@jmlanzaf wrote: "You've written more words explaining how your post disappeared than it would take to rewrite it."
and: "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." [BECAUSE...]
Again, 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. _ You also don't know the time it took to lay it all out. I guess a lot of posters assume things.
The fact is there must be certain things that while true, should not be posted. Therefore, I can't refute much of what you have written, ask direct questions to position your opinion, and challenge your opinion - much of which is obviously true - because of the REASONS, the WHY in my ghost post.
I owe you an apology. I'm going about this all wrong. Since you know more about the coin business than I ever will, please share your knowledge with me. Why do you think CAC will not sticker ANACS or ICG coins?
I know you didn't ask for my opinion, but I'm speculating that back when reviews used to be free, they didn't want to waste their time. Nowadays, JA would feel guilty taking the fees for so many rejects.
I owe you an apology. I'm going about this all wrong. Since you know more about the coin business than I ever will, please share your knowledge with me. Why do you think CAC will not sticker ANACS or ICG coins?
That's a good question which JA has probably addressed. It might be a simple as he doesn't want to buy them.
There may also be practical issues as there are gaps in the databases of those conpanies.
"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."
...and that would be wrong because it's still not a VF. A Fine with great eye appeal is still a Fine. Now you can argue that it would sell for more money than a run of the mill Fine and I would agree... but wear is still wear, and an attractive appearance doesn't magically make the wear go away.
@telephoto1 said: "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."
...and that would be wrong because it's still not a VF. A Fine with great eye appeal is still a Fine. Now you can argue that it would sell for more money than a run of the mill Fine and I would agree... but wear is still wear, and an attractive appearance doesn't magically make the wear go away.
Well said. I can understand eye-appeal helping the grades of mint state and Proof coins, but not circulated ones. And I don’t think it should even be a consideration.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I owe you an apology. I'm going about this all wrong. Since you know more about the coin business than I ever will, please share your knowledge with me. Why do you think CAC will not sticker ANACS or ICG coins?
That's a good question which JA has probably addressed. It might be a simple as he doesn't want to buy them.
There may also be practical issues as there are gaps in the databases of those conpanies.
Will you just say what you are trying to say?
If I remember correctly, the main reason given was the lack of population reports from the other grading companies.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I owe you an apology. I'm going about this all wrong. Since you know more about the coin business than I ever will, please share your knowledge with me. Why do you think CAC will not sticker ANACS or ICG coins?
That's a good question which JA has probably addressed. It might be a simple as he doesn't want to buy them.
There may also be practical issues as there are gaps in the databases of those conpanies.
Will you just say what you are trying to say?
If I remember correctly, the main reason given was the lack of population reports from the other grading companies.
I took a brief look and couldn't find his specific comments. But I do remember an issue with the databases. I wish Skip would just state whatever point he's trying to make.
@telephoto1 said: "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."
...and that would be wrong because it's still not a VF. A Fine with great eye appeal is still a Fine. Now you can argue that it would sell for more money than a run of the mill Fine and I would agree... but wear is still wear, and an attractive appearance doesn't magically make the wear go away.
I obv didn't make the video, but if eye appeal didn't factor into the grade - even for F/VF coins, I'm sure they would have made the distinction. I can see where an F17 (if it existed) had great eye appeal you could call if VF20. I have seen some very circulated coins that have surprising eye appeal, and evidently PCGS recognizes it too.
@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 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. *
>
Who says they aren’t randomly selected? For many years dealers and some collectors threw everything they purchased at CAC hoping for a sticker. So it CANNOT be said everything was carefully selected. Now that prices have gone up and the sticker fail rate is assessed 75% of the time things will change more from random submissions
I owe you an apology. I'm going about this all wrong. Since you know more about the coin business than I ever will, please share your knowledge with me. Why do you think CAC will not sticker ANACS or ICG coins?
That's a good question which JA has probably addressed. It might be a simple as he doesn't want to buy them.
There may also be practical issues as there are gaps in the databases of those conpanies.
Will you just say what you are trying to say?
I asked you a question to educate me and you answered it. Thanks. It is a rare thing to get a direct answer to a question. I'll have some more questions and hopefully you'll take the time to reply.
@telephoto1 said: "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."
...and that would be wrong because it's still not a VF. A Fine with great eye appeal is still a Fine. Now you can argue that it would sell for more money than a run of the mill Fine and I would agree... but wear is still wear, and an attractive appearance doesn't magically make the wear go away.
I obv didn't make the video, but if eye appeal didn't factor into the grade - even for F/VF coins, I'm sure they would have made the distinction. I can see where an F17 (if it existed) had great eye appeal you could call if VF20. I have seen some very circulated coins that have surprising eye appeal, and evidently PCGS recognizes it too.
Except eye appeal is nowhere in their published standards. If it were part of their grading, "I'm sure they would have made the distinction. "
Here are some more pcgs videos on this eye appeal stuff.
I am not voicing an opinion here but rather passing on these videos.
There is a pcgs Eye Appeal video (link below) and it is limited to Uncirculated coins. The video starts with some up front information (screen shot posted below). The video then covers examples of what each of the types of eye appeal might look like. The video finishes with how each of these types of eye appeal could impact the grade (screen shot posted below).
https://youtube.com/watch?v=1UcNbPbu9u8
.
.
There is a pcgs How to Grade Circulated Coins and link below. The video starts with some up front information (screen shot posted below). This information identifies eye appeal on the circulated coin. The screenshot notes how the grade could be bumped within a grade. The video talking notes how eye appeal does not bump a coin from one grade to another (I think the examples were not from VG to F or not from VF to XF. Kind of confusing as he says seldom and then later notes that wear is just to important to jump a grade.
@lilolme said:
Here are some more pcgs videos on this eye appeal stuff.
I am not voicing an opinion here but rather passing on these videos.
There is a pcgs Eye Appeal video (link below) and it is limited to Uncirculated coins. The video starts with some up front information (screen shot posted below). The video then covers examples of what each of the types of eye appeal might look like. The video finishes with how each of these types of eye appeal could impact the grade (screen shot posted below).
.
\
.
