@shish said:
My experience is much different than yours. The number of accurate and problem free certified coins is much lower than your 95 to 97% estimate.
The CAC overall approval rate is roughly 45%. These coins are not randomly selected, therefore the approval rate would be even lower for a random group. This shows that there is a significant difference in standards. This shows that your estimate of 1 to 2% difference is way too low.
It’s simple, each grading company grades to their specific standards and has their own rate of grading consistency.
You are misunderstanding or misapplying CAC approval. The CAC approval rate does not indicate that there are a lot of misgraded coins. It indicates that there is a significant number of C coins. By CAC's own published standards, most of those coins are in the correct holders. The question is how many "F" coins there are and there is no way to discern that from the CAC approval rate.
@shish said:
There are a few that seem to want to deny or minimize the reality we call gradeflation.
One can acknowledge a difference between loosening of grading standards and the variation associated with market grading. In reality these combine to produce the same results, higher grades.
The grading companies were able to maintain stricter grading standards from roughly 1986 through early 2000's? I haven't seen any significant changes to the written grading standards. Some suggest that the market demanded that grading companies loosen their standards. If that's true them the market could also demand that they tighten grading standards. Regardless, the grading companies are responsible for the accuracy and consistency of their grading.
Rather than focusing on defining the problem I recommend we focus on the solutions.
That's what J/A (CAC) has done, maintained strict standards and applied them consistently.
CAC is not perfect, occasionally their standards for early coins may be too strict, but their consistency has been outstanding. There are lots of A and B quality coins in PCGS and NGC holders, those are coins I seek.
I question CAC's ability to "maintain standards" long term. CAC benefits from being new and not having millions of coins in the marketplace to compare and complain about. I would think that statistically, if PCGS has a 3-5% "defect" rate that would be world-class and about as good as you can get for a human-driven subjective endeavor. Maybe JA can sharpen that to 2-4% but I would guess his rate is the same in the other direction with under-grading. In fact based on what I've seen, his defect rate might be higher with but on the under-graded side of things.
PCGS has graded over 50M coins which at 5% means there are 2.5M misgraded slabs and at 3% is 1.5M graded coins, and these are the coins that get attention and discussion, not the ~48M properly graded ones. This contributes to public perception that any company but CAC has problems maintaining standards.
Again, all the evidence we need is in the Coinfacts Trueviews. The challenge is for someone to identify a coin number and grade where the grades are really inconsistent. I regularly review and compare TV photos and I have to say that I feel the grades are very consistent. Although it is not uncommon to find one or two that I disagree with, the reality is that I'm not finding more than that. It's always just one or two which is statistically inevitable and of course, there could be factors that make the grade correct and my assessment wrong. So in other words, if gradeflation is real, then someone should be able to say, look at the 19xx nickel/dime/quarter/etc in MS64 and you can see most of the coins in TV are overgraded. I'll wait for that post...
I'm not sure what any of this has to do with the idea of gradeflation. Let's assume everything you said is true. None of that proves or disproves the notion that an MS65 today was, for example, an MS64 in 2000.
In fact, most people are saying that the 1995 MS64 is a 2024 MS65. And people have pointed to the fact that more marks are tolerated on, for example, the cheek of a Morgan. You're simply dismissing their testimony. And even if someone presents a 1995 MS65 that is clearly better than 90% of 2024 MS65's, you're going to dismiss it as undergraded.
You can identify it in certain top pops of rare coins where the coins are pedigreed enough to see the formerly MS67 now residing in an MS68 holder. Sometimes numerous 67s now in 68 holders. There are dozens of threads on this forum pointing out some of these coins.
If you want an easy illustration: once upon a time, all VF Buffalo nickels had full horns. And I'm not talking about the handful of weak strike branch mint exceptions.
@shish said:
My experience is much different than yours. The number of accurate and problem free certified coins is much lower than your 95 to 97% estimate.
The CAC overall approval rate is roughly 45%. These coins are not randomly selected, therefore the approval rate would be even lower for a random group. This shows that there is a significant difference in standards. This shows that your estimate of 1 to 2% difference is way too low.
You are misunderstanding or misapplying CAC approval. The CAC approval rate does not indicate that there are a lot of misgraded coins. It indicates that there is a significant number of C coins. By CAC's own published standards, most of those coins are in the correct holders. The question is how many "F" coins there are and there is no way to discern that from the CAC approval rate.
shish stated his experience. What has your experience been?
@VanHalen said:
Can't the same coin be in the Pop Report 10 times if it's resubmited 10 times looking for a higher grade (crack out)?
My favorite examples of this are the PanPac $50s. Population of over 1000....and a mintage of 645.
Wouldn't CAC's All Grades population of 108 be fairly accurate?
“Fairly accurate” with respect to what?
In that CAC has graded 108 1915-S $50 OCTAGONALs and there is little or no duplication their population report. Going a step further, so far, 17% of the 645 coins have CACs.
@shish said:
My experience is much different than yours. The number of accurate and problem free certified coins is much lower than your 95 to 97% estimate.
The CAC overall approval rate is roughly 45%. These coins are not randomly selected, therefore the approval rate would be even lower for a random group. This shows that there is a significant difference in standards. This shows that your estimate of 1 to 2% difference is way too low.
You are misunderstanding or misapplying CAC approval. The CAC approval rate does not indicate that there are a lot of misgraded coins. It indicates that there is a significant number of C coins. By CAC's own published standards, most of those coins are in the correct holders. The question is how many "F" coins there are and there is no way to discern that from the CAC approval rate.
shish stated his experience. What has your experience been?
It's not his "experience" that I'm taking issue with. Assume for a moment that 100% of all coins are in the correct holders. CAC might still have a 45% approval rate. CAC is certifying A/B coins as being at the top of the grade. They are not certifying that only those coins meet the grade. C coins are still properly graded, they are just at the bottom of the grade range.
@VanHalen said:
Can't the same coin be in the Pop Report 10 times if it's resubmited 10 times looking for a higher grade (crack out)?
My favorite examples of this are the PanPac $50s. Population of over 1000....and a mintage of 645.
Wouldn't CAC's All Grades population of 108 be fairly accurate?
“Fairly accurate” with respect to what?
In that CAC has graded 108 1915-S $50 OCTAGONALs and there is little or no duplication their population report. Going a step further, so far, 17% of the 645 coins have CACs.
The vast majority of the CAC coins (if not all at this point) are stickered coins in NGC or PCGS holders.
So the inaccurate population report is (probably) 564 P + 467 N, not 564 P + 467 N + 108 C.
@shish said:
My experience is much different than yours. The number of accurate and problem free certified coins is much lower than your 95 to 97% estimate.
The CAC overall approval rate is roughly 45%. These coins are not randomly selected, therefore the approval rate would be even lower for a random group. This shows that there is a significant difference in standards. This shows that your estimate of 1 to 2% difference is way too low.
You are misunderstanding or misapplying CAC approval. The CAC approval rate does not indicate that there are a lot of misgraded coins. It indicates that there is a significant number of C coins. By CAC's own published standards, most of those coins are in the correct holders. The question is how many "F" coins there are and there is no way to discern that from the CAC approval rate.
shish stated his experience. What has your experience been?
It's not his "experience" that I'm taking issue with. Assume for a moment that 100% of all coins are in the correct holders. CAC might still have a 45% approval rate. CAC is certifying A/B coins as being at the top of the grade. They are not certifying that only those coins meet the grade. C coins are still properly graded, they are just at the bottom of the grade range.
@shish said:
My experience is much different than yours. The number of accurate and problem free certified coins is much lower than your 95 to 97% estimate.
The CAC overall approval rate is roughly 45%. These coins are not randomly selected, therefore the approval rate would be even lower for a random group. This shows that there is a significant difference in standards. This shows that your estimate of 1 to 2% difference is way too low.
You are misunderstanding or misapplying CAC approval. The CAC approval rate does not indicate that there are a lot of misgraded coins. It indicates that there is a significant number of C coins. By CAC's own published standards, most of those coins are in the correct holders. The question is how many "F" coins there are and there is no way to discern that from the CAC approval rate.
shish stated his experience. What has your experience been?
It's not his "experience" that I'm taking issue with. Assume for a moment that 100% of all coins are in the correct holders. CAC might still have a 45% approval rate. CAC is certifying A/B coins as being at the top of the grade. They are not certifying that only those coins meet the grade. C coins are still properly graded, they are just at the bottom of the grade range.
But what is your experience?
I think the vast majority of coins (90+%) are accurately graded for the time period they were graded. I do think there is some inflation over time because of, if nothing else, the tendency of rarer coins to max out on grade from multiple submissions. This has the tendency to create a spread of quality in a grade. The natural tendency is to then try to reward the better coins in that grade with a "+" which does create some grade creep over decades. I see 65 Morgans today that are shocking for the number of hits. 66 Saints were nearly mark free 25 years ago but aren't anymore. FWIW
@shish said:
My experience is much different than yours. The number of accurate and problem free certified coins is much lower than your 95 to 97% estimate.
The CAC overall approval rate is roughly 45%. These coins are not randomly selected, therefore the approval rate would be even lower for a random group. This shows that there is a significant difference in standards. This shows that your estimate of 1 to 2% difference is way too low.
You are misunderstanding or misapplying CAC approval. The CAC approval rate does not indicate that there are a lot of misgraded coins. It indicates that there is a significant number of C coins. By CAC's own published standards, most of those coins are in the correct holders. The question is how many "F" coins there are and there is no way to discern that from the CAC approval rate.
shish stated his experience. What has your experience been?
It's not his "experience" that I'm taking issue with. Assume for a moment that 100% of all coins are in the correct holders. CAC might still have a 45% approval rate. CAC is certifying A/B coins as being at the top of the grade. They are not certifying that only those coins meet the grade. C coins are still properly graded, they are just at the bottom of the grade range.
But what is your experience?
