.
Price dislocation is not good for continuing to attract new collectors and keep interest.> @jmlanzaf said:
The marketplace doesn't need super definitive standards, it just needs consistency.
You can't have sufficient consistency without sufficiently definitive standards.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Disagree.
We have definitive standards and we still do not have consistency. What does that tell you?
Opposing forces to consistency are skewing the marketplace valuations, hence the hand wringing, and this thread.
Define and vanquish the opposing forces and then we can finish this thread.
We don't have definitive standards. Things like "luster", "strength of strike" and "eye appeal" are inherently fuzzy. Even in circulated grades, the degree that strike plays a role is squishy. There's also no official guidance on what to do when one side is XF and the other is VF.
And if you include CAC as delineating A/B coins, you can add another 10 "grades" (they don't consider "+" grades).
I don't think we have definitive standards. Please take any MS or Proof grade from 60 to 69 and show me a definitive standard that can be applied on a practical basis and result in a high level of consistency.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
The gem grades are especially problematic as strike, luster, and eye appeal become more important than marks.
Even considering only marks, there are an infinite number of combinations of them on different coins. No so-called definitive standard can provide the "correct" grade while evaluating the combination of size, shape, number, location, depth, etc. of the marks.
Next, add in other components of grading and the task makes consistency that much more difficult.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
There are standards. We know what a f15 is, we know what an MS65 is, etc. 40 years of TPGs and before that ANA books etc. photo grade and we have no definitive standards?
Maybe the more definitive .....the more subjective dispute.
Sorry, not joining the mutual admiration society this year.
Then please present us with the MS65 "standard" that can be applied in a way that results in highly consistent grading results. The written definitions I've seen don't necessarily enable someone to distinguish a 65 from a 64 or a 66.
Words or pictures of some coins graded 65 don't address the infinite combinations of attributes and flaws on other coins that must be classified as one grade vs. another. Words like "minor" a "few", "small", "light", "nearly" "virtually", "slight" don't automatically lead to "definitive standards".
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
You are correct on subjective differences, your opinion weighs heavily here as it should.
But the market has to get to a place where Saints are graded definitively and not liberal as you previously acknowledged.
Peace...I'm out.
"They stood on the shoulders of giants" - so did Microsoft."
XEROX invented the Windows concept/software.
Steve Jobs and Bill Gates as partners saw the future.
Got it from Xerox and ran with it to become Billionaires.
Visionaries see the future in things others can't and usually become very rich!
@Rexford,
I do know what goes on in several grading rooms by professionals with equal and MUCH more experience than you. The way I read the post, @married was not writing about greed and relative thinking occurring in a grading room. He is writing about something that is well known in the profession and something that is taught in advanced grading seminars. For a coin to jump to a grade that increases its value substantially, it must be all there and then some. This happens inside and outside a TPGS. I have been personally told several times at two different TPGS's that a coin I graded MS-65 - because it was - cannot be given that grade because its value would go from say 8K to 125K!
Furthermore, I too have a suggestion: Anyone who does not understand that both the time period and market conditions CHANGES THE VALUE and affects the commercial grades assigned to coins might want to stay out of discussions about grading.
@Insider3, I disagree strongly with your statement: “For a coin to jump to a grade that increases its value substantially, it must be all there and then some.”
I’ve seen too many coins that jumped to grades which increased their value substantially, but which weren’t “all there and then some”. Among the coins in that group are some extremely well known rarities. Others include quantities of coins that became pop top examples, after jumping a point in grade, if not more. Surely, you’ve seen some such coins and they aren’t “all there and then some” at their new and improved grades.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
They are graded liberally in the commercial market. But please answer his question. Is the 1933 Saint AU or MS in your opinion?
Does it matter if it's one of one?
Should rarity be a grading consideration or should all coins within the series be graded using the same criteria?
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
That’s the exact reason I chose this coin.
Coin Photographer.
My statement is a generalization covering 90% of all issues not the 10% of rare coins or condition rarities bumped for registry sets, gradeflation, collections of famous people, obvious overgrading, mistakes, or whatever else the case. It's the every-day stuff sent to a TPGS. That's he trouble with texting! It takes time to get a point across without leaving something someone can find to disagree with. I think you work for an auction company so you must see more of this than I do.
Not to me. I don't know enough to grade commercially - that's why I've never been a finalizer at a top TPGS. . A 1933 Saint is just another Saint to me and that one has an obvious AU obverse with some damage from mishandling that did not happen in a bag, roll, or coin cabinet. Nevertheless I can appreciate exactly what it is.
The common folk and I would say all coins in a series should be graded the same. By their actions, the experts and professionals would disagree.
It's not a criterion. The point is you can call it a good 4 or an MS69 and the price is the same.
I'm not saying it doesn't matter to the grade. I'm saying it doesn't matter to the value. A coin like that doesn't even need to be graded. Just stick it on an "authentic" holder
Well, unless some of us bid on the coin or saw it at the FRB of NY in lower Manhattan...only EC has seen it in person, in-hand.