There is a pcgs How to Grade Circulated Coins and link below. The video starts with some up front information (screen shot posted below). This information identifies eye appeal on the circulated coin. The screenshot notes how the grade could be bumped within a grade. The video talking notes how eye appeal does not bump a coin from one grade to another (I think the examples were not from VG to F or not from VF to XF. Kind of confusing as he says seldom and then later notes that wear is just to important to jump a grade.
The quantitative numbers crunching aside....I would just point out that there were several threads -- here and elsewhere -- talking about how on a particular coin.... individuals attempted to get an upgrade they felt was merited....failed to get it several times....and then watched another collector or dealer get it into a holder 1-2 grades higher, sometimes with CAC as the icing on the cake. $400 coins turned into $10,000 ones, or something like that.
Some of you reading this may have even participated on those threads. I'm not sure they are still around, but I remember reading them and even copying-and-pasting some of the critical posts for me to learn from.
There's no doubt that "market grading" entered the equation over various periods of time since the 1990's. What I find fascinating is that even JA himself has said there was nothing nefarious about it....you had business and relationships at stake and when prices rose tremendously you had to adapt or just take a multi-year sabbatical from collecting or doing business. How many of us would do THAT ?
Read the JA interview from late-2022 in CoinWeek. I thought he would have been very dismissive and critical of the market grading slide. He was anything but.
@ProofCollection said:
What are some examples? Like UNC coins with significant gouges can be MS63 when formerly they were not? And >would such policies always go one way (inflation) and never deflation?
Read JA's comments on the Type Gold coins in the mid-1980's. Scroll about 1/4 down:
@MFeld said:
I believe that anyone who’s compared the populations of a large number of top pop modern coins over time has >zero doubt regarding the reality of gradeflation.
Mark (or any other vet)....off the top of your head, can you think of any coin that 20-25 years ago (after a decade-plus of TPGs from the late-1980's) had a population in a high-grade for maybe, say, 5-15 coins....and today has exactly the same number, maybe only an increase of 1 only ?
I know it's rare, but I actually was going over the pop numbers for some Saints and MSDs between the early-2000's and today and found one or two. I forgot which 1 or 2 coins were rock-steady but I'll go back and check and report back.
I'm talking a coin with an available population -- like I said, maybe 5-15 or 20 -- not something where it's a population of 1 over long periods of time like the 1933 DE or something like that with other coins.
@MFeld said:
I believe that anyone who’s compared the populations of a large number of top pop modern coins over time has >zero doubt regarding the reality of gradeflation.
Mark (or any other vet)....off the top of your head, can you think of any coin that 20-25 years ago (after a decade-plus of TPGs from the late-1980's) had a population in a high-grade for maybe, say, 5-15 coins....and today has exactly the same number, maybe only an increase of 1 only ?
I know it's rare, but I actually was going over the pop numbers for some Saints and MSDs between the early-2000's and today and found one or two. I forgot which 1 or 2 coins were rock-steady but I'll go back and check and report back.
I'm talking a coin with an available population -- like I said, maybe 5-15 or 20 -- not something where it's a population of 1 over long periods of time like the 1933 DE or something like that with other coins.
I dont recall any specific examples of that but have certainly seen some.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@ProofCollection said:
What are some examples? Like UNC coins with significant gouges can be MS63 when formerly they were not? And >would such policies always go one way (inflation) and never deflation?
Read JA's comments on the Type Gold coins in the mid-1980's. Scroll about 1/4 down:
JA describes and ebb and flow with grading which is what I have stated before. Statistically grades will tighten and then loosen back again over time. Keep in mind though, there is definitely a limit. PCGS's grade guarantee pretty much keeps grades from getting too loose because once a coin is "overgraded" any coin owner can submit for payment from PCGS. I get that within a half a grade PCGS can argue that it's accurate, but getting more than that is a big financial risk.
"Except eye appeal is nowhere in their published standards. If it were part of their grading, "I'm sure they would have made the distinction. "
I disagree! The published standards need to be updated because they do not accurately describe the actual standards currently used. Eye-appeal is absolutely part of the market grading used today.
@shish said:
"Except eye appeal is nowhere in their published standards. If it were part of their grading, "I'm sure they would have made the distinction. "
I disagree! The published standards need to be updated because they do not accurately describe the actual standards currently used. Eye-appeal is absolutely part of the market grading used today.
"Who says they aren’t randomly selected? For many years dealers and some collectors threw everything they purchased at CAC hoping for a sticker. So it CANNOT be said everything was carefully selected. Now that prices have gone up and the sticker fail rate is assessed 75% of the time things will change more from random submissions."
I agree that not everything was carefully selected. However, I am very confident that the vast majority of dealers and collectors have not "threw everything they purchased at CAC hoping for a sticker."
@shish said:
Good point, mainly for AU and uncirculated coins.
Even though it sometimes does, I don’t think even appeal should bump the grades of AU coins, either. Grades below 60 should be about wear, not attractiveness.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
If I may introduce a new wrinkle, what about Details coins?
Last week I watched a PCGS video on grading, and they stated that their service was created to facilitate sight-unseen trading between dealers. They went on to say that there should not be any market, or net, grading. They offered the example of an AU with a scratch being called an XF - something a dealer would not be happy to receive on a sight-unseen bid.
Coins not acceptable to a sight-unseen trade could still be marked authentic, but given a details grade stating the reason. To me this creates a secondary pool of effectively ungraded coins that an individual dealer or collector might find quite acceptable, but a sight-unseen trading market would not. Or, the coin could be garbage - who could tell without seeing it?
Well, we know that the grades are not simply used for sight-unseen trading, and certainly not only by dealers.
As the initial purpose of the third-party grading becomes more oriented towards collectors, there are coins that may migrate out of the details pool back into a market-acceptable grade. After all, there can be a lot of lost value in that Details coin waiting to be recouped. I have several myself. If my 1924 SLQ Cleaned became an MS66, or my 1917 Half escaped its “wrap machine mark” designation to become a beautifully toned MS67, there is significant reason to resubmit over and again.
Is there an effect we’re missing as well, where Details coins or coins not previously expected to straight grade are still entering the market?
@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!
LOL, I'll bet whomever you believe they are were connected in some way to either PCGS or NGC. Otherwise, name one!