I think the vast majority of coins (90+%) are accurately graded for the time period they were graded. I do think there is some inflation over time because of, if nothing else, the tendency of rarer coins to max out on grade from multiple submissions. This has the tendency to create a spread of quality in a grade. The natural tendency is to then try to reward the better coins in that grade with a "+" which does create some grade creep over decades. I see 65 Morgans today that are shocking for the number of hits. 66 Saints were nearly mark free 25 years ago but aren't anymore. FWIW
You are misunderstanding or misapplying CAC approval. The CAC approval rate does not indicate that there are a lot of misgraded coins. It indicates that there is a significant number of C coins. By CAC's own published standards, most of those coins are in the correct holders. The question is how many "F" coins there are and there is no way to discern that from the CAC approval rate.
First, I understand precisely what CAC approval means, yes it includes C coins. However, all the experiencenced numismatists I know that specialize in seated or trade dollars agree that your estimates are way off. It's seems obvious to me that you are either biased or lacking experience with these series.
There is no disputing that there is a significant difference in standards.
It’s simple, each grading company grades to their specific standards and has their own rate of grading consistency.
You are misunderstanding or misapplying CAC approval. The CAC approval rate does not indicate that there are a lot of misgraded coins. It indicates that there is a significant number of C coins. By CAC's own published standards, most of those coins are in the correct holders. The question is how many "F" coins there are and there is no way to discern that from the CAC approval rate.
First, I understand precisely what CAC approval means, yes it includes C coins. However, all the experiencenced numismatists I know that specialize in seated or trade dollars agree that your estimates are way off. It's seems obvious to me that you are either biased or lacking experience with these series.
There is no disputing that there is a significant difference in standards.
It’s simple, each grading company grades to their specific standards and has their own rate of grading consistency.
Now you are, perhaps, misunderstanding who you are talking to. I didn't make any estimates. That was @ProofCollection .
This is also the first time you've specifically mentioned seated orc trade dollars.
I think you are also conflating "market acceptable" allowances with gradeflation. The TPGS's have been tolerating things like cleaning on early 19th century coins and cabinet friction virtually since their inception. I'm not sure any of this has gotten looser with time.
@shish said:
My experience is much different than yours. The number of accurate and problem free certified coins is much lower than your 95 to 97% estimate.
The CAC overall approval rate is roughly 45%. These coins are not randomly selected, therefore the approval rate would be even lower for a random group. This shows that there is a significant difference in standards. This shows that your estimate of 1 to 2% difference is way too low.
You are misunderstanding or misapplying CAC approval. The CAC approval rate does not indicate that there are a lot of misgraded coins. It indicates that there is a significant number of C coins. By CAC's own published standards, most of those coins are in the correct holders. The question is how many "F" coins there are and there is no way to discern that from the CAC approval rate.
shish stated his experience. What has your experience been?
It's not his "experience" that I'm taking issue with. Assume for a moment that 100% of all coins are in the correct holders. CAC might still have a 45% approval rate. CAC is certifying A/B coins as being at the top of the grade. They are not certifying that only those coins meet the grade. C coins are still properly graded, they are just at the bottom of the grade range.
But what is your experience?
I think the vast majority of coins (90+%) are accurately graded for the time period they were graded. I do think there is some inflation over time because of, if nothing else, the tendency of rarer coins to max out on grade from multiple submissions. This has the tendency to create a spread of quality in a grade. The natural tendency is to then try to reward the better coins in that grade with a "+" which does create some grade creep over decades. I see 65 Morgans today that are shocking for the number of hits. 66 Saints were nearly mark free 25 years ago but aren't anymore. FWIW
What is your experience at CAC?
In terms of stickering? They've published or discussed the number, 45% is about right. But the problem with interpreting that number is knowing what constitutes C or F coins in the other half. The market and maybe shish seen to want to interpret them all as Fs. However, more likely the vast majority of them are C coins.
Now, the exception to this is certain series that have become tolerant of issues that CAC has not. Bust halves, for example, where the other TPGS's seem to tolerate light cleaning in straight grades. We've also had the discussion of light fiction, particularly on gold, where CACG (and maybe CAC) seem to want to AU58 them while the other TPGS's are still assigning MS grades.
But this is really a separate topic from grade inflation. That tolerance goes back decades. It isn't really new but do I think it's gotten looser.
@shish said:
My experience is much different than yours. The number of accurate and problem free certified coins is much lower than your 95 to 97% estimate.
The CAC overall approval rate is roughly 45%. These coins are not randomly selected, therefore the approval rate would be even lower for a random group. This shows that there is a significant difference in standards. This shows that your estimate of 1 to 2% difference is way too low.
You are misunderstanding or misapplying CAC approval. The CAC approval rate does not indicate that there are a lot of misgraded coins. It indicates that there is a significant number of C coins. By CAC's own published standards, most of those coins are in the correct holders. The question is how many "F" coins there are and there is no way to discern that from the CAC approval rate.
shish stated his experience. What has your experience been?
It's not his "experience" that I'm taking issue with. Assume for a moment that 100% of all coins are in the correct holders. CAC might still have a 45% approval rate. CAC is certifying A/B coins as being at the top of the grade. They are not certifying that only those coins meet the grade. C coins are still properly graded, they are just at the bottom of the grade range.
But what is your experience?
I think the vast majority of coins (90+%) are accurately graded for the time period they were graded. I do think there is some inflation over time because of, if nothing else, the tendency of rarer coins to max out on grade from multiple submissions. This has the tendency to create a spread of quality in a grade. The natural tendency is to then try to reward the better coins in that grade with a "+" which does create some grade creep over decades. I see 65 Morgans today that are shocking for the number of hits. 66 Saints were nearly mark free 25 years ago but aren't anymore. FWIW
What is your experience at CAC?
In terms of stickering? They've published or discussed the number, 45% is about right. But the problem with interpreting that number is knowing what constitutes C or F coins in the other half. The market and maybe shish seen to want to interpret them all as Fs. However, more likely the vast majority of them are C coins.
Now, the exception to this is certain series that have become tolerant of issues that CAC has not. Bust halves, for example, where the other TPGS's seem to tolerate light cleaning in straight grades. We've also had the discussion of light fiction, particularly on gold, where CACG (and maybe CAC) seem to want to AU58 them while the other TPGS's are still assigning MS grades.
But this is really a separate topic from grade inflation. That tolerance goes back decades. It isn't really new but do I think it's gotten looser.
I think the tolerance has gotten looser, too. And that change results in more straight-grade coins that would have previously received details-grades. It likely also leads to higher straight grades for some coins that already received straight-grades, before. So I don’t understand why you consider it a separate topic from gradeflation.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Grading companies respond to the needs of the people consuming their products and services so that they can make money. If the “tolerance is looser”, then it is because the market demanded that, not because grading companies decided that it should be so. If the consumers of PCGS and NGC’s products weren’t happy with “gradeflation”, then they will vote with their feet and go to an alternative grading company like CAC who states that they have a higher standard. Also, there is no such thing as “market grading”. All grading is market grading. It is a standard that the market for coins sets as an acceptable and agreed upon standard. That standard is not objective, nor is it unchanging. Markets constantly change and evolve.
@shish said:
My experience is much different than yours. The number of accurate and problem free certified coins is much lower than your 95 to 97% estimate.
The CAC overall approval rate is roughly 45%. These coins are not randomly selected, therefore the approval rate would be even lower for a random group. This shows that there is a significant difference in standards. This shows that your estimate of 1 to 2% difference is way too low.
You are misunderstanding or misapplying CAC approval. The CAC approval rate does not indicate that there are a lot of misgraded coins. It indicates that there is a significant number of C coins. By CAC's own published standards, most of those coins are in the correct holders. The question is how many "F" coins there are and there is no way to discern that from the CAC approval rate.
shish stated his experience. What has your experience been?
It's not his "experience" that I'm taking issue with. Assume for a moment that 100% of all coins are in the correct holders. CAC might still have a 45% approval rate. CAC is certifying A/B coins as being at the top of the grade. They are not certifying that only those coins meet the grade. C coins are still properly graded, they are just at the bottom of the grade range.
But what is your experience?
I think the vast majority of coins (90+%) are accurately graded for the time period they were graded. I do think there is some inflation over time because of, if nothing else, the tendency of rarer coins to max out on grade from multiple submissions. This has the tendency to create a spread of quality in a grade. The natural tendency is to then try to reward the better coins in that grade with a "+" which does create some grade creep over decades. I see 65 Morgans today that are shocking for the number of hits. 66 Saints were nearly mark free 25 years ago but aren't anymore. FWIW
What is your experience at CAC?
In terms of stickering? They've published or discussed the number, 45% is about right. But the problem with interpreting that number is knowing what constitutes C or F coins in the other half. The market and maybe shish seen to want to interpret them all as Fs. However, more likely the vast majority of them are C coins.
Now, the exception to this is certain series that have become tolerant of issues that CAC has not. Bust halves, for example, where the other TPGS's seem to tolerate light cleaning in straight grades. We've also had the discussion of light fiction, particularly on gold, where CACG (and maybe CAC) seem to want to AU58 them while the other TPGS's are still assigning MS grades.
But this is really a separate topic from grade inflation. That tolerance goes back decades. It isn't really new but do I think it's gotten looser.
I think the tolerance has gotten looser, too. And that change results in more straight-grade coins that would have previously received details-grades. It likely also leads to higher straight grades for some coins that already received straight-grades, before. So I don’t understand why you consider it a separate topic from gradeflation.
I think that's likely true, at least incrementally. But people are mixing "accuracy" with "consistency " with "inflation".
I've never liked certain aspects of TPGS grading. To my eye they've always been inaccurate. However, in any time frame, they've also been fairly consistent. Across time frames, there has been some loosening (in my opinion) but I think it's natural and not nefarious or an organized conspiracy.
