If eye appeal is going to be taken into consideration for well circulated coins, I'd prefer the TPG's downgrade an unattractive 'D' coin then upgrade a coin with nice eye appeal.
@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 first time I ever heard of grade creep was in the intro of Grading Coins by Photographs by David Bowers. He wrote the same thing. AU's of the past were being graded MS!! What JA said has to happen.
@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.
But YMMV.
Please don't change what I wrote to change what was written. Of course a VF++ may get an XF sooner or later. That's why coins are resubmitted. Dealer a buys it from dealer B who already tried it. LOL. Some coins mut eventually get upgraded. We agree on that. EVERYONE SHOULD KNOW THERE IS NO OFFICIAL STANDARD, but thanks for the reminder for any new collectors reading our posts. BTW, thanks for your respectful replies. You have more "class" than I can muster.
I posted that any knowledgeable person will pick an attractive coin over an inferior coin at the same grade - EVERY TIME! Additionally there is no standard for eye appeal.
I sure would like to know what a "lightly dipped" Bust half looks like. That's a new one to me. Is that some conservation trick they do at PCGS and NCS? Perhaps you know they have % standards for the dipping chemical or specific amounts of time in the chemical? I have never read anything about "light dipping" anywhere. Is it like a "quick dip?" I've see that term used but don't know what it means exactly. I thought it was just a normal dip whatever that is. Anyway, I don't wish to change the subject so please don't reply. I'll find out for myself in a new discussion. THANKS!!!
@jmlanzaf said:
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.
Well they can try to redefine it. Can't fault them for trying. Things are the way they are because of the market, I don't think you can tell the market they want something different. That doesn't mean there aren't going to be segments of the market that appreciate the stricter standard - there's always a place for quality. But a lot of people like the market just how it is.
@jmlanzaf said:
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.
Well they can try to redefine it. Can't fault them for trying. Things are the way they are because of the market, I don't think you can tell the market they want something different. That doesn't mean there aren't going to be segments of the market that appreciate the stricter standard - there's always a place for quality. But a lot of people like the market just how it is.
I agree, to a point. Different TPGS's get different prices already. So the market does know how to handle this.
All grading is market grading. The market establishes what is an acceptable standard that is recognized by buyers and sellers. There have been many standards proposed over the years, and the majority of those standards have been rejected by the market, which makes them largely irrelevant. The only way grading will ever be set by something other than the market is if a third party government agency establishes and enforces a grading standard with penalties attached to not following the legally required standard.
What is frustrating people isn’t that the market sets the standard for grading coins…it’s that the market has established several standards and that those standards aren’t chiseled into granite tablets handed down by the coin god. PCGS has a market standard. NGC has a market standard. CAC has a market standard. ANACS has a market standard. Within each company’s pool of graded coins, there is relative similarity within certain specific periods of time. The PCGS standard in 2023 is going to be pretty close to the PCGS standard in 2024, but it may not match the NGC standard for 2023. Neither the NGC nor the PCGS standards for 2023 will match the NGC and PCGS standards for 1990. That’s because the market changed.
I don't care how others would grade my coins! All I know is, that all my nickels must have a full/EDS strike, wherever I can find them. And with Jeffs and the higher percentage of the very hard element of nickel, 25%, locating the "first strikes" of that series.....well, you're never going to know just how difficult the search is for such coins unless you've been hunting for them for a while. You're not going to know squat until you do! lol Not every encapsulated MS Jefferson nickel has the complete details I'm after. In fact, from 34 years of experience, you will be lucky to find an EDS strike in any holder! I don't have the slightest idea what other collectors are looking at when their selections don't have deep hairlines, sharp windows and end-step details, etc, nope! But I'll just keep stacking those bullet strikes til the day I die while the rest somehow get off on compensated steps nickels. Why anyone would want a coin with an incomplete strike escapes me unless they just can't find them! Something that's quite obvious from the posted photos in Registry Sets and Coinfacts. But there are a few exceptional coins I like viewing, just a few.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
Since you know more about the coin business than I ever will, I have another question for you:
In your opinion what are the specific REASONS most dealers (and myself) say/believe/can demonstrate with proof that a coin graded by PCGS generally brings more money that one graded by NGC?
@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.
Reps of PCGS have defended higher grades based upon eye appeal on this message board.
@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.
Reps of PCGS have defended higher grades based upon eye appeal on this message board.
Have you seen them do so specifically for coins graded lower than AU or just in general? I’ve seen the latter but not the former.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@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.
Reps of PCGS have defended higher grades based upon eye appeal on this message board.
Have you seen them do so specifically for coins graded lower than AU or just in general? I’ve seen the latter but not the former.
Yes. This was in reference to a 55-S half graded F15 compared to a 55-O in VF25. The poster who owned the 55-S wanted to know why it didn't grade as high as the VF25 55-O did. A PCGS rep argued in effect, that the lack of hits and choice overall look explained the grade differential, not necessarily the wear on LIBERTY. I'll have to hunt down the thread and link to it.
Here's the PCGS VF25 55-O it was compared to. It's very choice for a VF25, IMO, with an excellent reverse.
@jmlanzaf said:
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.
Well they can try to redefine it. Can't fault them for trying. Things are the way they are because of the market, I don't think you can tell the market they want something different. That doesn't mean there aren't going to be segments of the market that appreciate the stricter standard - there's always a place for quality. But a lot of people like the market just how it is.
I agree, to a point. Different TPGS's get different prices already. So the market does know how to handle this.> @Insider3 said:
Since you know more about the coin business than I ever will, I have another question for you:
In your opinion what are the specific REASONS most dealers (and myself) say/believe/can demonstrate with proof that a coin graded by PCGS generally brings more money that one graded by NGC?
Thanks in advance.
Part of it is that, in SOME series, they are stricter than NGC. Registry sets also drive some prices, although not the trophies.
Some of it, frankly, is just emotional. For example, why does an NGC CAC sell for less than a PCGS CAC? You'd think the difference between the two coins would have to be minor.
@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.
Reps of PCGS have defended higher grades based upon eye appeal on this message board.