I would be interested in seeing how HE would feel if it went to CACG and got graded AU-58.
I find that 60 and 69 are easy. so is 61, 67, and 68. 62 is easy = AU. The tough grades are 64, 65, and 66. I'll bet very few of you have ever looked at the chart for luster, marks, etc in the ANA guide. Furthermore, if you think about it, I'll bet most professionals know what every MS-# is for their personal standards. Therefore, in utopia, we should be able to get a bunch of KNOWLEDGEABLE professionals together with just a small amount of disagreement.
Oops! I just described any of the top TPGS's. So who has the problem? The dealers and collectors who don't agree with the assigned grade? IMO, the dirty little secret is no person making money in this industry wants a set. fixed in stone, precise, never changing grade on a coin. It can be done tomorrow for the special coins such as the 1804 dollar or 1933 Saint. Get the top ten graders in the country together in a room. Hand them a coin. Finalize the grade consensus and image it. Any of the ten that disagree too much get replaced.
Not many, I'm sure, but I'll bet there's been a few. In fact, one of the better 1927-D's had its owner specifically request a lower grade so it could CAC sticker !!
Where have I read this before form other members on this and other forums? The grade does not matter - price the coin. They say grade the coin for what it is and let the buyer deside what to pay. That way the 1933 Saint can be graded AU and I thing a majority would agree yet be worth whatever it brings. Through the years, it will always be an AU and only its price will flucuate. That shold work for any coin including the Large cent with two grades determined by time and price increases.
I think most would agree with you....do you believe that the more forgiving stance was a result of the coins being big with big fields.....gold being soft (as opposed to harder metals like nickel)...or something else ?
Excellent observation.
We can debate specifics all we want, and yet.....the most basic element is that every coin has 2 sides. We assume they are similar and sometimes there can be a HUGE difference in the obverse vs. reverse.
I've never read any guide or grading manual that says what to do in those cases. 50-50 ? 60-40 ? Lower-graded side determines ?
Rex, was wondering if you saw JA's 2022 interview with CoinWeek where he talks about the 1985 Type sets being hit with market grading and not really being judgemental about it, but more as a necessary accomodation between grading and business ?
Any thoughts in general or on the 1985 Type Set environment he was talking about ?
It’s also a great example of a coin that we know never circulated.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
And hi-res photos of the Langbord Ten would also be very useful to see because while most were graded MS, we could see a bunch of coins that we know (1) never circulated and (2) were not handled with any frequency (based on the only 2 people apparently remotely aware of their existence).
But "uncirculated " vs "circulated" are not meant literally. Take a coin out of a mint set and carry it as a pocket piece for a few years. It never "circulated" but it certainly would no longer grade "uncirculated".
And we return to "cabinet friction"...
But that to me IS "circulated" because while it's not circulating per se among various places of business and going in and out of a cash register or a merchants hand....but carrying something in one's pocket (presumably to spend) to me counts as circulated.
And...it CAC'd !!!!
https://coinweek.com/cac-verifies-grade-of-stuart-weitzman-1933-double-eagle/
JA: “The Farouk-Fenton-Weitzman 1933 Double Eagle is a legendary and unique coin of great importance. It has a few obverse abrasions, typical of Saints in the 1930s, which are overwhelmed by amazing mint luster. The eye appeal of this great rarity is off the charts!”
I'm not going to comment on if it should have CAC Stickered -- you folks are better than me on that. But I was VERY surprised to see that JA said that the eye appeal is "off the charts." To me, it's a pretty non-descript Saint. Maybe I haven't seen good/Hi-Res photos but those who have seen it have said it really doesn't stand out compared to other Type 6's.....an MCMVII HR....let alone an MCMVII UHR.
As EliteCollection has probably the finest collection of Saints ever assembled, he's in a better position to compare the "eye appeal" of the 1933 DE compared to others (I'd love to see it side-by-side with the Norweb 1908-S). Hopefully he'll offer some thoughts on the 1933 in absolute and relative terms.
I'm sure a few of you have seen the 1933 up-close....love to hear your thoughts, too.
This comes up a lot. I think it's just a confusion of terms. Unc and AU are not absolute terms describing whether a coin circulated or not. They are describing whether the coin has the qualities of an UNC or an AU coin.
That's why MS is mint-state, the coin, when it comes to luster breaks/rub is in the condition it left the mint in, whether it circulated or not.
Chopmarked Trade Dollar Registry Set --- US & World Gold Showcase --- World Chopmark Showcase
Circulated is a condition not a history. A coin that has slid around in a velvet box in your dresser also never circulated but may no longer be "uncirculated". A coin could very well not be "Uncirculated" at the moment it left the mint.
IMO, the old timers made a mistake using the word "uncirculated." A coin with no wear is "Mint State." No matter what its history. For that reason (eliminating confusion to beginners) I stopped using Uncirculated in my writing.