I do think, as I mentioned above, is that a lot of it stems from ending up with broad ranges within a grade. When you have 5 XF coins of a type and they are all similar, things are fine. When you have 25 of them across a broad quality range, it's natural to want to promote the top of the range to the next higher grade. But as you do that, the next higher grade has the same problem: broad range of quality. And so the top coins in that range move up. Over time, the middle of every grade range gets lower in quality and, voila, "gradeflation".
I do think there are limits to the inflation of grades. But adding things like + grades probably makes it a bit worse. In the end, the market does sort it out.
@shish said:
My experience is much different than yours. The number of accurate and problem free certified coins is much lower than your 95 to 97% estimate.
The CAC overall approval rate is roughly 45%. These coins are not randomly selected, therefore the approval rate would be even lower for a random group. This shows that there is a significant difference in standards. This shows that your estimate of 1 to 2% difference is way too low.
It’s simple, each grading company grades to their specific standards and has their own rate of grading consistency.
I may not have conveyed my concept clearly. I was suggesting that if a TPG could achieve a 3-5% overall "error" rate they would be doing well.
Others have explained why the CAC approval rate is "only" ~45% and does not indicate a 55% error rate by PCGS and NGC. That also assumes that CAC is the standard to measure against and further that no errors in judgement are introduced by evaluating coins in slabs vs raw. FWIW, I've received a check from JA for a coin he regretted stickering.
@shish said:
There are a few that seem to want to deny or minimize the reality we call gradeflation.
One can acknowledge a difference between loosening of grading standards and the variation associated with market grading. In reality these combine to produce the same results, higher grades.
The grading companies were able to maintain stricter grading standards from roughly 1986 through early 2000's? I haven't seen any significant changes to the written grading standards. Some suggest that the market demanded that grading companies loosen their standards. If that's true them the market could also demand that they tighten grading standards. Regardless, the grading companies are responsible for the accuracy and consistency of their grading.
Rather than focusing on defining the problem I recommend we focus on the solutions.
That's what J/A (CAC) has done, maintained strict standards and applied them consistently.
CAC is not perfect, occasionally their standards for early coins may be too strict, but their consistency has been outstanding. There are lots of A and B quality coins in PCGS and NGC holders, those are coins I seek.
I question CAC's ability to "maintain standards" long term. CAC benefits from being new and not having millions of coins in the marketplace to compare and complain about. I would think that statistically, if PCGS has a 3-5% "defect" rate that would be world-class and about as good as you can get for a human-driven subjective endeavor. Maybe JA can sharpen that to 2-4% but I would guess his rate is the same in the other direction with under-grading. In fact based on what I've seen, his defect rate might be higher with but on the under-graded side of things.
PCGS has graded over 50M coins which at 5% means there are 2.5M misgraded slabs and at 3% is 1.5M graded coins, and these are the coins that get attention and discussion, not the ~48M properly graded ones. This contributes to public perception that any company but CAC has problems maintaining standards.
Again, all the evidence we need is in the Coinfacts Trueviews. The challenge is for someone to identify a coin number and grade where the grades are really inconsistent. I regularly review and compare TV photos and I have to say that I feel the grades are very consistent. Although it is not uncommon to find one or two that I disagree with, the reality is that I'm not finding more than that. It's always just one or two which is statistically inevitable and of course, there could be factors that make the grade correct and my assessment wrong. So in other words, if gradeflation is real, then someone should be able to say, look at the 19xx nickel/dime/quarter/etc in MS64 and you can see most of the coins in TV are overgraded. I'll wait for that post...
I'm not sure what any of this has to do with the idea of gradeflation. Let's assume everything you said is true. None of that proves or disproves the notion that an MS65 today was, for example, an MS64 in 2000.
In fact, most people are saying that the 1995 MS64 is a 2024 MS65. And people have pointed to the fact that more marks are tolerated on, for example, the cheek of a Morgan. You're simply dismissing their testimony. And even if someone presents a 1995 MS65 that is clearly better than 90% of 2024 MS65's, you're going to dismiss it as undergraded.
The problem with that is that grading is a spectrum. If a 1995 MS64 is a 2024 MS65, then is a 1994 MS69 a 2024 MS70? What happens to the 1994 MS70? It can't bump to MS71.
You can identify it in certain top pops of rare coins where the coins are pedigreed enough to see the formerly MS67 now residing in an MS68 holder. Sometimes numerous 67s now in 68 holders. There are dozens of threads on this forum pointing out some of these coins.
Sounds more like grade creep to me. As I explained earlier, a coin which is an MS64.8 (for example) when submitted to PCGS or NGC will likely come back MS64 7 or 8 times and come back MS65 2 or 3 times. Resubmit the coin enough times and it will eventually end up in an MS65 holder where it will stay. It's fair to say that any PCGS MS64 holdered coin represents the spectrum MS63.8 (or so) to MS65.2 just due to the subjectivity involved. Thus it should not be a surprise when that MS67 ends up in an MS68 holder. It does not mean the standards or how they are applied has changed. It's just grade creep.
If you want an easy illustration: once upon a time, all VF Buffalo nickels had full horns. And I'm not talking about the handful of weak strike branch mint exceptions.
The problem with standards like this is that they do not allow for exceptions. PCGS standards use eye appeal and wear to determine circulated grades so a buffalo with great eye appeal but maybe not a full horn can be VF. PCGS has an example of an UNC buffalo with a very poor strike without a complete horn, so there are appropriate exemptions where a rule like that should not apply.
See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Apn-kYEl-Xw at the 14:40 mark.
@Vasanti said:
Grading companies respond to the needs of the people consuming their products and services so that they can make money. If the “tolerance is looser”, then it is because the market demanded that, not because grading companies decided that it should be so. If the consumers of PCGS and NGC’s products weren’t happy with “gradeflation”, then they will vote with their feet and go to an alternative grading company like CAC who states that they have a higher standard. Also, there is no such thing as “market grading”. All grading is market grading. It is a standard that the market for coins sets as an acceptable and agreed upon standard. That standard is not objective, nor is it unchanging. Markets constantly change and evolve.
The fastest way for PCGS to lose its prestige and position in the industry would be to loosen standards such that their grades could no longer be trusted. This may have happened to ANACS at some point because their grades are just not respected like the others. PCGS would "Bud Light" themselves if they noticeably changed their grading quality.
@shish said:
There are a few that seem to want to deny or minimize the reality we call gradeflation.
One can acknowledge a difference between loosening of grading standards and the variation associated with market grading. In reality these combine to produce the same results, higher grades.
The grading companies were able to maintain stricter grading standards from roughly 1986 through early 2000's? I haven't seen any significant changes to the written grading standards. Some suggest that the market demanded that grading companies loosen their standards. If that's true them the market could also demand that they tighten grading standards. Regardless, the grading companies are responsible for the accuracy and consistency of their grading.
Rather than focusing on defining the problem I recommend we focus on the solutions.
That's what J/A (CAC) has done, maintained strict standards and applied them consistently.
CAC is not perfect, occasionally their standards for early coins may be too strict, but their consistency has been outstanding. There are lots of A and B quality coins in PCGS and NGC holders, those are coins I seek.
I question CAC's ability to "maintain standards" long term. CAC benefits from being new and not having millions of coins in the marketplace to compare and complain about. I would think that statistically, if PCGS has a 3-5% "defect" rate that would be world-class and about as good as you can get for a human-driven subjective endeavor. Maybe JA can sharpen that to 2-4% but I would guess his rate is the same in the other direction with under-grading. In fact based on what I've seen, his defect rate might be higher with but on the under-graded side of things.
PCGS has graded over 50M coins which at 5% means there are 2.5M misgraded slabs and at 3% is 1.5M graded coins, and these are the coins that get attention and discussion, not the ~48M properly graded ones. This contributes to public perception that any company but CAC has problems maintaining standards.
Again, all the evidence we need is in the Coinfacts Trueviews. The challenge is for someone to identify a coin number and grade where the grades are really inconsistent. I regularly review and compare TV photos and I have to say that I feel the grades are very consistent. Although it is not uncommon to find one or two that I disagree with, the reality is that I'm not finding more than that. It's always just one or two which is statistically inevitable and of course, there could be factors that make the grade correct and my assessment wrong. So in other words, if gradeflation is real, then someone should be able to say, look at the 19xx nickel/dime/quarter/etc in MS64 and you can see most of the coins in TV are overgraded. I'll wait for that post...
I'm not sure what any of this has to do with the idea of gradeflation. Let's assume everything you said is true. None of that proves or disproves the notion that an MS65 today was, for example, an MS64 in 2000.
In fact, most people are saying that the 1995 MS64 is a 2024 MS65. And people have pointed to the fact that more marks are tolerated on, for example, the cheek of a Morgan. You're simply dismissing their testimony. And even if someone presents a 1995 MS65 that is clearly better than 90% of 2024 MS65's, you're going to dismiss it as undergraded.
The problem with that is that grading is a spectrum. If a 1995 MS64 is a 2024 MS65, then is a 1994 MS69 a 2024 MS70? What happens to the 1994 MS70? It can't bump to MS71.
You can identify it in certain top pops of rare coins where the coins are pedigreed enough to see the formerly MS67 now residing in an MS68 holder. Sometimes numerous 67s now in 68 holders. There are dozens of threads on this forum pointing out some of these coins.
Sounds more like grade creep to me. As I explained earlier, a coin which is an MS64.8 (for example) when submitted to PCGS or NGC will likely come back MS64 7 or 8 times and come back MS65 2 or 3 times. Resubmit the coin enough times and it will eventually end up in an MS65 holder where it will stay. It's fair to say that any PCGS MS64 holdered coin represents the spectrum MS63.8 (or so) to MS65.2 just due to the subjectivity involved. Thus it should not be a surprise when that MS67 ends up in an MS68 holder. It does not mean the standards or how they are applied has changed. It's just grade creep.
If you want an easy illustration: once upon a time, all VF Buffalo nickels had full horns. And I'm not talking about the handful of weak strike branch mint exceptions.