@shish said:
"Except eye appeal is nowhere in their published standards. If it were part of their grading, "I'm sure they would have made the distinction. "
I disagree! The published standards need to be updated because they do not accurately describe the actual standards currently used. Eye-appeal is absolutely part of the market grading used today.
For VF coins?
Yes, and even for AG coins. I thought everyone knew that. That may explain why 95% of tour collection is raw. >
If I may introduce a new wrinkle, what about Details coins?
Last week I watched a PCGS video on grading, and they stated that their service was created to facilitate sight-unseen trading between dealers. They went on to say that there should not be any market, or net, grading. They offered the example of an AU with a scratch being called an XF - something a dealer would not be happy to receive on a sight-unseen bid.
Coins not acceptable to a sight-unseen trade could still be marked authentic, but given a details grade stating the reason. To me this creates a secondary pool of effectively ungraded coins that an individual dealer or collector might find quite acceptable, but a sight-unseen trading market would not. Or, the coin could be garbage - who could tell without seeing it?
Well, we know that the grades are not simply used for sight-unseen trading, and certainly not only by dealers.
As the initial purpose of the third-party grading becomes more oriented towards collectors, there are coins that may migrate out of the details pool back into a market-acceptable grade. After all, there can be a lot of lost value in that Details coin waiting to be recouped. I have several myself. If my 1924 SLQ Cleaned became an MS66, or my 1917 Half escaped its “wrap machine mark” designation to become a beautifully toned MS67, there is significant reason to resubmit over and again.
Is there an effect we’re missing as well, where Details coins or coins not previously expected to straight grade are still entering the market?
I think the video you watched may be old. When I started collecting for the second time, problem coins were not graded. Then they were graded as problem coins. Nevertheless, many coins with little problems were straight graded. For me, a problem is a problem. I think many of these coins are now net graded. Anyway, CAC was started because problem coins began creeping into straight slabs. IMO, the two quarters you mentioned will never straight grade so we don't have to worry about what might happen in the future. If anything, the line betwee detail/straight will tighten.
@shish said:
Good point, mainly for AU and uncirculated coins.
Even though it sometimes does, I don’t think even appeal should bump the grades of AU coins, either. Grades below 60 should be about wear, not attractiveness.
I respet what you write and agree that eye appeal is most imoportant in the MS range (sometimes raising a grade far above what it should be to indicate its value**), come on. An attractive coin at any grade will be picked over a nasty one ALL THE TIME!
** I remember seing my MS-64 max $20 Liberty raised to MS-66 or MS-67 due to its color (eye appeal) somewhere.
@shish said:
Good point, mainly for AU and uncirculated coins.
Even though it sometimes does, I don’t think even appeal should bump the grades of AU coins, either. Grades below 60 should be about wear, not attractiveness.
I understand your point but then what differentiates a 55 from a 55+ or 58 from a 58+? With 8 AU grades available it seems there should be more than wear in the grade.
@shish said:
"Except eye appeal is nowhere in their published standards. If it were part of their grading, "I'm sure they would have made the distinction. "
I disagree! The published standards need to be updated because they do not accurately describe the actual standards currently used. Eye-appeal is absolutely part of the market grading used today.
For VF coins?
Yes, and even for AG coins. I thought everyone knew that. That may explain why 95% of tour collection is raw. >
If I may introduce a new wrinkle, what about Details coins?
Last week I watched a PCGS video on grading, and they stated that their service was created to facilitate sight-unseen trading between dealers. They went on to say that there should not be any market, or net, grading. They offered the example of an AU with a scratch being called an XF - something a dealer would not be happy to receive on a sight-unseen bid.
Coins not acceptable to a sight-unseen trade could still be marked authentic, but given a details grade stating the reason. To me this creates a secondary pool of effectively ungraded coins that an individual dealer or collector might find quite acceptable, but a sight-unseen trading market would not. Or, the coin could be garbage - who could tell without seeing it?
Well, we know that the grades are not simply used for sight-unseen trading, and certainly not only by dealers.
As the initial purpose of the third-party grading becomes more oriented towards collectors, there are coins that may migrate out of the details pool back into a market-acceptable grade. After all, there can be a lot of lost value in that Details coin waiting to be recouped. I have several myself. If my 1924 SLQ Cleaned became an MS66, or my 1917 Half escaped its “wrap machine mark” designation to become a beautifully toned MS67, there is significant reason to resubmit over and again.
Is there an effect we’re missing as well, where Details coins or coins not previously expected to straight grade are still entering the market?
I think the video you watched may be old. When I started collecting for the second time, problem coins were not graded. Then they were graded as problem coins. Nevertheless, many coins with little problems were straight graded. For me, a problem is a problem. I think many of these coins are now net graded. Anyway, CAC was started because problem coins began creeping into straight slabs. IMO, the two quarters you mentioned will never straight grade so we don't have to worry about what might happen in the future. If anything, the line betwee detail/straight will tighten.
Nonsense, as every experienced feature and grader in this thread has pointed out. Mark was a professional grader. Were you?
@shish said:
Good point, mainly for AU and uncirculated coins.
Even though it sometimes does, I don’t think even appeal should bump the grades of AU coins, either. Grades below 60 should be about wear, not attractiveness.
I respet what you write and agree that eye appeal is most imoportant in the MS range (sometimes raising a grade far above what it should be to indicate its value**), come on. An attractive coin at any grade will be picked over a nasty one ALL THE TIME!
** I remember seing my MS-64 max $20 Liberty raised to MS-66 or MS-67 due to its color (eye appeal) somewhere.
Getting "picked" is not the same as changing the numerical grade.
@Ronsanderson said:
If I may introduce a new wrinkle, what about Details coins?
Last week I watched a PCGS video on grading, and they stated that their service was created to facilitate sight-unseen trading between dealers. They went on to say that there should not be any market, or net, grading. They offered the example of an AU with a scratch being called an XF - something a dealer would not be happy to receive on a sight-unseen bid.
Coins not acceptable to a sight-unseen trade could still be marked authentic, but given a details grade stating the reason. To me this creates a secondary pool of effectively ungraded coins that an individual dealer or collector might find quite acceptable, but a sight-unseen trading market would not. Or, the coin could be garbage - who could tell without seeing it?