Have you seen them do so specifically for coins graded lower than AU or just in general? I’ve seen the latter but not the former.
There should be all kinds of colorful XF coins in AU holders if this was true. An attractive VF in an XF holder would stand out, wouldn't it?
@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.
Reps of PCGS have defended higher grades based upon eye appeal on this message board.
Have you seen them do so specifically for coins graded lower than AU or just in general? I’ve seen the latter but not the former.
There should be all kinds of colorful XF coins in AU holders if this was true. An attractive VF in an XF holder would stand out, wouldn't it?
How about the mysterious world between F12 and VF25 in seated halves with historically shifting standards with respect to wear on LIBERTY?
I have some examples of coins that I feel are overgraded for eye appeal within VF. They're choice coins with excellent eye appeal, IMO, but have too much wear for the grade. I've shown photos on the CAC boards and JA has questioned their grades based upon their strike & wear as well. I don't recall seeing a VF coin in an EF holder.
@jmlanzaf said:
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.
Well they can try to redefine it. Can't fault them for trying. Things are the way they are because of the market, I don't think you can tell the market they want something different. That doesn't mean there aren't going to be segments of the market that appreciate the stricter standard - there's always a place for quality. But a lot of people like the market just how it is.
I agree, to a point. Different TPGS's get different prices already. So the market does know how to handle this.> @Insider3 said:
Since you know more about the coin business than I ever will, I have another question for you:
In your opinion what are the specific REASONS most dealers (and myself) say/believe/can demonstrate with proof that a coin graded by PCGS generally brings more money that one graded by NGC?
Thanks in advance.
Part of it is that, in SOME series, they are stricter than NGC. Registry sets also drive some prices, although not the trophies.
Some of it, frankly, is just emotional. For example, why does an NGC CAC sell for less than a PCGS CAC? You'd think the difference between the two coins would have to be minor.
This answer does not help much. So stricter in SOME series? That should indicate that in other series they grade about the same so the coins should sell for the same money. Apparently they do not. As for "emotional", something must drive that. Do you have any ideas. Is it advertising? Is it PCGS was around first? It is a simple question. Why does the same coin in the same grade sell for more in the PCGS slab than it would in an NGC slab or a second tier TPGS. There must be several reasons. I don't buy the single "stricter grading" answer, otherwise I would not be able to hit the exact PCGS or NGC grade over 90% with the label covered.
I just go by the PCGS standards (works for me) and the rest of those birds out there can just fly off to Miss Mondo Italia. Fantastic, love their Techno music too.
@Insider3 said:
This answer does not help much. So stricter in SOME series? That should indicate that in other series they grade >about the same so the coins should sell for the same money. Apparently they do not. As for "emotional", >something must drive that. Do you have any ideas. Is it advertising? Is it PCGS was around first? It is a simple >question. Why does the same coin in the same grade sell for more in the PCGS slab than it would in an NGC slab or >a second tier TPGS. There must be several reasons. I don't buy the single "stricter grading" answer, otherwise I >would not be able to hit the exact PCGS or NGC grade over 90% with the label covered.
Is it possible a function of the coins themselves and when they were submitted ? For instance, JA has a reputation for being "tough" on gold but maybe he sees lots of gold coins that were liberally graded.
If at a certain time the TPGs got more expensive coins -- let's say, when they first commenced operations -- you would think submitters would send in those expensive coins and get them graded first over cheaper coins, right ? If the first batch of coins (expensive) were sent to the first batch of graders (conservative)....you have expensive coins graded tightly.
Fast-forward 10 or 15 or 20 years after the TPGs are up-and-running....now you have some novice graders (more liberal) and they're seeing small denomination, cheaper coins instead of trophy coins, Saints and gold coins, and Morgans and pricey silver. These get liberally graded.
Not saying this is definitely what happened, but elements of it could have taken place.
@jmlanzaf said:
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.
Well they can try to redefine it. Can't fault them for trying. Things are the way they are because of the market, I don't think you can tell the market they want something different. That doesn't mean there aren't going to be segments of the market that appreciate the stricter standard - there's always a place for quality. But a lot of people like the market just how it is.
I agree, to a point. Different TPGS's get different prices already. So the market> @Barberian said:
@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.
Reps of PCGS have defended higher grades based upon eye appeal on this message board.
Have you seen them do so specifically for coins graded lower than AU or just in general? I’ve seen the latter but not the former.
There should be all kinds of colorful XF coins in AU holders if this was true. An attractive VF in an XF holder would stand out, wouldn't it?
How about the mysterious world between F12 and VF25 in seated halves with historically shifting standards with respect to wear on LIBERTY?
I have some examples of coins that I feel are overgraded for eye appeal within VF. They're choice coins with excellent eye appeal, IMO, but have too much wear for the grade. I've shown photos on the CAC boards and JA has questioned their grades based upon their strike & wear as well. I don't recall seeing a VF coin in an EF holder.
PCGS VF30 - JA: "Where's the E?"
Why isn't that just "grade creep" or "grade inflation"? Buffalo nickels no longer have full horns on VF coins. But that's a shift in the standard not elevation of select coins.
@jmlanzaf said:
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.
Well they can try to redefine it. Can't fault them for trying. Things are the way they are because of the market, I don't think you can tell the market they want something different. That doesn't mean there aren't going to be segments of the market that appreciate the stricter standard - there's always a place for quality. But a lot of people like the market just how it is.
I agree, to a point. Different TPGS's get different prices already. So the market does not know how to handle this> @Insider3 said:
@jmlanzaf said:
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.
Well they can try to redefine it. Can't fault them for trying. Things are the way they are because of the market, I don't think you can tell the market they want something different. That doesn't mean there aren't going to be segments of the market that appreciate the stricter standard - there's always a place for quality. But a lot of people like the market just how it is.
I agree, to a point. Different TPGS's get different prices already. So the market does know how to handle this.> @Insider3 said:
Since you know more about the coin business than I ever will, I have another question for you:
In your opinion what are the specific REASONS most dealers (and myself) say/believe/can demonstrate with proof that a coin graded by PCGS generally brings more money that one graded by NGC?