The problem with standards like this is that they do not allow for exceptions. PCGS standards use eye appeal and wear to determine circulated grades so a buffalo with great eye appeal but maybe not a full horn can be VF. PCGS has an example of an UNC buffalo with a very poor strike without a complete horn, so there are appropriate exemptions where a rule like that should not apply.
I don’t think eye appeal should have any effect on the grade of a VF coin. At that level, the grade should be based on wear and detail.
You mentioned “the problem with standards is that they do not allow for exceptions.”
A far greater problem is a lack of meaningful standards and/or lack of adherence to them on a consistent basis.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@MFeld said:
I don’t think eye appeal should have any effect on the grade of a VF coin. At that level, the grade should be based on wear and detail.
OK, well I'm just repeating what's in the PCGS materials.
Maybe there’s something elsewhere on the PCGS site that says otherwise. but looking at the information in the link below, I don’t see any mention of “eye appeal” in grades below AU58.
@MFeld said:
I don’t think eye appeal should have any effect on the grade of a VF coin. At that level, the grade should be based on wear and detail.
OK, well I'm just repeating what's in the PCGS materials.
Maybe there’s something elsewhere on the PCGS site that says otherwise. but looking at the information in the link below, I don’t see any mention of “eye appeal” in grades below AU58.
@MFeld said:
I don’t think eye appeal should have any effect on the grade of a VF coin. At that level, the grade should be based on wear and detail.
OK, well I'm just repeating what's in the PCGS materials.
Maybe there’s something elsewhere on the PCGS site that says otherwise. but looking at the information in the link below, I don’t see any mention of “eye appeal” in grades below AU58.
Hopefully, for purposes of consistency with respect to AU grades, that’s meant just for AU58.😉 But if it's supposed to apply to lower grade circulated coins, I think it makes somewhat of a mockery of the written “standards”.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
One thing I have noticed in my time at this forum, all collectors/dealers(including myself), have areas of Numismatics that are very strong at grading and others that they are not, perhaps to the point of being questionable about some series' of coins. Also, virtually all collectors/dealers(including myself), are not as good at overall grading as they think they are.
These points only lend themselves to the perception that the major TPG's, PCGS and NGC, don't correctly grade coins.
@Vasanti said:
Grading companies respond to the needs of the people consuming their products and services so that they can make money. If the “tolerance is looser”, then it is because the market demanded that, not because grading companies decided that it should be so. If the consumers of PCGS and NGC’s products weren’t happy with “gradeflation”, then they will vote with their feet and go to an alternative grading company like CAC who states that they have a higher standard. Also, there is no such thing as “market grading”. All grading is market grading. It is a standard that the market for coins sets as an acceptable and agreed upon standard. That standard is not objective, nor is it unchanging. Markets constantly change and evolve.
There was no CAC! SEGS. ICG, and ANACS were the only 'real" alternative. I don't think anyone walked over there. So NGC and PCGS had to inflate the grades to get the best coins. Am I wrong?
@Vasanti said:
Grading companies respond to the needs of the people consuming their products and services so that they can make money. If the “tolerance is looser”, then it is because the market demanded that, not because grading companies decided that it should be so. If the consumers of PCGS and NGC’s products weren’t happy with “gradeflation”, then they will vote with their feet and go to an alternative grading company like CAC who states that they have a higher standard. Also, there is no such thing as “market grading”. All grading is market grading. It is a standard that the market for coins sets as an acceptable and agreed upon standard. That standard is not objective, nor is it unchanging. Markets constantly change and evolve.
There was no CAC! SEGS. ICG, and ANACS were the only 'real" alternative. I don't think anyone walked over there. So NGC and PCGS had to inflate the grades to get the best coins. Am I wrong?
PCGS and NGC responded to what the market wanted, which is why they captured a huge amount of the market share from SEGS, ICG and ANACS. SEGS, ICG and ANACs then became second and third tier companies that tried to inflate grades to recapture market share from PCGS and NGC. It didn’t work.
@Maywood said:
One thing I have noticed in my time at this forum, all collectors/dealers(including myself), have areas of Numismatics that are very strong at grading and others that they are not, perhaps to the point of being questionable about some series' of coins. Also, virtually all collectors/dealers(including myself), are not as good at overall grading as they think they are.
These points only lend themselves to the perception that the major TPG's, PCGS and NGC, don't correctly grade coins.
If your not as good at grading overall then hire someone who is to look at the coins you want to buy.
I manage money. I earn money. I save money . I give away money. I collect money. I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
@Maywood said:
One thing I have noticed in my time at this forum, all collectors/dealers(including myself), have areas of Numismatics that are very strong at grading and others that they are not, perhaps to the point of being questionable about some series' of coins. Also, virtually all collectors/dealers(including myself), are not as good at overall grading as they think they are.
These points only lend themselves to the perception that the major TPG's, PCGS and NGC, don't correctly grade coins.
If your not as good at grading overall then hire someone who is to look at the coins you want to buy.
"I may not have conveyed my concept clearly. I was suggesting that if a TPG could achieve a 3-5% overall "error" rate they would be doing well."
I agree, unfortunately my point is that this is not the case.
"Others have explained why the CAC approval rate is "only" ~45% and does not indicate a 55% error rate by PCGS and NGC. That also assumes that CAC is the standard to measure against and further that no errors in judgement are introduced by evaluating coins in slabs vs raw. FWIW, I've received a check from JA for a coin he regretted stickering."
I never said that the CAC approval rate indicates a 55% error rate by PCGS and NGC.
I said "The CAC overall approval rate is roughly 45%. These coins are not randomly selected, therefore the approval rate would be even lower for a random group. This shows that there is a significant difference in standards. This shows that your estimate of 1 to 2% difference is way too low.
It’s simple, each grading company grades to their specific standards and has their own rate of grading consistency."
"Grading companies respond to the needs of the people consuming their products and services so that they can make money. If the “tolerance is looser”, then it is because the market demanded that, not because grading companies decided that it should be so. If the consumers of PCGS and NGC’s products weren’t happy with “gradeflation”, then they will vote with their feet and go to an alternative grading company like CAC who states that they have a higher standard."
CACG has only been open for a short time. Before CACG opened there was no other grading companies with higher standards and better consistency. There was only CAC's approval, now consumers have an option.
@shish said:
"I may not have conveyed my concept clearly. I was suggesting that if a TPG could achieve a 3-5% overall "error" rate they would be doing well."
I agree, unfortunately my point is that this is not the case.
"Others have explained why the CAC approval rate is "only" ~45% and does not indicate a 55% error rate by PCGS and NGC. That also assumes that CAC is the standard to measure against and further that no errors in judgement are introduced by evaluating coins in slabs vs raw. FWIW, I've received a check from JA for a coin he regretted stickering."
I never said that the CAC approval rate indicates a 55% error rate by PCGS and NGC.
I said "The CAC overall approval rate is roughly 45%. These coins are not randomly selected, therefore the approval rate would be even lower for a random group. This shows that there is a significant difference in standards. This shows that your estimate of 1 to 2% difference is way too low.
It’s simple, each grading company grades to their specific standards and has their own rate of grading consistency."
"Grading companies respond to the needs of the people consuming their products and services so that they can make money. If the “tolerance is looser”, then it is because the market demanded that, not because grading companies decided that it should be so. If the consumers of PCGS and NGC’s products weren’t happy with “gradeflation”, then they will vote with their feet and go to an alternative grading company like CAC who states that they have a higher standard."
CACG has only been open for a short time. Before CACG opened there was no other grading companies with higher standards and better consistency. There was only CAC's approval, now consumers have an option.
I'll agree to disagree. As others stated above, CAC's approval rate of ~45% does not indicate much when it excludes all "C" coins from consideration. To make things worse, included in that figure are the "F" coins that CACG "details" that PCGS and NGC do not but is a different issue than grading. I would argue that comparisons cannot be made to CACG because CACG intentionally undergrades "C" coins to the next lower grade by policy. If the market like it then so be it, but CAC putting a "C" MS65 in an MS64 slab just increases their "error" rate as far as I'm concerned.
I would argue though that if the market wanted a "looser tolerance" or more lenient grading, then ANACS would be more dominant and ANACS coins would sell for more. I suggest that ANAC's current market position is a result of market acceptance (or rejection) rather than any reason. The market wants accuracy and reliability, not the opposite.
@Maywood said:
One thing I have noticed in my time at this forum, all collectors/dealers(including myself), have areas of Numismatics that are very strong at grading and others that they are not, perhaps to the point of being questionable about some series' of coins. Also, virtually all collectors/dealers(including myself), are not as good at overall grading as they think they are.
These points only lend themselves to the perception that the major TPG's, PCGS and NGC, don't correctly grade coins.
If your not as good at grading overall then hire someone who is to look at the coins you want to buy.
Like a “grading company”? :-)
The best coin graders are not employed at NGC or PCGS ....find one!
I manage money. I earn money. I save money . I give away money. I collect money. I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
@Vasanti said:
Grading companies respond to the needs of the people consuming their products and services so that they can make money. If the “tolerance is looser”, then it is because the market demanded that, not because grading companies decided that it should be so. If the consumers of PCGS and NGC’s products weren’t happy with “gradeflation”, then they will vote with their feet and go to an alternative grading company like CAC who states that they have a higher standard. Also, there is no such thing as “market grading”. All grading is market grading. It is a standard that the market for coins sets as an acceptable and agreed upon standard. That standard is not objective, nor is it unchanging. Markets constantly change and evolve.
There was no CAC! SEGS. ICG, and ANACS were the only 'real" alternative. I don't think anyone walked over there. So NGC and PCGS had to inflate the grades to get the best coins. Am I wrong?
PCGS and NGC responded to what the market wanted, which is why they captured a huge amount of the market share from SEGS, ICG and ANACS. SEGS, ICG and ANACs then became second and third tier companies that tried to inflate grades to recapture market share from PCGS and NGC. It didn’t work.