Well, we know that the grades are not simply used for sight-unseen trading, and certainly not only by dealers.
As the initial purpose of the third-party grading becomes more oriented towards collectors, there are coins that may migrate out of the details pool back into a market-acceptable grade. After all, there can be a lot of lost value in that Details coin waiting to be recouped. I have several myself. If my 1924 SLQ Cleaned became an MS66, or my 1917 Half escaped its “wrap machine mark” designation to become a beautifully toned MS67, there is significant reason to resubmit over and again.
Is there an effect we’re missing as well, where Details coins or coins not previously expected to straight grade are still entering the market?
There are "market acceptable" coins with problems.
If "details" coins start getting straight graded, the TPGS's are finished and coin values will collapse.
@shish said:
Good point, mainly for AU and uncirculated coins.
Even though it sometimes does, I don’t think even appeal should bump the grades of AU coins, either. Grades below 60 should be about wear, not attractiveness.
I understand your point but then what differentiates a 55 from a 55+ or 58 from a 58+? With 8 AU grades available it seems there should be more than wear in the grade.
If something other than wear is needed in order to differentiate between all of the AU grades, perhaps there are too many of them.
In answer to your question - subjectivity.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@shish said:
"Except eye appeal is nowhere in their published standards. If it were part of their grading, "I'm sure they would have made the distinction. "
I disagree! The published standards need to be updated because they do not accurately describe the actual standards currently used. Eye-appeal is absolutely part of the market grading used today.
For VF coins?
Yes, eye appeal for VF coins. He said market grading used today.
@telephoto1 said: "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."
...and that would be wrong because it's still not a VF. A Fine with great eye appeal is still a Fine. Now you can argue that it would sell for more money than a run of the mill Fine and I would agree... but wear is still wear, and an attractive appearance doesn't magically make the wear go away.
Well said. I can understand eye-appeal helping the grades of mint state and Proof coins, but not circulated ones. And I don’t think it should even be a consideration.
I disagree!
Stated with great respect Mark. Eye appeal is part of every grade.
@telephoto1 said: "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."
...and that would be wrong because it's still not a VF. A Fine with great eye appeal is still a Fine. Now you can argue that it would sell for more money than a run of the mill Fine and I would agree... but wear is still wear, and an attractive appearance doesn't magically make the wear go away.
Well said. I can understand eye-appeal helping the grades of mint state and Proof coins, but not circulated ones. And I don’t think it should even be a consideration.
I disagree!
Stated with great respect Mark. Eye appeal is part of every grade.
Stated with equally great respect, Kevin - not according to the ANA guidelines. Why, for example, should a coin with the details of an XF 45 (that happens to be attractive) be graded AU50 instead? What’s wrong with grading it 45 and letting the market determine the added value for the eye appeal? That would seem much more honest to me.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@ProofCollection said:
I regularly see coins with "attractive toning" given a higher grade than they otherwise deserve. Seems like this is pretty standard.
It’s fairly commonplace for mint state and Proof coins. But it’s not nearly as frequently done for circulated coins, which tend to have much more specific grading standards. And those standards should lead to greater objectivity and consistency. Additionally, the ANA grading guidelines (which I saw listed by PCGS) don’t include eye appeal in grades below AU.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@shish said:
"Except eye appeal is nowhere in their published standards. If it were part of their grading, "I'm sure they would have made the distinction. "
I disagree! The published standards need to be updated because they do not accurately describe the actual standards currently used. Eye-appeal is absolutely part of the market grading used today.
For VF coins?
Yes, eye appeal for VF coins. He said market grading used today.
People keep saying this, but no one can point to a reference or even a grader who says so.
@jmlanzaf said:
There are "market acceptable" coins with problems.
If "details" coins start getting straight graded, the TPGS's are finished and coin values will collapse.
To me, I would differentiate between the slightest wear/rub on a SINGLE high point vs. visible rub/wear on MULTIPLE surface locations and/or cleaning or other substantial alterations on the high points, fields, etc.
@jmlanzaf said:
There are "market acceptable" coins with problems.
If "details" coins start getting straight graded, the TPGS's are finished and coin values will collapse.
To me, I would differentiate between the slightest wear/rub on a SINGLE high point vs. visible rub/wear on MULTIPLE surface locations and/or cleaning or other substantial alterations on the high points, fields, etc.
We already do. What does that have to do with straight grading details coins?
@shish said:
"Except eye appeal is nowhere in their published standards. If it were part of their grading, "I'm sure they would have made the distinction. "
I disagree! The published standards need to be updated because they do not accurately describe the actual standards currently used. Eye-appeal is absolutely part of the market grading used today.
For VF coins?
Yes, and even for AG coins. I thought everyone knew that. That may explain why 95% of tour collection is raw. >
If I may introduce a new wrinkle, what about Details coins?
Last week I watched a PCGS video on grading, and they stated that their service was created to facilitate sight-unseen trading between dealers. They went on to say that there should not be any market, or net, grading. They offered the example of an AU with a scratch being called an XF - something a dealer would not be happy to receive on a sight-unseen bid.
Coins not acceptable to a sight-unseen trade could still be marked authentic, but given a details grade stating the reason. To me this creates a secondary pool of effectively ungraded coins that an individual dealer or collector might find quite acceptable, but a sight-unseen trading market would not. Or, the coin could be garbage - who could tell without seeing it?
Well, we know that the grades are not simply used for sight-unseen trading, and certainly not only by dealers.
As the initial purpose of the third-party grading becomes more oriented towards collectors, there are coins that may migrate out of the details pool back into a market-acceptable grade. After all, there can be a lot of lost value in that Details coin waiting to be recouped. I have several myself. If my 1924 SLQ Cleaned became an MS66, or my 1917 Half escaped its “wrap machine mark” designation to become a beautifully toned MS67, there is significant reason to resubmit over and again.
Is there an effect we’re missing as well, where Details coins or coins not previously expected to straight grade are still entering the market?
I think the video you watched may be old. When I started collecting for the second time, problem coins were not graded. Then they were graded as problem coins. Nevertheless, many coins with little problems were straight graded. For me, a problem is a problem. I think many of these coins are now net graded. Anyway, CAC was started because problem coins began creeping into straight slabs. IMO, the two quarters you mentioned will never straight grade so we don't have to worry about what might happen in the future. If anything, the line betwee detail/straight will tighten.