I think that a coin carried as a pocket piece does qualify as one that has circulated.> @Insider3 said:
Well said!
Now for the more difficult part… what word do you use for a coin that hasn’t seen circulation, but which displays rub, cabinet friction, wear or whatever you’re going to call it?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
MFeld asked: "...what word do you use for a coin that hasn’t seen circulation, but which displays rub, cabinet friction, wear or whatever you’re going to call it?
"About Uncirculated" is the term used in the grading guides; however, "About Mint State" makes more sense. Nevertheless, when I throw the terms "Uncirculated" (a grade), "uncirculated" (a coin that appears to have never circulated in commerce), and "circulated" (a coin showing evidence of some degree of handling) around in a grading class (due to old habits) EVERYONE with a brain that is paying attention knows what I'm talking about.
AMS 58
or, more pointedly
AMS 62
I'm not going to respond to that point, because it's really an entirely different topic - you are giving married2coins way too much credit and missing prior context. He has been very clear that when he says greed, he means it.
In another thread, as I described the grading approach to a particular world coin certified as MS65, he tried to explain to me that it was truly AU and was only called a 65 because it was worth more in the market that way. As an ex- world grader, can assure you that my thought process was never, "hmm, if I called this a 58 it would be worth X amount, but the market will like this coin, so I'll bump it 5 or 6 grades." If I called a coin a 64, my thought process was "this coin is physically superior to a 63 and physically inferior to a 65." It's very entitled for this commenter to try to explain my job and motives to me.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
As far as I know neither that commentator nor I have the faintest clue who you are and it does not matter to me. Everyone here has an opinion. Although I seem to disagree with many of your posts, I appreciate that you have earned a glowing reputation in this forum making what you say "better" than others. Nevertheless, as I remember, I saw that Russian coin and decided to keep my fingers off the keyboard. That may be the thread that you ducked out of. IMO, the coin was an AU and @Married was holding his own in the thread. I should expect expert foreign coin dealers/graders to grade coins differently.
Anyway, just as you, I don't consider the value/rarity/age of any coin I grade either but I have to believe that when professionals above my pay grade tell me particular coins don't make a certain grade because of a price jump I have to believe they know far better than I. Why would they lie about it? After all EVERYONE knows that's what goes on in the US market only they are not afraid to admit it!
🙄
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
He was well aware of who I was at the time. And if by “holding his own” you mean spouting ridiculousness about grading approaches to coins he is not familiar with, sure. If by “ducking out” you mean me clearly stating/explaining my stance numerous times in that thread and then leaving once it devolved into said ridiculousness and personal attacks towards myself, and after which Married has continued to try to bait me in multiple other threads, then sure.
Foreign graders do not approach coins exceptionally differently than US coins, except in that there are different qualities of production, methods of production, and surface issues common to particular types to be aware of. They are grading using the Sheldon scale, not foreign grading systems, and that coin was well into mint state on the Sheldon scale.
I think there is a big mistake in conflating “everyone has an opinion” with “everyone has a valid opinion”. I wouldn’t tell my doctor how to diagnose and prescribe me, because I recognize that he is an expert in his field and I am not. I wouldn’t try to explain card grading to a card grader, or paper money grading to a paper money grader, because I don’t have expertise in those areas. If I tried to argue with any of those people, I think the right and proper thing for them to do would be to “duck out” as well - if not outright tell me off.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
I hate putting words in people's mouths or twisting things....especially someone with JA's credentials.
But I couldn't help but notice that he says that the obverse abrasions (inlcuding the knee gouge) "...are overwhelmed by amazing mint luster" (I'll have to take his word for it, the photos aren't that great). But is this an admission of net-grading ?
He also says that "the eye appeal is off the charts" -- that's a VERY glowing plug for something that is not that quantifiable. Again, my understanding was that the 1933's had OK-to-Good "eye appeal" and luster, but then again I haven't seen the coin in person and/or via great hi-res pics.
You wonder if that coin would have CAC'd if the date had somehow been hidden.
Almost correct. PCGS does not assign pluses to coins graded MS-60 or MS-61.
Therefore PCGS currently has 19 accepted shades of ‘uncirculated.
If you don’t click on “Quote” at the bottom of the post you’re responding to, it’s often difficult for readers to know whose post it was or have the proper perspective.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Luster is a major component of a coin’s grade. So factoring it into a grade isn’t an example of “net-grading”.
An example of “net-grading” would be if a coin was otherwise a 65, but exhibited a very light wipe, so was downgraded (net-graded) to MS64 or MS63. Some numismatists say that all coins are net-graded - their grade starts out at 70, as is lowered for various flaws, until a final “net grade” is arrived at.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@shish
Point well taken. We are sitting on our barstools, boldly rating the uncirculated beauties who walk past us on a scale of 1 to 19.
30+ years coin shop experience (ret.) Coins, bullion, currency, scrap & interesting folks. Loved every minute!