That's funny, I never heard or read anyone but you say that the second tier TPGS inflated their grades. I remember that ANACS changed their standards to be more in line with commercial graders. Did SEGS or ICG even exist at the time that happened? As I recall, years later, someone did a blind test of four of those services and either ANACS or ICG came out the winner. Whichever company it was used that test result in their ads for awhile.
I know there are present and former graders (@Rexford, @Insider, @Coinguy) from all four of those TPGS posting on Collectors Universe who may know about the test. It would be interesting isf someone with deep pockets could duplicate it and send 15 coins around to all four services but it is not just the money. My guess it would take over a year for 15 coins to go through those four TPGS's and in that time the market conditions could change. IMO, the ONLY fair test would be to send the coins using 5 day service and overnight shipping (very expensive). Then we coulfd get results in about a month. I 'd gladly donate $20 to someone doing the test.
Futyhermore, PCGS was started by famous professional coin dealers and backed by coin dealers (Just as CACG). I do know their grading was more to the liking of dealers because it was less strict. I don't know the reason some dealers broke away to start NGC. Was it just a left coast right coast thing or were there grading differences? Inquiring minds wish to know. ANACS is the oldest and CACG is the newest. Who tarted ICG and when?
@Vasanti said:
Grading companies respond to the needs of the people consuming their products and services so that they can make money. If the “tolerance is looser”, then it is because the market demanded that, not because grading companies decided that it should be so. If the consumers of PCGS and NGC’s products weren’t happy with “gradeflation”, then they will vote with their feet and go to an alternative grading company like CAC who states that they have a higher standard. Also, there is no such thing as “market grading”. All grading is market grading. It is a standard that the market for coins sets as an acceptable and agreed upon standard. That standard is not objective, nor is it unchanging. Markets constantly change and evolve.
There was no CAC! SEGS. ICG, and ANACS were the only 'real" alternative. I don't think anyone walked over there. So NGC and PCGS had to inflate the grades to get the best coins. Am I wrong?
PCGS and NGC responded to what the market wanted, which is why they captured a huge amount of the market share from SEGS, ICG and ANACS. SEGS, ICG and ANACs then became second and third tier companies that tried to inflate grades to recapture market share from PCGS and NGC. It didn’t work.
That's funny, I never heard or read anyone but you say that the second tier TPGS inflated their grades. I remember that ANACS changed their standards to be more in line with commercial graders. Did SEGS or ICG even exist at the time that happened? As I recall, years later, someone did a blind test of four of those services and either ANACS or ICG came out the winner. Whichever company it was used that test result in their ads for awhile.
I know there are present and former graders (@Rexford, @Insider, @Coinguy) from all four of those TPGS posting on Collectors Universe who may know about the test. It would be interesting isf someone with deep pockets could duplicate it and send 15 coins around to all four services but it is not just the money. My guess it would take over a year for 15 coins to go through those four TPGS's and in that time the market conditions could change. IMO, the ONLY fair test would be to send the coins using 5 day service and overnight shipping (very expensive). Then we coulfd get results in about a month. I 'd gladly donate $20 to someone doing the test.
Futyhermore, PCGS was started by famous professional coin dealers and backed by coin dealers (Just as CACG). I do know their grading was more to the liking of dealers because it was less strict. I don't know the reason some dealers broke away to start NGC. Was it just a left coast right coast thing or were there grading differences? Inquiring minds wish to know. ANACS is the oldest and CACG is the newest. Who tarted ICG and when?
ICG, PCI, ANACS all trade at DISCOUNT relative to PCGS and NGC. That is not because they were more strict. If they were, there would be a premium because all their coins would upgrade. So, whatever you are trying to prove has already been disproven.
@jmlanzaf said: "ICG, PCI, ANACS all trade at DISCOUNT relative to PCGS and NGC. That is not because they were more strict. If they were, there would be a premium because all their coins would upgrade. So, whatever you are trying to prove has already been disproven."
I replied to this statement but it did not post. Probably my error as I'm sure there is no censorship going on by the Mods. Nevertheless, I'm not going to comment except to say buy the coin and not the trash talk or hype.
I don’t discount ANACS, ICG relative to the others especially if PQ. Not a holder game koolaid drinker. I might come down on price if room. Sold a MS 70 Anacs bullion coin in the attractive yellow holder at recent show getting good money.
@Cougar1978 said:
I don’t discount ANACS, ICG relative to the others especially if PQ. Not a holder game koolaid drinker. I might come down on price if room. Sold a MS 70 Anacs bullion coin in the attractive yellow holder at recent show getting good money.
If you try to sell ANACS or ICG proof modern coins at PCGS prices no one will ever buy them. Otherwise you could load up on ANACS and ICG Proof 70's and cross them to PCGS and really cash in. Unfortunately the crossover success rate will be too low to make it worthwhile unless you are able to filter out the coins that actually are 70.
I don’t load up on them but get a lot of them from estates sometimes. Fairly small ticket stuff less than $100. As far as some holder game hocus-pocus have no trouble moving them. I would go broke trying cross them / lose money lol. Many off bourse like the pretty yellow Anacs yellow holders especially bullion coins. A MS 70 Mexico bullion one did well. Superb for the grade a real blazer! I don’t chase them and will come down if room. Otherwise they can Take it up w ANACs if think their grading off. Are you one of those people who would pay more for a CACG one?
@Insider3 said: @jmlanzaf said: "ICG, PCI, ANACS all trade at DISCOUNT relative to PCGS and NGC. That is not because they were more strict. If they were, there would be a premium because all their coins would upgrade. So, whatever you are trying to prove has already been disproven."
I replied to this statement but it did not post. Probably my error as I'm sure there is no censorship going on by the Mods. Nevertheless, I'm not going to comment except to say buy the coin and not the trash talk or hype.
My comment is not to suggest that the other services are always wrong or loose. But it's an irrefutable fact that generic 2nd tier slabs sell at a discount in the marketplace.
Frankly, this is more due to inconsistency than anything. But it disproves any suggestion that these services were stricter than PCGS or NGC.
@Cougar1978 said:
I don’t discount ANACS, ICG relative to the others especially if PQ. Not a holder game koolaid drinker. I might come down on price if room. Sold a MS 70 Anacs bullion coin in the attractive yellow holder at recent show getting good money.
I note that @jmlanzaf LOL at this. I will not comment on what I hear from collectors and dealers at shows. It's too bad we don't know if he is an NGC or PCGS member or if he invested in CACG. That would explain his comments. It's too bad my reply to his opinion somehow disappeared as it would have explained a lot about about the trash talk. As for second tier TPGS, I noticed dealers Buy low and sell high. It's a great game when they can get away with it.
PS I'm the first to inform anyone having raw coins slabbed to sell that a PCGS slab with a CAC sticker will bring the most money - for now. I may need to change that as CACG evolves.
@Cougar1978 said:
I don’t discount ANACS, ICG relative to the others especially if PQ. Not a holder game koolaid drinker. I might come down on price if room. Sold a MS 70 Anacs bullion coin in the attractive yellow holder at recent show getting good money.
I note that @jmlanzaf LOL at this. I will not comment on what I hear from collectors and dealers at shows. It's too bad we don't know if he is an NGC or PCGS member or if he invested in CACG. That would explain his comments. It's too bad my reply to his opinion somehow disappeared as it would have explained a lot about about the trash talk. As for second tier TPGS, I noticed dealers Buy low and sell high. It's a great game when they can get away with it.
PS I'm the first to inform anyone having raw coins slabbed to sell that a PCGS slab with a CAC sticker will bring the most money - for now. I may need to change that as CACG evolves.
You may attempt to dismiss my factual observation based on alleged bias, but I defy you to find any coin dealer who doesn't know this. 20 years ago Greysheet even included a chart in every issue with the discounts to be applied for ANACS, PCI and ICG.
Yes, I laughed at Cougar's comeback because it was typical Cougar. He never makes any comment that isn't a complete solipsism. A single bullion coin in an ANACS holder for "good money" tells us what, exactly?
I am a (free) NGC member. I submit to PCGS through a dealer- member friend and I use ANACS for lower priced material that just needs an authenticity certification. And, last but not least, 95% of my collection is raw.
There is nothing wrong with 2nd tier grading firms. But the price history of those slabs prove beyond any doubt that @Married2Coins suggestion that they lost to PCGS and NGC because they were strict and P and N were loose is ludicrous. If that were true then old PCI holders would bring large premiums. They do not.
The 2nd tier slabs trade at a discount (with exceptions for crack out candidates). To argue otherwise is numismatic malpractice. They would not trade at a discount, and wouldn't have traded at a discount 20 years ago, if they were more strictly graded than PCGS and NGC. You admitted this yourself in your post.
Anacs, ICG one of TPG accepted by ebay. That’s the reality, Get over it.
The Anacs, ICG I have came from estates. Take it all deals. They are not worth much more than $50 or melt. My assistant Sold 2 nice ICG at last show, good retail money as she has passed training and manages that particular case. She’s catching on good. Ready move to projects like analyzing market trends, dissecting some competitors inventory / store. Very strong online and analytical skills.
It would cost me probably $50 per coin to even try to cross them once fees, shipping totaled up let alone the disaster of a downgrade. Anybody with any sense wants avoid that. Now for a big ticket one that’s somebody else ballgame. How they manage their angle it’s their roster their team. Being one of the last fortresses of free enterprise the coin business is diverse across the board. Yet there trolls in here like 12 yr olds lol who are ignorant of the business, basic math, accounting, or can’t stand a differing opinion. One of them in analyzing his site - nothing but crap.
I don’t discount it would be difficult for some operator to get all the money on a big ticket coin from TPG considered 2nd tier. However I have won National Champ Games / titles on my college FB app when a 2nd tier QB had to start (starter injured).