Nonsense, as every experienced feature and grader in this thread has pointed out. Mark was a professional grader. Were you?
Mark wrote this: "Even though it sometimes does, I don’t think even appeal should bump the grades of AU
coins, either. Grades below 60 should be about wear, not attractiveness.
I AGREE 100 % with Mr. Feld's statement quoted above. HOWEVER, IMHO, any worthwhile collector/dealer/professional grader KNOWS that coins are bumped for eye appeal into a higher grade all the time AND THAT GOES FOR AU's BUMPED TO MS! Is it right? Well, apparently it is "market acceptable."
Furthermore, I don't have to be a professional grader to have an opinion THAT I CAN BACK UP. You are not a professional grader but you post your opinions all over the place! In fact, you are one of my favorite five star members because you make me think. It's just one of the things that makes CU the #1 numismatic chat forum on the Internet! So the real question is, what do you, as not a professional grader, believe?
My statement that an attractive coin will ALWAYS be picked over a nasty one of the same grade; Mr. Feld's statement; or both?
It appears you may need a hint. The correct answer is BOTH statements are correct.
@jmlanzaf said: "There are "market acceptable" coins with problems. If "details" coins start getting straight graded, the TPGS's are finished and coin values will collapse.
Er what? I thought you were a long time collector? "Details" coins have been straight graded for years! Why do you think CACG is getting jumped on all over the place? I guess what they consider to be "market acceptable" is different from others.
PS I hope someone from CACG can teach at ANA's Summer Seminar. It would be a new class or Instructor I have not experienced more than once.
@shish said:
Good point, mainly for AU and uncirculated coins.
Even though it sometimes does, I don’t think even appeal should bump the grades of AU coins, either. Grades below 60 should be about wear, not attractiveness.
I understand your point but then what differentiates a 55 from a 55+ or 58 from a 58+? With 8 AU grades available it seems there should be more than wear in the grade.
If something other than wear is needed in order to differentiate between all of the AU grades, perhaps there are too many of them.
In answer to your question - subjectivity.
Mr. Feld. a long time ago, marks determined the AU grade also. That's what made a coin AU Typical or AU Choice.
I don't think this applies anymore; however, marks and amount of wear still seem to be connected for the range of AU grades. When you were a third-party professional grader, what were you told to do by the company you worked for. Has it changed over the years. How do you grade AU's for Heritage or are all the coins slabbed? I don't buy from auctions or I would know. And, are really bag marked MS Morgan dollars ever dropped to AU becaus MS-60 does not seem to exist anymore? You make me think too, LOL That's a lot of questions so no need to answer them all.
@telephoto1 said: "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."
...and that would be wrong because it's still not a VF. A Fine with great eye appeal is still a Fine. Now you can argue that it would sell for more money than a run of the mill Fine and I would agree... but wear is still wear, and an attractive appearance doesn't magically make the wear go away.
Well said. I can understand eye-appeal helping the grades of mint state and Proof coins, but not circulated ones. And I don’t think it should even be a consideration.
I disagree!
Stated with great respect Mark. Eye appeal is part of every grade.
Stated with equally great respect, Kevin - not according to the ANA guidelines. Why, for example, should a coin with the details of an XF 45 (that happens to be attractive) be graded AU50 instead? What’s wrong with grading it 45 and letting the market determine the added value for the eye appeal? That would seem much more honest to me.
I've been told over, and,over, and over by major dealers and professional TPGS employees that NO ONE USES THE ANA GRADING GUIDE except for me, collectors, and a bunch of old timers. We would not have so many problems if EVERYONE accepted that standard from the beginning and improved it with some tweeks.
The ANA GUIDE does not match up to the PCGS Online Grading Guide, or the Bowers Grading Guide because Gradflation has made it obsolete. I agree with Mr. Feld. No circulated coin shuld be bumped a grade for eye apeal. Grade the coin and let the buyer and seller price it. I don't think that is "Market Grading." Don't the TPGS's place a value on the coin by the grade they assign?
@Married2Coins said:
I agree with Mr. Feld. No circulated coin shuld be bumped a grade for eye apeal. Grade the coin and let the buyer >and seller price it.** I don't think that is "Market Grading." Don't the TPGS's place a value on the coin by the grade >they assign?
That's exactly what happened in the past, including the 1985 example (right before the TPGs commenced operations) as explained by JA in the CoinWeek 2022 interview.
It appears that RISING prices are the impetus for the "slide" into market grading, as JA sees it. Coins that had great eye appeal and looked good were selling for more than their warranted grade so they were graded by what higher-graded coins SOLD for.
As JA said, AU coins were selling for MS prices, so they needed to be graded MS.
The following terms are being used very liberally.
"Market Grading." is not a well defined standard.
"Market Acceptable" is not well defined. Exactly who decides what is market acceptable?
Most seem to agree that grading is subjective, undefined characteristics like eye-appeal and toning are subjective among dealers, collectors, and even the professional graders.
@shish said:
"Except eye appeal is nowhere in their published standards. If it were part of their grading, "I'm sure they would have made the distinction. "
I disagree! The published standards need to be updated because they do not accurately describe the actual standards currently used. Eye-appeal is absolutely part of the market grading used today.
For VF coins?
Yes, and even for AG coins. I thought everyone knew that. That may explain why 95% of tour collection is raw. >
If I may introduce a new wrinkle, what about Details coins?
Last week I watched a PCGS video on grading, and they stated that their service was created to facilitate sight-unseen trading between dealers. They went on to say that there should not be any market, or net, grading. They offered the example of an AU with a scratch being called an XF - something a dealer would not be happy to receive on a sight-unseen bid.
Coins not acceptable to a sight-unseen trade could still be marked authentic, but given a details grade stating the reason. To me this creates a secondary pool of effectively ungraded coins that an individual dealer or collector might find quite acceptable, but a sight-unseen trading market would not. Or, the coin could be garbage - who could tell without seeing it?
Well, we know that the grades are not simply used for sight-unseen trading, and certainly not only by dealers.