Thanks in advance.
Part of it is that, in SOME series, they are stricter than NGC. Registry sets also drive some prices, although not the trophies.
Some of it, frankly, is just emotional. For example, why does an NGC CAC sell for less than a PCGS CAC? You'd think the difference between the two coins would have to be minor.
This answer does not help much. So stricter in SOME series? That should indicate that in other series they grade about the same so the coins should sell for the same money. Apparently they do not. As for "emotional", something must drive that. Do you have any ideas. Is it advertising? Is it PCGS was around first? It is a simple question. Why does the same coin in the same grade sell for more in the PCGS slab than it would in an NGC slab or a second tier TPGS. There must be several reasons. I don't buy the single "stricter grading" answer, otherwise I would not be able to hit the exact PCGS or NGC grade over 90% with the label covered.
I mentioned registry sets and "emotions" (reputation? Advertising). I'm sorry. I don't really have a better answer. I'm not sure there is one. Take an MS65 Morgan in an NGC slab, cross it to PCGS and it will likely sell for more money, even though it's the same coin. It's not strictly a question of grading tightness. There at other factors at play including demand for the slab (registry?) and market "perception".
@jmlanzaf said:
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.
Well they can try to redefine it. Can't fault them for trying. Things are the way they are because of the market, I don't think you can tell the market they want something different. That doesn't mean there aren't going to be segments of the market that appreciate the stricter standard - there's always a place for quality. But a lot of people like the market just how it is.
I agree, to a point. Different TPGS's get different prices already. So the market> @Barberian said:
@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.
Reps of PCGS have defended higher grades based upon eye appeal on this message board.
Have you seen them do so specifically for coins graded lower than AU or just in general? I’ve seen the latter but not the former.
There should be all kinds of colorful XF coins in AU holders if this was true. An attractive VF in an XF holder would stand out, wouldn't it?
How about the mysterious world between F12 and VF25 in seated halves with historically shifting standards with respect to wear on LIBERTY?
I have some examples of coins that I feel are overgraded for eye appeal within VF. They're choice coins with excellent eye appeal, IMO, but have too much wear for the grade. I've shown photos on the CAC boards and JA has questioned their grades based upon their strike & wear as well. I don't recall seeing a VF coin in an EF holder.
PCGS VF30 - JA: "Where's the E?"
Why isn't that just "grade creep" or "grade inflation"? Buffalo nickels no longer have full horns on VF coins. But that's a shift in the standard not elevation of select coins.
The word "Liberty" is only one place to look when grading ANY coin. This was a "guide point" early on as it was a short-and-sweet statement that worked fairly well on most types of fully struck coins.
@jmlanzaf said:
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.
Well they can try to redefine it. Can't fault them for trying. Things are the way they are because of the market, I don't think you can tell the market they want something different. That doesn't mean there aren't going to be segments of the market that appreciate the stricter standard - there's always a place for quality. But a lot of people like the market just how it is.
I agree, to a point. Different TPGS's get different prices already. So the market does not know how to handle this> @Insider3 said:
@jmlanzaf said:
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.
Well they can try to redefine it. Can't fault them for trying. Things are the way they are because of the market, I don't think you can tell the market they want something different. That doesn't mean there aren't going to be segments of the market that appreciate the stricter standard - there's always a place for quality. But a lot of people like the market just how it is.
I agree, to a point. Different TPGS's get different prices already. So the market does know how to handle this.> @Insider3 said:
Since you know more about the coin business than I ever will, I have another question for you:
In your opinion what are the specific REASONS most dealers (and myself) say/believe/can demonstrate with proof that a coin graded by PCGS generally brings more money that one graded by NGC?
Thanks in advance.
Part of it is that, in SOME series, they are stricter than NGC. Registry sets also drive some prices, although not the trophies.
Some of it, frankly, is just emotional. For example, why does an NGC CAC sell for less than a PCGS CAC? You'd think the difference between the two coins would have to be minor.
This answer does not help much. So stricter in SOME series? That should indicate that in other series they grade about the same so the coins should sell for the same money. Apparently they do not. As for "emotional", something must drive that. Do you have any ideas. Is it advertising? Is it PCGS was around first? It is a simple question. Why does the same coin in the same grade sell for more in the PCGS slab than it would in an NGC slab or a second tier TPGS. There must be several reasons. I don't buy the single "stricter grading" answer, otherwise I would not be able to hit the exact PCGS or NGC grade over 90% with the label covered.
I mentioned registry sets and "emotions" (reputation? Advertising). I'm sorry. I don't really have a better answer. I'm not sure there is one. Take an MS65 Morgan in an NGC slab, cross it to PCGS and it will likely sell for more money, even though it's the same coin. It's not strictly a question of grading tightness. There at other factors at play including demand for the slab (registry?) and market "perception".
I am trying to pin you down but you are a hard weasel to trap.
The observable FACT is that (so far), a coin is worth more in a PCGS slab than in any other TPGS holder. So it appears the reason PCGS coins usually bring more money MAY be related to advertising, reputation, demand, and buyer preference; yet none of this is related to the coin inside the PCGS holder - unless PCGS grading can be proven to be more strict than that of other TPGS most of the time.
My boss and I cracked out 150 coins for regrading yesterday. It's not a conspiracy or anything, it's just taking advantage of the human factor in the grading equation. Inconsistency.
Professional Numismatist. "It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
@Insider3 said:
The observable FACT is that (so far), a coin is worth more in a PCGS slab than in any other TPGS holder. So it >appears the reason PCGS coins usually bring more money MAY be related to advertising, reputation, demand, and >buyer preference; yet none of this is related to the coin inside the PCGS holder - unless PCGS grading can be proven >to be more strict than that of other TPGS most of the time.
That is certainly true with regards to U.S. coins -- but I do believe NGC trades at a premium for foreign/world coins.
Same thing with currency where NGC's PMG trades at a (slight) premium vs. whoever is #2.