I have noticed CACG coins getting more than stickered in many instances. One of mine recently did. A very pleasant surprise. Many unsure how long a stickered coin in the marketplace. Is it in same shape or has exposure to the atmosphere taken it’s toll? Wouldn’t be surprised if he drops the sticker thingy and just goes to CACG.
@Cougar1978 said:
I don’t discount ANACS, ICG relative to the others especially if PQ. Not a holder game koolaid drinker. I might come down on price if room. Sold a MS 70 Anacs bullion coin in the attractive yellow holder at recent show getting good money.
I note that @jmlanzaf LOL at this. I will not comment on what I hear from collectors and dealers at shows. It's too bad we don't know if he is an NGC or PCGS member or if he invested in CACG. That would explain his comments. It's too bad my reply to his opinion somehow disappeared as it would have explained a lot about about the trash talk. As for second tier TPGS, I noticed dealers Buy low and sell high. It's a great game when they can get away with it.
PS I'm the first to inform anyone having raw coins slabbed to sell that a PCGS slab with a CAC sticker will bring the most money - for now. I may need to change that as CACG evolves.
You may attempt to dismiss my factual observation based on alleged bias, but I defy you to find any coin dealer who doesn't know this. 20 years ago Greysheet even included a chart in every issue with the discounts to be applied for ANACS, PCI and ICG.
Yes, I laughed at Cougar's comeback because it was typical Cougar. He never makes any comment that isn't a complete solipsism. A single bullion coin in an ANACS holder for "good money" tells us what, exactly?
I am a (free) NGC member. I submit to PCGS through a dealer- member friend and I use ANACS for lower priced material that just needs an authenticity certification. And, last but not least, 95% of my collection is raw.
There is nothing wrong with 2nd tier grading firms. But the price history of those slabs prove beyond any doubt that @Married2Coins suggestion that they lost to PCGS and NGC because they were strict and P and N were loose is ludicrous. If that were true then old PCI holders would bring large premiums. They do not.
The 2nd tier slabs trade at a discount (with exceptions for crack out candidates). To argue otherwise is numismatic malpractice. They would not trade at a discount, and wouldn't have traded at a discount 20 years ago, if they were more strictly graded than PCGS and NGC. You admitted this yourself in your post.
So what's your point?
As wrote, I explained EXACTLY what is going on and _my post went missing. _ There are clear reasons why you can post your opinion - which everyone knows: some TPGS coins are discounted. What is not posted is the WHY and I got the "message" so I'm not going to poke you again or the bear.
It’s my inventory my play call ( free enterprise) especially if super PQ. So what that’s it Anacs or ICG no big deal would price accordingly based on the COIN and where in grade range, look at eBay seller comps, CPG, etc. As far as seller discounting material that’s proprietary with the business. If room wb negotiable. Certainly if big ticket might submit to our hosts at some point in time but specify minimum grade. What some competitor or player off a message board thinks do I care?
You might as well be preaching to Logan Roy of Waystar Royco. Really liked that show. Have had enough here / adios have a great day.
@Cougar1978 said:
I don’t discount ANACS, ICG relative to the others especially if PQ. Not a holder game koolaid drinker. I might come down on price if room. Sold a MS 70 Anacs bullion coin in the attractive yellow holder at recent show getting good money.
I note that @jmlanzaf LOL at this. I will not comment on what I hear from collectors and dealers at shows. It's too bad we don't know if he is an NGC or PCGS member or if he invested in CACG. That would explain his comments. It's too bad my reply to his opinion somehow disappeared as it would have explained a lot about about the trash talk. As for second tier TPGS, I noticed dealers Buy low and sell high. It's a great game when they can get away with it.
PS I'm the first to inform anyone having raw coins slabbed to sell that a PCGS slab with a CAC sticker will bring the most money - for now. I may need to change that as CACG evolves.
You may attempt to dismiss my factual observation based on alleged bias, but I defy you to find any coin dealer who doesn't know this. 20 years ago Greysheet even included a chart in every issue with the discounts to be applied for ANACS, PCI and ICG.
Yes, I laughed at Cougar's comeback because it was typical Cougar. He never makes any comment that isn't a complete solipsism. A single bullion coin in an ANACS holder for "good money" tells us what, exactly?
I am a (free) NGC member. I submit to PCGS through a dealer- member friend and I use ANACS for lower priced material that just needs an authenticity certification. And, last but not least, 95% of my collection is raw.
There is nothing wrong with 2nd tier grading firms. But the price history of those slabs prove beyond any doubt that @Married2Coins suggestion that they lost to PCGS and NGC because they were strict and P and N were loose is ludicrous. If that were true then old PCI holders would bring large premiums. They do not.
The 2nd tier slabs trade at a discount (with exceptions for crack out candidates). To argue otherwise is numismatic malpractice. They would not trade at a discount, and wouldn't have traded at a discount 20 years ago, if they were more strictly graded than PCGS and NGC. You admitted this yourself in your post.
So what's your point?
As wrote, I explained EXACTLY what is going on and _my post went missing. _ There are clear reasons why you can post your opinion - which everyone knows: some TPGS coins are discounted. What is not posted is the WHY and I got the "message" so I'm not going to poke you again or the bear.
You can poke me. But poke me with facts. Don't call me a fan boy.
@Cougar1978 said:
I don’t discount ANACS, ICG relative to the others especially if PQ. Not a holder game koolaid drinker. I might come down on price if room. Sold a MS 70 Anacs bullion coin in the attractive yellow holder at recent show getting good money.
I note that @jmlanzaf LOL at this. I will not comment on what I hear from collectors and dealers at shows. It's too bad we don't know if he is an NGC or PCGS member or if he invested in CACG. That would explain his comments. It's too bad my reply to his opinion somehow disappeared as it would have explained a lot about about the trash talk. As for second tier TPGS, I noticed dealers Buy low and sell high. It's a great game when they can get away with it.
PS I'm the first to inform anyone having raw coins slabbed to sell that a PCGS slab with a CAC sticker will bring the most money - for now. I may need to change that as CACG evolves.
You may attempt to dismiss my factual observation based on alleged bias, but I defy you to find any coin dealer who doesn't know this. 20 years ago Greysheet even included a chart in every issue with the discounts to be applied for ANACS, PCI and ICG.
Yes, I laughed at Cougar's comeback because it was typical Cougar. He never makes any comment that isn't a complete solipsism. A single bullion coin in an ANACS holder for "good money" tells us what, exactly?
I am a (free) NGC member. I submit to PCGS through a dealer- member friend and I use ANACS for lower priced material that just needs an authenticity certification. And, last but not least, 95% of my collection is raw.
There is nothing wrong with 2nd tier grading firms. But the price history of those slabs prove beyond any doubt that @Married2Coins suggestion that they lost to PCGS and NGC because they were strict and P and N were loose is ludicrous. If that were true then old PCI holders would bring large premiums. They do not.
The 2nd tier slabs trade at a discount (with exceptions for crack out candidates). To argue otherwise is numismatic malpractice. They would not trade at a discount, and wouldn't have traded at a discount 20 years ago, if they were more strictly graded than PCGS and NGC. You admitted this yourself in your post.
So what's your point?
As wrote, I explained EXACTLY what is going on and _my post went missing. _ There are clear reasons why you can post your opinion - which everyone knows: some TPGS coins are discounted. What is not posted is the WHY and I got the "message" so I'm not going to poke you again or the bear.
You can poke me. But poke me with facts. Don't call me a fan boy.
You don't know what I wrote, what questions I asked of you, or _the factual reasons (the WHY) that makes PCGS coins worth so much. _ It has nothing to do with being a fanboy. I like Pepsi better than coke. That does not make me a Pepsi fanboy. However, the reasons some prefer Coke over Pepsi, market share, etc. are pretty easy to enumerate by a knowledgeable soda freak, Ad rep, or chemist.
@Cougar1978 said:
I don’t discount ANACS, ICG relative to the others especially if PQ. Not a holder game koolaid drinker. I might come down on price if room. Sold a MS 70 Anacs bullion coin in the attractive yellow holder at recent show getting good money.
I note that @jmlanzaf LOL at this. I will not comment on what I hear from collectors and dealers at shows. It's too bad we don't know if he is an NGC or PCGS member or if he invested in CACG. That would explain his comments. It's too bad my reply to his opinion somehow disappeared as it would have explained a lot about about the trash talk. As for second tier TPGS, I noticed dealers Buy low and sell high. It's a great game when they can get away with it.
PS I'm the first to inform anyone having raw coins slabbed to sell that a PCGS slab with a CAC sticker will bring the most money - for now. I may need to change that as CACG evolves.
You may attempt to dismiss my factual observation based on alleged bias, but I defy you to find any coin dealer who doesn't know this. 20 years ago Greysheet even included a chart in every issue with the discounts to be applied for ANACS, PCI and ICG.
Yes, I laughed at Cougar's comeback because it was typical Cougar. He never makes any comment that isn't a complete solipsism. A single bullion coin in an ANACS holder for "good money" tells us what, exactly?
I am a (free) NGC member. I submit to PCGS through a dealer- member friend and I use ANACS for lower priced material that just needs an authenticity certification. And, last but not least, 95% of my collection is raw.
There is nothing wrong with 2nd tier grading firms. But the price history of those slabs prove beyond any doubt that @Married2Coins suggestion that they lost to PCGS and NGC because they were strict and P and N were loose is ludicrous. If that were true then old PCI holders would bring large premiums. They do not.
The 2nd tier slabs trade at a discount (with exceptions for crack out candidates). To argue otherwise is numismatic malpractice. They would not trade at a discount, and wouldn't have traded at a discount 20 years ago, if they were more strictly graded than PCGS and NGC. You admitted this yourself in your post.
So what's your point?
As wrote, I explained EXACTLY what is going on and _my post went missing. _ There are clear reasons why you can post your opinion - which everyone knows: some TPGS coins are discounted. What is not posted is the WHY and I got the "message" so I'm not going to poke you again or the bear.