As the initial purpose of the third-party grading becomes more oriented towards collectors, there are coins that may migrate out of the details pool back into a market-acceptable grade. After all, there can be a lot of lost value in that Details coin waiting to be recouped. I have several myself. If my 1924 SLQ Cleaned became an MS66, or my 1917 Half escaped its “wrap machine mark” designation to become a beautifully toned MS67, there is significant reason to resubmit over and again.
Is there an effect we’re missing as well, where Details coins or coins not previously expected to straight grade are still entering the market?
I think the video you watched may be old. When I started collecting for the second time, problem coins were not graded. Then they were graded as problem coins. Nevertheless, many coins with little problems were straight graded. For me, a problem is a problem. I think many of these coins are now net graded. Anyway, CAC was started because problem coins began creeping into straight slabs. IMO, the two quarters you mentioned will never straight grade so we don't have to worry about what might happen in the future. If anything, the line betwee detail/straight will tighten.
Nonsense, as every experienced feature and grader in this thread has pointed out. Mark was a professional grader. Were you?
Mark wrote this: "Even though it sometimes does, I don’t think even appeal should bump the grades of AU
coins, either. Grades below 60 should be about wear, not attractiveness.
I AGREE 100 % with Mr. Feld's statement quoted above. HOWEVER, IMHO, any worthwhile collector/dealer/professional grader KNOWS that coins are bumped for eye appeal into a higher grade all the time AND THAT GOES FOR AU's BUMPED TO MS! Is it right? Well, apparently it is "market acceptable."
Furthermore, I don't have to be a professional grader to have an opinion THAT I CAN BACK UP. You are not a professional grader but you post your opinions all over the place! In fact, you are one of my favorite five star members because you make me think. It's just one of the things that makes CU the #1 numismatic chat forum on the Internet! So the real question is, what do you, as not a professional grader, believe?
My statement that an attractive coin will ALWAYS be picked over a nasty one of the same grade; Mr. Feld's statement; or both?
It appears you may need a hint. The correct answer is BOTH statements are correct.
Eye appeal is considered in AU and MS. I think we've all agreed on that. But VF?
I'm sure, just due to subjectivity that a VF 37.5 might end up in an XF 40 holder based on eye appeal. But that's not an official standard. And I can't imagine a straight up 30 or 35 being bumped to 40. Nor is such a standard published anywhere.
@Married2Coins said: @jmlanzaf said: "There are "market acceptable" coins with problems. If "details" coins start getting straight graded, the TPGS's are finished and coin values will collapse.
Er what? I thought you were a long time collector? "Details" coins have been straight graded for years! Why do you think CACG is getting jumped on all over the place? I guess what they consider to be "market acceptable" is different from others.
PS I hope someone from CACG can teach at ANA's Summer Seminar. It would be a new class or Instructor I have not experienced more than once.
I'm talking "details" graded coins not the lightly dipped bust halves that have been market acceptable forever.
As per CACG, they are redefining market acceptable. The whole reason for CAC was to try and sort out the coins in specific grades. JA felt the C coins were dragging down prices. So promoting "details " coins to straight grades, as I said, would crush prices and TPGS's with them because you'd have, as the OP to whom I responded suggested, cleaned MS 66 SLQS side by side with problem free MS66 SLQs. The result would be that price guides would treat every MS66 as though it were cleaned.
For better or worse, the current standards reflect certain MA issues in certain series. This is known and understood. It is, frankly, problematic to become stricter with these MA problems. It is absolutely destructive to become looser with them.
Note: high point rub is in something of a separate category.
Comments
@jmlanzaf wrote: "You've written more words explaining how your post disappeared than it would take to rewrite it."
and: "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." [BECAUSE...]
Again, 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. _ You also don't know the time it took to lay it all out. I guess a lot of posters assume things.
The fact is there must be certain things that while true, should not be posted. Therefore, I can't refute much of what you have written, ask direct questions to position your opinion, and challenge your opinion - much of which is obviously true - because of the REASONS, the WHY in my ghost post.
That's all folks.
@jmlanzaf,
I owe you an apology. I'm going about this all wrong. Since you know more about the coin business than I ever will, please share your knowledge with me. Why do you think CAC will not sticker ANACS or ICG coins?
I know you didn't ask for my opinion, but I'm speculating that back when reviews used to be free, they didn't want to waste their time. Nowadays, JA would feel guilty taking the fees for so many rejects.
That's a good question which JA has probably addressed. It might be a simple as he doesn't want to buy them.
There may also be practical issues as there are gaps in the databases of those conpanies.
Will you just say what you are trying to say?
"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."
...and that would be wrong because it's still not a VF. A Fine with great eye appeal is still a Fine. Now you can argue that it would sell for more money than a run of the mill Fine and I would agree... but wear is still wear, and an attractive appearance doesn't magically make the wear go away.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
Well said. I can understand eye-appeal helping the grades of mint state and Proof coins, but not circulated ones. And I don’t think it should even be a consideration.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
If I remember correctly, the main reason given was the lack of population reports from the other grading companies.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I took a brief look and couldn't find his specific comments. But I do remember an issue with the databases. I wish Skip would just state whatever point he's trying to make.
I obv didn't make the video, but if eye appeal didn't factor into the grade - even for F/VF coins, I'm sure they would have made the distinction. I can see where an F17 (if it existed) had great eye appeal you could call if VF20. I have seen some very circulated coins that have surprising eye appeal, and evidently PCGS recognizes it too.
Who says they aren’t randomly selected? For many years dealers and some collectors threw everything they purchased at CAC hoping for a sticker. So it CANNOT be said everything was carefully selected. Now that prices have gone up and the sticker fail rate is assessed 75% of the time things will change more from random submissions
I asked you a question to educate me and you answered it. Thanks. It is a rare thing to get a direct answer to a question. I'll have some more questions and hopefully you'll take the time to reply.
Except eye appeal is nowhere in their published standards. If it were part of their grading, "I'm sure they would have made the distinction. "
Here are some more pcgs videos on this eye appeal stuff.
I am not voicing an opinion here but rather passing on these videos.