@DelawareDoons said:
My boss and I cracked out 150 coins for regrading yesterday. It's not a conspiracy or anything, it's just taking >advantage of the human factor in the grading equation. Inconsistency.
Just curious....any reason to "crack-out" and resubmit RAW as opposed to sending in the holders with minimum grade guarantee ?
@jmlanzaf said:
I mentioned registry sets and "emotions" (reputation? Advertising). I'm sorry. I don't really have a better answer. I'm not sure there is one. Take an MS65 Morgan in an NGC slab, cross it to PCGS and it will likely sell for more money, even though it's the same coin. It's not strictly a question of grading tightness. There at other factors at play including demand for the slab (registry?) and market "perception".
Yeah, it's reputation. I buy a lot of moderns, typically MS66/MS67-ish. I don't do it often, but I do know that if I buy an NGC MS67 sight unseen there's probably a 40% chance it'll cross to PCGS. As such, I only buy the NGC slabs when the risk/reward is there or I can see the coin in person and can make a judgement.
@jmlanzaf said:
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.
Well they can try to redefine it. Can't fault them for trying. Things are the way they are because of the market, I don't think you can tell the market they want something different. That doesn't mean there aren't going to be segments of the market that appreciate the stricter standard - there's always a place for quality. But a lot of people like the market just how it is.
I agree, to a point. Different TPGS's get different prices already. So the market does not know how to handle this> @Insider3 said:
@jmlanzaf said:
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.
Well they can try to redefine it. Can't fault them for trying. Things are the way they are because of the market, I don't think you can tell the market they want something different. That doesn't mean there aren't going to be segments of the market that appreciate the stricter standard - there's always a place for quality. But a lot of people like the market just how it is.
I agree, to a point. Different TPGS's get different prices already. So the market does know how to handle this.> @Insider3 said:
Since you know more about the coin business than I ever will, I have another question for you:
In your opinion what are the specific REASONS most dealers (and myself) say/believe/can demonstrate with proof that a coin graded by PCGS generally brings more money that one graded by NGC?
Thanks in advance.
Part of it is that, in SOME series, they are stricter than NGC. Registry sets also drive some prices, although not the trophies.
Some of it, frankly, is just emotional. For example, why does an NGC CAC sell for less than a PCGS CAC? You'd think the difference between the two coins would have to be minor.
This answer does not help much. So stricter in SOME series? That should indicate that in other series they grade about the same so the coins should sell for the same money. Apparently they do not. As for "emotional", something must drive that. Do you have any ideas. Is it advertising? Is it PCGS was around first? It is a simple question. Why does the same coin in the same grade sell for more in the PCGS slab than it would in an NGC slab or a second tier TPGS. There must be several reasons. I don't buy the single "stricter grading" answer, otherwise I would not be able to hit the exact PCGS or NGC grade over 90% with the label covered.
I mentioned registry sets and "emotions" (reputation? Advertising). I'm sorry. I don't really have a better answer. I'm not sure there is one. Take an MS65 Morgan in an NGC slab, cross it to PCGS and it will likely sell for more money, even though it's the same coin. It's not strictly a question of grading tightness. There at other factors at play including demand for the slab (registry?) and market "perception".
I am trying to pin you down but you are a hard weasel to trap.
The observable FACT is that (so far), a coin is worth more in a PCGS slab than in any other TPGS holder. So it appears the reason PCGS coins usually bring more money MAY be related to advertising, reputation, demand, and buyer preference; yet none of this is related to the coin inside the PCGS holder - unless PCGS grading can be proven to be more strict than that of other TPGS most of the time.
IMHO there is no debate that PCGS has been more strict in many series most of the time. However, currently I'm convinced that CACG is now the leader in both strict standards and consistency.
@Insider3 said:
The observable FACT is that (so far), a coin is worth more in a PCGS slab than in any other TPGS holder. So it >appears the reason PCGS coins usually bring more money MAY be related to advertising, reputation, demand, and >buyer preference; yet none of this is related to the coin inside the PCGS holder - unless PCGS grading can be proven >to be more strict than that of other TPGS most of the time.
That is certainly true with regards to U.S. coins -- but I do believe NGC trades at a premium for foreign/world coins.
Same thing with currency where NGC's PMG trades at a (slight) premium vs. whoever is #2.
PCGS grading of Canadian and Newfoundland coins has opened up new horizons in questionable grading, IMO. It's become funny to me how out-of-kilter PCGS is with other TPGs at grading these coins. Given the strongly escalating prices with higher grades in Newfy halves, I may even have then grade my Newfies so I can get their standard, to the moon, two-level grade overestimation. It's wonderful to have $50 coins become $500 book-value coins simply by sending them to the highly reputable PCGS for grading. Unfortunately, it cuts both ways when It's time to sell, and PCGS is not the brand to have for circulated Canadian coins.
And y'all probably think I'm pulling your leg here.
@DelawareDoons said:
My boss and I cracked out 150 coins for regrading yesterday. It's not a conspiracy or anything, it's just taking >advantage of the human factor in the grading equation. Inconsistency.
Just curious....any reason to "crack-out" and resubmit RAW as opposed to sending in the holders with minimum grade guarantee ?
You're far more likely to get the grades you want raw.
Professional Numismatist. "It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
All grading is market grading. The market establishes what is an acceptable standard that is recognized by buyers and sellers.
IDK, "the market" sounds pretty nebulous to me. Or do you mean the market economics, pretty much what drives all business models, revenue & profitability.
Now if you say the market is the millions of grading submissions and the resultant buys & sells, I think the TPGs set their own standards based on the old ANA guidelines and their business model, revenue-risk appetite.
@coastaljerseyguy said: All grading is market grading. The market establishes what is an acceptable standard that is recognized by buyers and sellers.
IDK, "the market" sounds pretty nebulous to me. Or do you mean the market economics, pretty much what drives all business models, revenue & profitability.
Now if you say the market is the millions of grading submissions and the resultant buys & sells, I think the TPGs set their own standards based on the old ANA guidelines and their business model, revenue-risk appetite.