You can poke me. But poke me with facts. Don't call me a fan boy.
You don't know what I wrote, what questions I asked of you, or _the factual reasons (the WHY) that makes PCGS coins worth so much. _ It has nothing to do with being a fanboy. I like Pepsi better than coke. That does not make me a Pepsi fanboy. However, the reasons some prefer Coke over Pepsi, market share, etc. are pretty easy to enumerate by a knowledgeable soda freak, Ad rep, or chemist.
You've written more words explaining how your post disappeared than it would take to rewrite it.
The value difference is more than preference for a service. Otherwise people would pay a premium for the 2nd tier slabs to cross the coins. The fact is that, by and large, they will not cross at grade.
Comments
You are misunderstanding or misapplying CAC approval. The CAC approval rate does not indicate that there are a lot of misgraded coins. It indicates that there is a significant number of C coins. By CAC's own published standards, most of those coins are in the correct holders. The question is how many "F" coins there are and there is no way to discern that from the CAC approval rate.
I'm not sure what any of this has to do with the idea of gradeflation. Let's assume everything you said is true. None of that proves or disproves the notion that an MS65 today was, for example, an MS64 in 2000.
In fact, most people are saying that the 1995 MS64 is a 2024 MS65. And people have pointed to the fact that more marks are tolerated on, for example, the cheek of a Morgan. You're simply dismissing their testimony. And even if someone presents a 1995 MS65 that is clearly better than 90% of 2024 MS65's, you're going to dismiss it as undergraded.
You can identify it in certain top pops of rare coins where the coins are pedigreed enough to see the formerly MS67 now residing in an MS68 holder. Sometimes numerous 67s now in 68 holders. There are dozens of threads on this forum pointing out some of these coins.
If you want an easy illustration: once upon a time, all VF Buffalo nickels had full horns. And I'm not talking about the handful of weak strike branch mint exceptions.
shish stated his experience. What has your experience been?
Wouldn't CAC's All Grades population of 108 be fairly accurate?
“Fairly accurate” with respect to what?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
In that CAC has graded 108 1915-S $50 OCTAGONALs and there is little or no duplication their population report. Going a step further, so far, 17% of the 645 coins have CACs.
It's not his "experience" that I'm taking issue with. Assume for a moment that 100% of all coins are in the correct holders. CAC might still have a 45% approval rate. CAC is certifying A/B coins as being at the top of the grade. They are not certifying that only those coins meet the grade. C coins are still properly graded, they are just at the bottom of the grade range.
The vast majority of the CAC coins (if not all at this point) are stickered coins in NGC or PCGS holders.
So the inaccurate population report is (probably) 564 P + 467 N, not 564 P + 467 N + 108 C.
Chopmarked Trade Dollar Registry Set --- US & World Gold Showcase --- World Chopmark Showcase
But what is your experience?
I think the vast majority of coins (90+%) are accurately graded for the time period they were graded. I do think there is some inflation over time because of, if nothing else, the tendency of rarer coins to max out on grade from multiple submissions. This has the tendency to create a spread of quality in a grade. The natural tendency is to then try to reward the better coins in that grade with a "+" which does create some grade creep over decades. I see 65 Morgans today that are shocking for the number of hits. 66 Saints were nearly mark free 25 years ago but aren't anymore. FWIW
What is your experience at CAC?
First, I understand precisely what CAC approval means, yes it includes C coins. However, all the experiencenced numismatists I know that specialize in seated or trade dollars agree that your estimates are way off. It's seems obvious to me that you are either biased or lacking experience with these series.
There is no disputing that there is a significant difference in standards.
It’s simple, each grading company grades to their specific standards and has their own rate of grading consistency.
Now you are, perhaps, misunderstanding who you are talking to. I didn't make any estimates. That was @ProofCollection .
This is also the first time you've specifically mentioned seated orc trade dollars.
I think you are also conflating "market acceptable" allowances with gradeflation. The TPGS's have been tolerating things like cleaning on early 19th century coins and cabinet friction virtually since their inception. I'm not sure any of this has gotten looser with time.
In terms of stickering? They've published or discussed the number, 45% is about right. But the problem with interpreting that number is knowing what constitutes C or F coins in the other half. The market and maybe shish seen to want to interpret them all as Fs. However, more likely the vast majority of them are C coins.
Now, the exception to this is certain series that have become tolerant of issues that CAC has not. Bust halves, for example, where the other TPGS's seem to tolerate light cleaning in straight grades. We've also had the discussion of light fiction, particularly on gold, where CACG (and maybe CAC) seem to want to AU58 them while the other TPGS's are still assigning MS grades.
But this is really a separate topic from grade inflation. That tolerance goes back decades. It isn't really new but do I think it's gotten looser.
I think the tolerance has gotten looser, too. And that change results in more straight-grade coins that would have previously received details-grades. It likely also leads to higher straight grades for some coins that already received straight-grades, before. So I don’t understand why you consider it a separate topic from gradeflation.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Grading companies respond to the needs of the people consuming their products and services so that they can make money. If the “tolerance is looser”, then it is because the market demanded that, not because grading companies decided that it should be so. If the consumers of PCGS and NGC’s products weren’t happy with “gradeflation”, then they will vote with their feet and go to an alternative grading company like CAC who states that they have a higher standard. Also, there is no such thing as “market grading”. All grading is market grading. It is a standard that the market for coins sets as an acceptable and agreed upon standard. That standard is not objective, nor is it unchanging. Markets constantly change and evolve.
I think that's likely true, at least incrementally. But people are mixing "accuracy" with "consistency " with "inflation".
I've never liked certain aspects of TPGS grading. To my eye they've always been inaccurate. However, in any time frame, they've also been fairly consistent. Across time frames, there has been some loosening (in my opinion) but I think it's natural and not nefarious or an organized conspiracy.
I do think, as I mentioned above, is that a lot of it stems from ending up with broad ranges within a grade. When you have 5 XF coins of a type and they are all similar, things are fine. When you have 25 of them across a broad quality range, it's natural to want to promote the top of the range to the next higher grade. But as you do that, the next higher grade has the same problem: broad range of quality. And so the top coins in that range move up. Over time, the middle of every grade range gets lower in quality and, voila, "gradeflation".
I do think there are limits to the inflation of grades. But adding things like + grades probably makes it a bit worse. In the end, the market does sort it out.
I may not have conveyed my concept clearly. I was suggesting that if a TPG could achieve a 3-5% overall "error" rate they would be doing well.
Others have explained why the CAC approval rate is "only" ~45% and does not indicate a 55% error rate by PCGS and NGC. That also assumes that CAC is the standard to measure against and further that no errors in judgement are introduced by evaluating coins in slabs vs raw. FWIW, I've received a check from JA for a coin he regretted stickering.
The problem with that is that grading is a spectrum. If a 1995 MS64 is a 2024 MS65, then is a 1994 MS69 a 2024 MS70? What happens to the 1994 MS70? It can't bump to MS71.
Sounds more like grade creep to me. As I explained earlier, a coin which is an MS64.8 (for example) when submitted to PCGS or NGC will likely come back MS64 7 or 8 times and come back MS65 2 or 3 times. Resubmit the coin enough times and it will eventually end up in an MS65 holder where it will stay. It's fair to say that any PCGS MS64 holdered coin represents the spectrum MS63.8 (or so) to MS65.2 just due to the subjectivity involved. Thus it should not be a surprise when that MS67 ends up in an MS68 holder. It does not mean the standards or how they are applied has changed. It's just grade creep.
The problem with standards like this is that they do not allow for exceptions. PCGS standards use eye appeal and wear to determine circulated grades so a buffalo with great eye appeal but maybe not a full horn can be VF. PCGS has an example of an UNC buffalo with a very poor strike without a complete horn, so there are appropriate exemptions where a rule like that should not apply.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Apn-kYEl-Xw at the 14:40 mark.
See
The fastest way for PCGS to lose its prestige and position in the industry would be to loosen standards such that their grades could no longer be trusted. This may have happened to ANACS at some point because their grades are just not respected like the others. PCGS would "Bud Light" themselves if they noticeably changed their grading quality.
I don’t think eye appeal should have any effect on the grade of a VF coin. At that level, the grade should be based on wear and detail.
You mentioned “the problem with standards is that they do not allow for exceptions.”
A far greater problem is a lack of meaningful standards and/or lack of adherence to them on a consistent basis.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
OK, well I'm just repeating what's in the PCGS materials.
Maybe there’s something elsewhere on the PCGS site that says otherwise. but looking at the information in the link below, I don’t see any mention of “eye appeal” in grades below AU58.
https://www.pcgs.com/news/how-united-states-coins-are-graded
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
In the video I posted:
I once bought a beautiful PCGS MS 65 bust left 1807 $5.
Best coin I ever bought …..I thought !
Found out from a pro it was puttied 🤓
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
Hopefully, for purposes of consistency with respect to AU grades, that’s meant just for AU58.😉 But if it's supposed to apply to lower grade circulated coins, I think it makes somewhat of a mockery of the written “standards”.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
One thing I have noticed in my time at this forum, all collectors/dealers(including myself), have areas of Numismatics that are very strong at grading and others that they are not, perhaps to the point of being questionable about some series' of coins. Also, virtually all collectors/dealers(including myself), are not as good at overall grading as they think they are.
These points only lend themselves to the perception that the major TPG's, PCGS and NGC, don't correctly grade coins.
There was no CAC! SEGS. ICG, and ANACS were the only 'real" alternative. I don't think anyone walked over there. So NGC and PCGS had to inflate the grades to get the best coins. Am I wrong?
PCGS and NGC responded to what the market wanted, which is why they captured a huge amount of the market share from SEGS, ICG and ANACS. SEGS, ICG and ANACs then became second and third tier companies that tried to inflate grades to recapture market share from PCGS and NGC. It didn’t work.