There is a pcgs Eye Appeal video (link below) and it is limited to Uncirculated coins. The video starts with some up front information (screen shot posted below). The video then covers examples of what each of the types of eye appeal might look like. The video finishes with how each of these types of eye appeal could impact the grade (screen shot posted below).
https://youtube.com/watch?v=1UcNbPbu9u8
.
.
There is a pcgs How to Grade Circulated Coins and link below. The video starts with some up front information (screen shot posted below). This information identifies eye appeal on the circulated coin. The screenshot notes how the grade could be bumped within a grade. The video talking notes how eye appeal does not bump a coin from one grade to another (I think the examples were not from VG to F or not from VF to XF. Kind of confusing as he says seldom and then later notes that wear is just to important to jump a grade.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=BTsfq7riLb8
.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=_KWVk0XeB9o - Ruby Starr (from 'Go Jim Dandy') Piece Of My Heart
.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=D0FPxuQv2ns - Ruby Starr (from 'Go Jim Dandy') Maybe I'm Amazed
RLJ 1958 - 2023
\
That makes more sense. Thank you.
The quantitative numbers crunching aside....I would just point out that there were several threads -- here and elsewhere -- talking about how on a particular coin.... individuals attempted to get an upgrade they felt was merited....failed to get it several times....and then watched another collector or dealer get it into a holder 1-2 grades higher, sometimes with CAC as the icing on the cake. $400 coins turned into $10,000 ones, or something like that.
Some of you reading this may have even participated on those threads. I'm not sure they are still around, but I remember reading them and even copying-and-pasting some of the critical posts for me to learn from.
There's no doubt that "market grading" entered the equation over various periods of time since the 1990's. What I find fascinating is that even JA himself has said there was nothing nefarious about it....you had business and relationships at stake and when prices rose tremendously you had to adapt or just take a multi-year sabbatical from collecting or doing business. How many of us would do THAT ?
Read the JA interview from late-2022 in CoinWeek. I thought he would have been very dismissive and critical of the market grading slide. He was anything but.
Read JA's comments on the Type Gold coins in the mid-1980's. Scroll about 1/4 down:
https://coinweek.com/a-cac-grading-service-coinweek-interview-with-john-albanese/
Mark (or any other vet)....off the top of your head, can you think of any coin that 20-25 years ago (after a decade-plus of TPGs from the late-1980's) had a population in a high-grade for maybe, say, 5-15 coins....and today has exactly the same number, maybe only an increase of 1 only ?
I know it's rare, but I actually was going over the pop numbers for some Saints and MSDs between the early-2000's and today and found one or two. I forgot which 1 or 2 coins were rock-steady but I'll go back and check and report back.
I'm talking a coin with an available population -- like I said, maybe 5-15 or 20 -- not something where it's a population of 1 over long periods of time like the 1933 DE or something like that with other coins.
I dont recall any specific examples of that but have certainly seen some.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
JA describes and ebb and flow with grading which is what I have stated before. Statistically grades will tighten and then loosen back again over time. Keep in mind though, there is definitely a limit. PCGS's grade guarantee pretty much keeps grades from getting too loose because once a coin is "overgraded" any coin owner can submit for payment from PCGS. I get that within a half a grade PCGS can argue that it's accurate, but getting more than that is a big financial risk.
"Except eye appeal is nowhere in their published standards. If it were part of their grading, "I'm sure they would have made the distinction. "
I disagree! The published standards need to be updated because they do not accurately describe the actual standards currently used. Eye-appeal is absolutely part of the market grading used today.
For VF coins?
Good point, mainly for AU and uncirculated coins.
"Who says they aren’t randomly selected? For many years dealers and some collectors threw everything they purchased at CAC hoping for a sticker. So it CANNOT be said everything was carefully selected. Now that prices have gone up and the sticker fail rate is assessed 75% of the time things will change more from random submissions."
I agree that not everything was carefully selected. However, I am very confident that the vast majority of dealers and collectors have not "threw everything they purchased at CAC hoping for a sticker."
Even though it sometimes does, I don’t think even appeal should bump the grades of AU coins, either. Grades below 60 should be about wear, not attractiveness.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
If I may introduce a new wrinkle, what about Details coins?
Last week I watched a PCGS video on grading, and they stated that their service was created to facilitate sight-unseen trading between dealers. They went on to say that there should not be any market, or net, grading. They offered the example of an AU with a scratch being called an XF - something a dealer would not be happy to receive on a sight-unseen bid.
Coins not acceptable to a sight-unseen trade could still be marked authentic, but given a details grade stating the reason. To me this creates a secondary pool of effectively ungraded coins that an individual dealer or collector might find quite acceptable, but a sight-unseen trading market would not. Or, the coin could be garbage - who could tell without seeing it?
Well, we know that the grades are not simply used for sight-unseen trading, and certainly not only by dealers.
As the initial purpose of the third-party grading becomes more oriented towards collectors, there are coins that may migrate out of the details pool back into a market-acceptable grade. After all, there can be a lot of lost value in that Details coin waiting to be recouped. I have several myself. If my 1924 SLQ Cleaned became an MS66, or my 1917 Half escaped its “wrap machine mark” designation to become a beautifully toned MS67, there is significant reason to resubmit over and again.
Is there an effect we’re missing as well, where Details coins or coins not previously expected to straight grade are still entering the market?
LOL, I'll bet whomever you believe they are were connected in some way to either PCGS or NGC. Otherwise, name one!
Yes, and even for AG coins. I thought everyone knew that. That may explain why 95% of tour collection is raw. >
@Ronsanderson said:
I think the video you watched may be old. When I started collecting for the second time, problem coins were not graded. Then they were graded as problem coins. Nevertheless, many coins with little problems were straight graded. For me, a problem is a problem. I think many of these coins are now net graded. Anyway, CAC was started because problem coins began creeping into straight slabs. IMO, the two quarters you mentioned will never straight grade so we don't have to worry about what might happen in the future. If anything, the line betwee detail/straight will tighten.
I respet what you write and agree that eye appeal is most imoportant in the MS range (sometimes raising a grade far above what it should be to indicate its value**), come on. An attractive coin at any grade will be picked over a nasty one ALL THE TIME!
** I remember seing my MS-64 max $20 Liberty raised to MS-66 or MS-67 due to its color (eye appeal) somewhere.
I understand your point but then what differentiates a 55 from a 55+ or 58 from a 58+? With 8 AU grades available it seems there should be more than wear in the grade.