Long ago, I think the major TPGS started closer to the ANA standards. They are not so close anymore as the ANA standards were published at least forty years ago. Gradeflation - the subject of this discussion.
@coastaljerseyguy said: All grading is market grading. The market establishes what is an acceptable standard that is recognized by buyers and sellers.
IDK, "the market" sounds pretty nebulous to me. Or do you mean the market economics, pretty much what drives all business models, revenue & profitability.
Now if you say the market is the millions of grading submissions and the resultant buys & sells, I think the TPGs set their own standards based on the old ANA guidelines and their business model, revenue-risk appetite.
The market that makes the decisions about acceptable third party grading standards is the market that buys the services of grading companies and the market that buys the coins that are graded by grading companies. If the consumers of grading services and the consumers of coins graded by those services didn’t believe that the services were valuable and that buying coins graded by those services were worthwhile, then the third party grading companies would go out of business. Those consumer decisions are a defacto approval of the grading standard utilized by the company.
The really interesting thing is that the same coin graded by Company A may sell at a discount relative to Company B because the market considers Company B’s grading standard to be more reputable. That is proof that the market establishes grading standards.
@coastaljerseyguy said: All grading is market grading. The market establishes what is an acceptable standard that is recognized by buyers and sellers.
IDK, "the market" sounds pretty nebulous to me. Or do you mean the market economics, pretty much what drives all business models, revenue & profitability.
Now if you say the market is the millions of grading submissions and the resultant buys & sells, I think the TPGs set their own standards based on the old ANA guidelines and their business model, revenue-risk appetite.
Long ago, I think the major TPGS started closer to the ANA standards. They are not so close anymore as the ANA standards were published at least forty years ago. Gradeflation - the subject of this discussion.
1980s and early 1990s grading companies both undergraded and overgraded coins. If you use CAC as a proxy, you can find plenty of “undergraded” rattlers that with gold beans and you can find plenty of “overgraded” rattlers that wouldn’t sticker or cross to CACG at the same grade. The question isn’t really whether 2024 PCGS is following the ANA or CAC standard. It’s really whether 2024 PCGS is following the same standards as 1986 PCGS. Thr answer is obviously “no”, but not for nefarious reasons. It’s simply that the market that they work to serve has changed.
@coastaljerseyguy said: All grading is market grading. The market establishes what is an acceptable standard that is recognized by buyers and sellers.
IDK, "the market" sounds pretty nebulous to me. Or do you mean the market economics, pretty much what drives all business models, revenue & profitability.
Now if you say the market is the millions of grading submissions and the resultant buys & sells, I think the TPGs set their own standards based on the old ANA guidelines and their business model, revenue-risk appetite.
Long ago, I think the major TPGS started closer to the ANA standards. They are not so close anymore as the ANA standards were published at least forty years ago. Gradeflation - the subject of this discussion.
1980s and early 1990s grading companies both undergraded and overgraded coins. If you use CAC as a proxy, you can find plenty of “undergraded” rattlers that with gold beans and you can find plenty of “overgraded” rattlers that wouldn’t sticker or cross to CACG at the same grade. The question isn’t really whether 2024 PCGS is following the ANA or CAC standard. It’s really whether 2024 PCGS is following the same standards as 1986 PCGS. Thr answer is obviously “no”, but not for nefarious reasons. It’s simply that the market that they work to serve has changed.
You are late to the party, Everyone knows this. BTW, TPGS STILL over grade and under grade coins in2024.
@Vasanti said:
The question isn’t really whether 2024 PCGS is following the ANA or CAC standard. It’s really whether 2024 PCGS is following the same standards as 1986 PCGS. Thr answer is obviously “no”, but not for nefarious reasons. It’s simply that the market that they work to serve has changed.
I'm not sure about that. I'm not sure the market wants a TPG to put "C" coins in the next lower grade, but yet that's what CACG is doing.
I wish we could get a bunch of graders in a room, in a seminar, from the tightest who are apparently with cac, to others from the other services and get them to discuss particular coins and why they would grade them as they would with their most rigorous rationales on each coin. Years ago I had a $4000 better date $20 Liberty and I approached the head of NGC on why they would not cross it at MS60, in his opinion it was not Unc.. Then I walked it over to the Anacs table to have them render an opinion on it and they said that they even liked it as an MS61. It was very original looking but had significant bag marks. I should have probed both on why they rendered the verdict as they did.
@Vasanti said:
The question isn’t really whether 2024 PCGS is following the ANA or CAC standard. It’s really whether 2024 PCGS is following the same standards as 1986 PCGS. Thr answer is obviously “no”, but not for nefarious reasons. It’s simply that the market that they work to serve has changed.
I'm not sure about that. I'm not sure the market wants a TPG to put "C" coins in the next lower grade, but yet that's what CACG is doing.
And I’m not sure that the “market” wants so many coins in straight-grade holders, when they’ve been so noticeably cleaned. Or that it wants so many AU coins graded 60 or higher.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@jmlanzaf said:
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.
Well they can try to redefine it. Can't fault them for trying. Things are the way they are because of the market, I don't think you can tell the market they want something different. That doesn't mean there aren't going to be segments of the market that appreciate the stricter standard - there's always a place for quality. But a lot of people like the market just how it is.
I agree, to a point. Different TPGS's get different> @MFeld said:
@Vasanti said:
The question isn’t really whether 2024 PCGS is following the ANA or CAC standard. It’s really whether 2024 PCGS is following the same standards as 1986 PCGS. Thr answer is obviously “no”, but not for nefarious reasons. It’s simply that the market that they work to serve has changed.
I'm not sure about that. I'm not sure the market wants a TPG to put "C" coins in the next lower grade, but yet that's what CACG is doing.
And I’m not sure that the “market” wants so many coins in straight-grade holders, when they’ve been so noticeably cleaned. Or that it wants so many AU coins graded 60 or higher.
Agree. The market is the buyers. What buyer wants to pay 64 money for a 58? Or, worse, what buyer wants to pay 64 money for a details coin?