If your not as good at grading overall then hire someone who is to look at the coins you want to buy.
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
Like a “grading company”? :-)
As people much wiser than me often say, BTCNTH 😉
"I may not have conveyed my concept clearly. I was suggesting that if a TPG could achieve a 3-5% overall "error" rate they would be doing well."
I agree, unfortunately my point is that this is not the case.
"Others have explained why the CAC approval rate is "only" ~45% and does not indicate a 55% error rate by PCGS and NGC. That also assumes that CAC is the standard to measure against and further that no errors in judgement are introduced by evaluating coins in slabs vs raw. FWIW, I've received a check from JA for a coin he regretted stickering."
I never said that the CAC approval rate indicates a 55% error rate by PCGS and NGC.
I said "The CAC overall approval rate is roughly 45%. These coins are not randomly selected, therefore the approval rate would be even lower for a random group. This shows that there is a significant difference in standards. This shows that your estimate of 1 to 2% difference is way too low.
It’s simple, each grading company grades to their specific standards and has their own rate of grading consistency."
"Grading companies respond to the needs of the people consuming their products and services so that they can make money. If the “tolerance is looser”, then it is because the market demanded that, not because grading companies decided that it should be so. If the consumers of PCGS and NGC’s products weren’t happy with “gradeflation”, then they will vote with their feet and go to an alternative grading company like CAC who states that they have a higher standard."
CACG has only been open for a short time. Before CACG opened there was no other grading companies with higher standards and better consistency. There was only CAC's approval, now consumers have an option.
I'll agree to disagree. As others stated above, CAC's approval rate of ~45% does not indicate much when it excludes all "C" coins from consideration. To make things worse, included in that figure are the "F" coins that CACG "details" that PCGS and NGC do not but is a different issue than grading. I would argue that comparisons cannot be made to CACG because CACG intentionally undergrades "C" coins to the next lower grade by policy. If the market like it then so be it, but CAC putting a "C" MS65 in an MS64 slab just increases their "error" rate as far as I'm concerned.
I would argue though that if the market wanted a "looser tolerance" or more lenient grading, then ANACS would be more dominant and ANACS coins would sell for more. I suggest that ANAC's current market position is a result of market acceptance (or rejection) rather than any reason. The market wants accuracy and reliability, not the opposite.
The best coin graders are not employed at NGC or PCGS ....find one!
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
That's funny, I never heard or read anyone but you say that the second tier TPGS inflated their grades. I remember that ANACS changed their standards to be more in line with commercial graders. Did SEGS or ICG even exist at the time that happened? As I recall, years later, someone did a blind test of four of those services and either ANACS or ICG came out the winner. Whichever company it was used that test result in their ads for awhile.
I know there are present and former graders (@Rexford, @Insider, @Coinguy) from all four of those TPGS posting on Collectors Universe who may know about the test. It would be interesting isf someone with deep pockets could duplicate it and send 15 coins around to all four services but it is not just the money. My guess it would take over a year for 15 coins to go through those four TPGS's and in that time the market conditions could change. IMO, the ONLY fair test would be to send the coins using 5 day service and overnight shipping (very expensive). Then we coulfd get results in about a month. I 'd gladly donate $20 to someone doing the test.
Futyhermore, PCGS was started by famous professional coin dealers and backed by coin dealers (Just as CACG). I do know their grading was more to the liking of dealers because it was less strict. I don't know the reason some dealers broke away to start NGC. Was it just a left coast right coast thing or were there grading differences? Inquiring minds wish to know. ANACS is the oldest and CACG is the newest. Who tarted ICG and when?
ICG, PCI, ANACS all trade at DISCOUNT relative to PCGS and NGC. That is not because they were more strict. If they were, there would be a premium because all their coins would upgrade. So, whatever you are trying to prove has already been disproven.
@jmlanzaf said: "ICG, PCI, ANACS all trade at DISCOUNT relative to PCGS and NGC. That is not because they were more strict. If they were, there would be a premium because all their coins would upgrade. So, whatever you are trying to prove has already been disproven."
I replied to this statement but it did not post. Probably my error as I'm sure there is no censorship going on by the Mods. Nevertheless, I'm not going to comment except to say buy the coin and not the trash talk or hype.
I don’t discount ANACS, ICG relative to the others especially if PQ. Not a holder game koolaid drinker. I might come down on price if room. Sold a MS 70 Anacs bullion coin in the attractive yellow holder at recent show getting good money.
If you try to sell ANACS or ICG proof modern coins at PCGS prices no one will ever buy them. Otherwise you could load up on ANACS and ICG Proof 70's and cross them to PCGS and really cash in. Unfortunately the crossover success rate will be too low to make it worthwhile unless you are able to filter out the coins that actually are 70.
Have no trouble selling them.
I don’t load up on them but get a lot of them from estates sometimes. Fairly small ticket stuff less than $100. As far as some holder game hocus-pocus have no trouble moving them. I would go broke trying cross them / lose money lol. Many off bourse like the pretty yellow Anacs yellow holders especially bullion coins. A MS 70 Mexico bullion one did well. Superb for the grade a real blazer! I don’t chase them and will come down if room. Otherwise they can Take it up w ANACs if think their grading off. Are you one of those people who would pay more for a CACG one?
My comment is not to suggest that the other services are always wrong or loose. But it's an irrefutable fact that generic 2nd tier slabs sell at a discount in the marketplace.
Frankly, this is more due to inconsistency than anything. But it disproves any suggestion that these services were stricter than PCGS or NGC.
I note that @jmlanzaf LOL at this. I will not comment on what I hear from collectors and dealers at shows. It's too bad we don't know if he is an NGC or PCGS member or if he invested in CACG. That would explain his comments. It's too bad my reply to his opinion somehow disappeared as it would have explained a lot about about the trash talk. As for second tier TPGS, I noticed dealers Buy low and sell high. It's a great game when they can get away with it.
PS I'm the first to inform anyone having raw coins slabbed to sell that a PCGS slab with a CAC sticker will bring the most money - for now. I may need to change that as CACG evolves.
You may attempt to dismiss my factual observation based on alleged bias, but I defy you to find any coin dealer who doesn't know this. 20 years ago Greysheet even included a chart in every issue with the discounts to be applied for ANACS, PCI and ICG.
Yes, I laughed at Cougar's comeback because it was typical Cougar. He never makes any comment that isn't a complete solipsism. A single bullion coin in an ANACS holder for "good money" tells us what, exactly?
I am a (free) NGC member. I submit to PCGS through a dealer- member friend and I use ANACS for lower priced material that just needs an authenticity certification. And, last but not least, 95% of my collection is raw.
There is nothing wrong with 2nd tier grading firms. But the price history of those slabs prove beyond any doubt that @Married2Coins suggestion that they lost to PCGS and NGC because they were strict and P and N were loose is ludicrous. If that were true then old PCI holders would bring large premiums. They do not.
The 2nd tier slabs trade at a discount (with exceptions for crack out candidates). To argue otherwise is numismatic malpractice. They would not trade at a discount, and wouldn't have traded at a discount 20 years ago, if they were more strictly graded than PCGS and NGC. You admitted this yourself in your post.
So what's your point?
Anacs, ICG one of TPG accepted by ebay. That’s the reality, Get over it.
The Anacs, ICG I have came from estates. Take it all deals. They are not worth much more than $50 or melt. My assistant Sold 2 nice ICG at last show, good retail money as she has passed training and manages that particular case. She’s catching on good. Ready move to projects like analyzing market trends, dissecting some competitors inventory / store. Very strong online and analytical skills.
It would cost me probably $50 per coin to even try to cross them once fees, shipping totaled up let alone the disaster of a downgrade. Anybody with any sense wants avoid that. Now for a big ticket one that’s somebody else ballgame. How they manage their angle it’s their roster their team. Being one of the last fortresses of free enterprise the coin business is diverse across the board. Yet there trolls in here like 12 yr olds lol who are ignorant of the business, basic math, accounting, or can’t stand a differing opinion. One of them in analyzing his site - nothing but crap.
I don’t discount it would be difficult for some operator to get all the money on a big ticket coin from TPG considered 2nd tier. However I have won National Champ Games / titles on my college FB app when a 2nd tier QB had to start (starter injured).
I have noticed CACG coins getting more than stickered in many instances. One of mine recently did. A very pleasant surprise. Many unsure how long a stickered coin in the marketplace. Is it in same shape or has exposure to the atmosphere taken it’s toll? Wouldn’t be surprised if he drops the sticker thingy and just goes to CACG.
As wrote, I explained EXACTLY what is going on and _my post went missing. _ There are clear reasons why you can post your opinion - which everyone knows: some TPGS coins are discounted. What is not posted is the WHY and I got the "message" so I'm not going to poke you again or the bear.
If directed at me:
It’s my inventory my play call ( free enterprise) especially if super PQ. So what that’s it Anacs or ICG no big deal would price accordingly based on the COIN and where in grade range, look at eBay seller comps, CPG, etc. As far as seller discounting material that’s proprietary with the business. If room wb negotiable. Certainly if big ticket might submit to our hosts at some point in time but specify minimum grade. What some competitor or player off a message board thinks do I care?
You might as well be preaching to Logan Roy of Waystar Royco. Really liked that show. Have had enough here / adios have a great day.
You can poke me. But poke me with facts. Don't call me a fan boy.
You don't know what I wrote, what questions I asked of you, or _the factual reasons (the WHY) that makes PCGS coins worth so much. _ It has nothing to do with being a fanboy. I like Pepsi better than coke. That does not make me a Pepsi fanboy. However, the reasons some prefer Coke over Pepsi, market share, etc. are pretty easy to enumerate by a knowledgeable soda freak, Ad rep, or chemist.
You've written more words explaining how your post disappeared than it would take to rewrite it.
The value difference is more than preference for a service. Otherwise people would pay a premium for the 2nd tier slabs to cross the coins. The fact is that, by and large, they will not cross at grade.