Nonsense, as every experienced feature and grader in this thread has pointed out. Mark was a professional grader. Were you?
Getting "picked" is not the same as changing the numerical grade.
There are "market acceptable" coins with problems.
If "details" coins start getting straight graded, the TPGS's are finished and coin values will collapse.
If something other than wear is needed in order to differentiate between all of the AU grades, perhaps there are too many of them.
In answer to your question - subjectivity.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I agree there are too many of them. I would prefer + grades only be used on MS pieces.
4 AU grades was more than enough.
Yes, eye appeal for VF coins. He said market grading used today.
My 1866 Philly Mint Set
I disagree!
Stated with great respect Mark. Eye appeal is part of every grade.
My 1866 Philly Mint Set
Stated with equally great respect, Kevin - not according to the ANA guidelines. Why, for example, should a coin with the details of an XF 45 (that happens to be attractive) be graded AU50 instead? What’s wrong with grading it 45 and letting the market determine the added value for the eye appeal? That would seem much more honest to me.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I regularly see coins with "attractive toning" given a higher grade than they otherwise deserve. Seems like this is pretty standard.
It’s fairly commonplace for mint state and Proof coins. But it’s not nearly as frequently done for circulated coins, which tend to have much more specific grading standards. And those standards should lead to greater objectivity and consistency. Additionally, the ANA grading guidelines (which I saw listed by PCGS) don’t include eye appeal in grades below AU.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
People keep saying this, but no one can point to a reference or even a grader who says so.
To me, I would differentiate between the slightest wear/rub on a SINGLE high point vs. visible rub/wear on MULTIPLE surface locations and/or cleaning or other substantial alterations on the high points, fields, etc.
We already do. What does that have to do with straight grading details coins?
Mark wrote this: "Even though it sometimes does, I don’t think even appeal should bump the grades of AU
coins, either. Grades below 60 should be about wear, not attractiveness.
I AGREE 100 % with Mr. Feld's statement quoted above. HOWEVER, IMHO, any worthwhile collector/dealer/professional grader KNOWS that coins are bumped for eye appeal into a higher grade all the time AND THAT GOES FOR AU's BUMPED TO MS! Is it right? Well, apparently it is "market acceptable."
Furthermore, I don't have to be a professional grader to have an opinion THAT I CAN BACK UP. You are not a professional grader but you post your opinions all over the place! In fact, you
are one of my favorite five star members because you make me think. It's just one of the things that makes CU the #1 numismatic chat forum on the Internet! So the real question is, what do you, as not a professional grader, believe?
My statement that an attractive coin will ALWAYS be picked over a nasty one of the same grade; Mr. Feld's statement; or both?
It appears you may need a hint. The correct answer is BOTH statements are correct.
@jmlanzaf said: "There are "market acceptable" coins with problems. If "details" coins start getting straight graded, the TPGS's are finished and coin values will collapse.
Er what? I thought you were a long time collector? "Details" coins have been straight graded for years! Why do you think CACG is getting jumped on all over the place? I guess what they consider to be "market acceptable" is different from others.
PS I hope someone from CACG can teach at ANA's Summer Seminar. It would be a new class or Instructor I have not experienced more than once.
Mr. Feld. a long time ago, marks determined the AU grade also. That's what made a coin AU Typical or AU Choice.
I don't think this applies anymore; however, marks and amount of wear still seem to be connected for the range of AU grades. When you were a third-party professional grader, what were you told to do by the company you worked for. Has it changed over the years. How do you grade AU's for Heritage or are all the coins slabbed? I don't buy from auctions or I would know. And, are really bag marked MS Morgan dollars ever dropped to AU becaus MS-60 does not seem to exist anymore? You make me think too, LOL That's a lot of questions so no need to answer them all.
I've been told over, and,over, and over by major dealers and professional TPGS employees that NO ONE USES THE ANA GRADING GUIDE except for me, collectors, and a bunch of old timers. We would not have so many problems if EVERYONE accepted that standard from the beginning and improved it with some tweeks.
The ANA GUIDE does not match up to the PCGS Online Grading Guide, or the Bowers Grading Guide because Gradflation has made it obsolete. I agree with Mr. Feld. No circulated coin shuld be bumped a grade for eye apeal. Grade the coin and let the buyer and seller price it. I don't think that is "Market Grading." Don't the TPGS's place a value on the coin by the grade they assign?
That's exactly what happened in the past, including the 1985 example (right before the TPGs commenced operations) as explained by JA in the CoinWeek 2022 interview.
It appears that RISING prices are the impetus for the "slide" into market grading, as JA sees it. Coins that had great eye appeal and looked good were selling for more than their warranted grade so they were graded by what higher-graded coins SOLD for.
As JA said, AU coins were selling for MS prices, so they needed to be graded MS.
The following terms are being used very liberally.
"Market Grading." is not a well defined standard.
"Market Acceptable" is not well defined. Exactly who decides what is market acceptable?
Most seem to agree that grading is subjective, undefined characteristics like eye-appeal and toning are subjective among dealers, collectors, and even the professional graders.
Eye appeal is considered in AU and MS. I think we've all agreed on that. But VF?
I'm sure, just due to subjectivity that a VF 37.5 might end up in an XF 40 holder based on eye appeal. But that's not an official standard. And I can't imagine a straight up 30 or 35 being bumped to 40. Nor is such a standard published anywhere.
But YMMV.
I'm talking "details" graded coins not the lightly dipped bust halves that have been market acceptable forever.
As per CACG, they are redefining market acceptable. The whole reason for CAC was to try and sort out the coins in specific grades. JA felt the C coins were dragging down prices. So promoting "details " coins to straight grades, as I said, would crush prices and TPGS's with them because you'd have, as the OP to whom I responded suggested, cleaned MS 66 SLQS side by side with problem free MS66 SLQs. The result would be that price guides would treat every MS66 as though it were cleaned.
For better or worse, the current standards reflect certain MA issues in certain series. This is known and understood. It is, frankly, problematic to become stricter with these MA problems. It is absolutely destructive to become looser with them.
Note: high point rub is in something of a separate category.