If anything, the problem is the buyer who paid 64 money for a raw details coin and feels cheated when he finds out. But assuaging his feelings risks destroying the entire slab market by muddying the waters.
@Vasanti said:
The question isn’t really whether 2024 PCGS is following the ANA or CAC standard. It’s really whether 2024 PCGS is following the same standards as 1986 PCGS. Thr answer is obviously “no”, but not for nefarious reasons. It’s simply that the market that they work to serve has changed.
I'm not sure about that. I'm not sure the market wants a TPG to put "C" coins in the next lower grade, but yet that's what CACG is doing.
And I’m not sure that the “market” wants so many coins in straight-grade holders, when they’ve been so noticeably cleaned. Or that it wants so many AU coins graded 60 or higher.
The market is not only the buyers of graded coins. It also includes the buyers of coin grading services. One could argue that the primary market for coin grading services is, in fact, not the purchasers of coins, but the purchasers of grading services . Of course, the purchasers of grading services are often reselling those coins to consumers who are buying coins and, as a whole, they are going to act as rational beings who give the most money to the grading service that will maximize their profitability.
@Vasanti said:
The question isn’t really whether 2024 PCGS is following the ANA or CAC standard. It’s really whether 2024 PCGS is following the same standards as 1986 PCGS. Thr answer is obviously “no”, but not for nefarious reasons. It’s simply that the market that they work to serve has changed.
I'm not sure about that. I'm not sure the market wants a TPG to put "C" coins in the next lower grade, but yet that's what CACG is doing.
I agree completely. That’s why CAC will eventually either have to match the demands of the market or come to terms with getting a lower niche market share.
@coastaljerseyguy said: All grading is market grading. The market establishes what is an acceptable standard that is recognized by buyers and sellers.
IDK, "the market" sounds pretty nebulous to me. Or do you mean the market economics, pretty much what drives all business models, revenue & profitability.
Now if you say the market is the millions of grading submissions and the resultant buys & sells, I think the TPGs set their own standards based on the old ANA guidelines and their business model, revenue-risk appetite.
Long ago, I think the major TPGS started closer to the ANA standards. They are not so close anymore as the ANA standards were published at least forty years ago. Gradeflation - the subject of this discussion.
1980s and early 1990s grading companies both undergraded and overgraded coins. If you use CAC as a proxy, you can find plenty of “undergraded” rattlers that with gold beans and you can find plenty of “overgraded” rattlers that wouldn’t sticker or cross to CACG at the same grade. The question isn’t really whether 2024 PCGS is following the ANA or CAC standard. It’s really whether 2024 PCGS is following the same standards as 1986 PCGS. Thr answer is obviously “no”, but not for nefarious reasons. It’s simply that the market that they work to serve has changed.
You are late to the party, Everyone knows this. BTW, TPGS STILL over grade and under grade coins in2024.
Agree completely. There is no objective standard because multiple fallible humans are doing the work AND there is no regulatory authority that has established an objective, industry-wide standard backed with legal liability for violating it.
@jmlanzaf said:
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.
Well they can try to redefine it. Can't fault them for trying. Things are the way they are because of the market, I don't think you can tell the market they want something different. That doesn't mean there aren't going to be segments of the market that appreciate the stricter standard - there's always a place for quality. But a lot of people like the market just how it is.
I agree, to a point. Different TPGS's get different prices already. So the market> @Barberian said:
@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.
Reps of PCGS have defended higher grades based upon eye appeal on this message board.
Have you seen them do so specifically for coins graded lower than AU or just in general? I’ve seen the latter but not the former.
There should be all kinds of colorful XF coins in AU holders if this was true. An attractive VF in an XF holder would stand out, wouldn't it?
How about the mysterious world between F12 and VF25 in seated halves with historically shifting standards with respect to wear on LIBERTY?
I have some examples of coins that I feel are overgraded for eye appeal within VF. They're choice coins with excellent eye appeal, IMO, but have too much wear for the grade. I've shown photos on the CAC boards and JA has questioned their grades based upon their strike & wear as well. I don't recall seeing a VF coin in an EF holder.
PCGS VF30 - JA: "Where's the E?"
Why isn't that just "grade creep" or "grade inflation"? Buffalo nickels no longer have full horns on VF coins. But that's a shift in the standard not elevation of select coins.
I for one think the guides for grading these coins can be improved. Is it possible that people grading these nickels learned more about "strike weakness and therefore have lessened the importance of a full horn?"
@Vasanti said:
The question isn’t really whether 2024 PCGS is following the ANA or CAC standard. It’s really whether 2024 PCGS is following the same standards as 1986 PCGS. Thr answer is obviously “no”, but not for nefarious reasons. It’s simply that the market that they work to serve has changed.
I'm not sure about that. I'm not sure the market wants a TPG to put "C" coins in the next lower grade, but yet that's what CACG is doing.
Mint state "C" coins will eventually end up in their correct grade at all the other services. That's because a 65 i"C" is a 65 and to drop it to the next level is plain wrong (a nicer word than stupid) IMO and a disservice to collectors. Meanwhile CACG graded coins (A & will rise to the top - just as CAC stickered coins do. There should be plenty of business for everyone.
@logger7 said:
I wish we could get a bunch of graders in a room, in a seminar, from the tightest who are apparently with cac, to others from the other services and get them to discuss particular coins and why they would grade them as they would with their most rigorous rationales on each coin. Years ago I had a $4000 better date $20 Liberty and I approached the head of NGC on why they would not cross it at MS60, in his opinion it was not Unc.. Then I walked it over to the Anacs table to have them render an opinion on it and they said that they even liked it as an MS61. It was very original looking but had significant bag marks. I should have probed both on why they rendered the verdict as they did.
I've learned that bag marks, scratches, rim files, PMD, etc. cannot change a Mint state coin to an AU. They do lower its value and ranking in the MS grades. A MS-60 can be beat up. Anyone wish to disagree?
@jmlanzaf said:
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.
Well they can try to redefine it. Can't fault them for trying. Things are the way they are because of the market, I don't think you can tell the market they want something different. That doesn't mean there aren't going to be segments of the market that appreciate the stricter standard - there's always a place for quality. But a lot of people like the market just how it is.
@logger7 said:
I wish we could get a bunch of graders in a room, in a seminar, from the tightest who are apparently with cac, to others from the other services and get them to discuss particular coins and why they would grade them as they would with their most rigorous rationales on each coin. Years ago I had a $4000 better date $20 Liberty and I approached the head of NGC on why they would not cross it at MS60, in his opinion it was not Unc.. Then I walked it over to the Anacs table to have them render an opinion on it and they said that they even liked it as an MS61. It was very original looking but had significant bag marks. I should have probed both on why they rendered the verdict as they did.
I've learned that bag marks, scratches, rim files, PMD, etc. cannot change a Mint state coin to an AU. They do lower its value and ranking in the MS grades. A MS-60 can be beat up. Anyone wish to disagree?
PMD can lower the grade, depending on the type. PMD, after all, includes circulation damage.
@Vasanti said:
The question isn’t really whether 2024 PCGS is following the ANA or CAC standard. It’s really whether 2024 PCGS is following the same standards as 1986 PCGS. Thr answer is obviously “no”, but not for nefarious reasons. It’s simply that the market that they work to serve has changed.
I'm not sure about that. I'm not sure the market wants a TPG to put "C" coins in the next lower grade, but yet that's what CACG is doing.
I agree completely. That’s why CAC will eventually either have to match the demands of the market or come to terms with getting a lower niche market share.
Hope they stay the course. Don't think Porsche cares Toyota, Honda & everyone else sell more cars.
@coastaljerseyguy said: All grading is market grading. The market establishes what is an acceptable standard that is recognized by buyers and sellers.
IDK, "the market" sounds pretty nebulous to me. Or do you mean the market economics, pretty much what drives all business models, revenue & profitability.
Now if you say the market is the millions of grading submissions and the resultant buys & sells, I think the TPGs set their own standards based on the old ANA guidelines and their business model, revenue-risk appetite.
The market that makes the decisions about acceptable third party grading standards is the market that buys the services of grading companies and the market that buys the coins that are graded by grading companies. If the consumers of grading services and the consumers of coins graded by those services didn’t believe that the services were valuable and that buying coins graded by those services were worthwhile, then the third party grading companies would go out of business. Those consumer decisions are a defacto approval of the grading standard utilized by the company.
The really interesting thing is that the same coin graded by Company A may sell at a discount relative to Company B because the market considers Company B’s grading standard to be more reputable. That is proof that the market establishes grading standards.
Perhaps it is more involved than the grade of the coin. It has been posted that advertising, emotion, etc. in addion to reputation of the TPGS controls the price. That makes a lot more sense to me as it seems all the TPGS have enough people using them to keep them profitible! It cannot be just the grades assigned to coins.
@Vasanti said:
The question isn’t really whether 2024 PCGS is following the ANA or CAC standard. It’s really whether 2024 PCGS is following the same standards as 1986 PCGS. Thr answer is obviously “no”, but not for nefarious reasons. It’s simply that the market that they work to serve has changed.
I'm not sure about that. I'm not sure the market wants a TPG to put "C" coins in the next lower grade, but yet that's what CACG is doing.
Mint state "C" coins will eventually end up in their correct grade at all the other services. That's because a 65 i"C" is a 65 and to drop it to the next level is plain wrong (a nicer word than stupid) IMO and a disservice to collectors. Meanwhile CACG graded coins (A & will rise to the top - just as CAC stickered coins do. There should be plenty of business for everyone.
I would have used "stupid." We'll need to wait and see how they are grading in a few more months.
@jmlanzaf replied to @Married2Coins who said: "I've learned that bag marks, scratches, rim files, PMD, etc. cannot change a Mint state coin to an AU. They do lower its value and ranking in the MS grades. A MS-60 can be beat up."
I AGREE 100% with this. I have taught this for several decades.
IMO, this statement as it stands may cause confusion.
@jmlanzaf said: "PMD can lower the grade...PMD, after all, includes circulation damage.
Post Mint damage lowers the grade of MS coins. It has little affect on the circulated grades which are judged by the amount of wear they have. However, PMD lowers the value of a coin and is a significant factor used when Net grading. Net grading will actually knock the grade of a MS copper down to AU!!!!! How stupid id that?
Actual circulation wear is not PMD. I'm sure the poster did not intend for anyone to take his post that way; but I did at first and was compelled to post this.
Comments
If eye appeal is going to be taken into consideration for well circulated coins, I'd prefer the TPG's downgrade an unattractive 'D' coin then upgrade a coin with nice eye appeal.
The first time I ever heard of grade creep was in the intro of Grading Coins by Photographs by David Bowers. He wrote the same thing. AU's of the past were being graded MS!! What JA said has to happen.
Please don't change what I wrote to change what was written. Of course a VF++ may get an XF sooner or later. That's why coins are resubmitted. Dealer a buys it from dealer B who already tried it. LOL. Some coins mut eventually get upgraded. We agree on that. EVERYONE SHOULD KNOW THERE IS NO OFFICIAL STANDARD, but thanks for the reminder for any new collectors reading our posts. BTW, thanks for your respectful replies. You have more "class" than I can muster.
I posted that any knowledgeable person will pick an attractive coin over an inferior coin at the same grade - EVERY TIME! Additionally there is no standard for eye appeal.
I sure would like to know what a "lightly dipped" Bust half looks like. That's a new one to me. Is that some conservation trick they do at PCGS and NCS? Perhaps you know they have % standards for the dipping chemical or specific amounts of time in the chemical? I have never read anything about "light dipping" anywhere. Is it like a "quick dip?" I've see that term used but don't know what it means exactly. I thought it was just a normal dip whatever that is. Anyway, I don't wish to change the subject so please don't reply. I'll find out for myself in a new discussion. THANKS!!!
Well they can try to redefine it. Can't fault them for trying. Things are the way they are because of the market, I don't think you can tell the market they want something different. That doesn't mean there aren't going to be segments of the market that appreciate the stricter standard - there's always a place for quality. But a lot of people like the market just how it is.
I agree, to a point. Different TPGS's get different prices already. So the market does know how to handle this.
All grading is market grading. The market establishes what is an acceptable standard that is recognized by buyers and sellers. There have been many standards proposed over the years, and the majority of those standards have been rejected by the market, which makes them largely irrelevant. The only way grading will ever be set by something other than the market is if a third party government agency establishes and enforces a grading standard with penalties attached to not following the legally required standard.
What is frustrating people isn’t that the market sets the standard for grading coins…it’s that the market has established several standards and that those standards aren’t chiseled into granite tablets handed down by the coin god. PCGS has a market standard. NGC has a market standard. CAC has a market standard. ANACS has a market standard. Within each company’s pool of graded coins, there is relative similarity within certain specific periods of time. The PCGS standard in 2023 is going to be pretty close to the PCGS standard in 2024, but it may not match the NGC standard for 2023. Neither the NGC nor the PCGS standards for 2023 will match the NGC and PCGS standards for 1990. That’s because the market changed.
I don't care how others would grade my coins! All I know is, that all my nickels must have a full/EDS strike, wherever I can find them. And with Jeffs and the higher percentage of the very hard element of nickel, 25%, locating the "first strikes" of that series.....well, you're never going to know just how difficult the search is for such coins unless you've been hunting for them for a while. You're not going to know squat until you do! lol Not every encapsulated MS Jefferson nickel has the complete details I'm after. In fact, from 34 years of experience, you will be lucky to find an EDS strike in any holder! I don't have the slightest idea what other collectors are looking at when their selections don't have deep hairlines, sharp windows and end-step details, etc, nope! But I'll just keep stacking those bullet strikes til the day I die while the rest somehow get off on compensated steps nickels. Why anyone would want a coin with an incomplete strike escapes me unless they just can't find them! Something that's quite obvious from the posted photos in Registry Sets and Coinfacts. But there are a few exceptional coins I like viewing, just a few.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
Nevermind............... Deleted note.....
Successful transactions with-Boosibri,lkeigwin,TomB,Broadstruck,coinsarefun,Type2,jom,ProfLiz, UltraHighRelief,Barndog,EXOJUNKIE,ldhair,fivecents,paesan,Crusty...
@jmlanzaf,
Since you know more about the coin business than I ever will, I have another question for you:
In your opinion what are the specific REASONS most dealers (and myself) say/believe/can demonstrate with proof that a coin graded by PCGS generally brings more money that one graded by NGC?
Thanks in advance.
Reps of PCGS have defended higher grades based upon eye appeal on this message board.
Have you seen them do so specifically for coins graded lower than AU or just in general? I’ve seen the latter but not the former.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Yes. This was in reference to a 55-S half graded F15 compared to a 55-O in VF25. The poster who owned the 55-S wanted to know why it didn't grade as high as the VF25 55-O did. A PCGS rep argued in effect, that the lack of hits and choice overall look explained the grade differential, not necessarily the wear on LIBERTY. I'll have to hunt down the thread and link to it.
Here's the PCGS VF25 55-O it was compared to. It's very choice for a VF25, IMO, with an excellent reverse.
I agree, to a point. Different TPGS's get different prices already. So the market does know how to handle this.> @Insider3 said:
Part of it is that, in SOME series, they are stricter than NGC. Registry sets also drive some prices, although not the trophies.
Some of it, frankly, is just emotional. For example, why does an NGC CAC sell for less than a PCGS CAC? You'd think the difference between the two coins would have to be minor.
There should be all kinds of colorful XF coins in AU holders if this was true. An attractive VF in an XF holder would stand out, wouldn't it?
How about the mysterious world between F12 and VF25 in seated halves with historically shifting standards with respect to wear on LIBERTY?
I have some examples of coins that I feel are overgraded for eye appeal within VF. They're choice coins with excellent eye appeal, IMO, but have too much wear for the grade. I've shown photos on the CAC boards and JA has questioned their grades based upon their strike & wear as well. I don't recall seeing a VF coin in an EF holder.
PCGS VF30 - JA: "Where's the E?"
This answer does not help much. So stricter in SOME series? That should indicate that in other series they grade about the same so the coins should sell for the same money. Apparently they do not. As for "emotional", something must drive that. Do you have any ideas. Is it advertising? Is it PCGS was around first? It is a simple question. Why does the same coin in the same grade sell for more in the PCGS slab than it would in an NGC slab or a second tier TPGS. There must be several reasons. I don't buy the single "stricter grading" answer, otherwise I would not be able to hit the exact PCGS or NGC grade over 90% with the label covered.
I just go by the PCGS standards (works for me) and the rest of those birds out there can just fly off to Miss Mondo Italia. Fantastic, love their Techno music too.
Is it possible a function of the coins themselves and when they were submitted ? For instance, JA has a reputation for being "tough" on gold but maybe he sees lots of gold coins that were liberally graded.
If at a certain time the TPGs got more expensive coins -- let's say, when they first commenced operations -- you would think submitters would send in those expensive coins and get them graded first over cheaper coins, right ? If the first batch of coins (expensive) were sent to the first batch of graders (conservative)....you have expensive coins graded tightly.
Fast-forward 10 or 15 or 20 years after the TPGs are up-and-running....now you have some novice graders (more liberal) and they're seeing small denomination, cheaper coins instead of trophy coins, Saints and gold coins, and Morgans and pricey silver. These get liberally graded.
Not saying this is definitely what happened, but elements of it could have taken place.
Or not.
I agree, to a point. Different TPGS's get different prices already. So the market> @Barberian said:
Why isn't that just "grade creep" or "grade inflation"? Buffalo nickels no longer have full horns on VF coins. But that's a shift in the standard not elevation of select coins.
I agree, to a point. Different TPGS's get different prices already. So the market does not know how to handle this> @Insider3 said:
I mentioned registry sets and "emotions" (reputation? Advertising). I'm sorry. I don't really have a better answer. I'm not sure there is one. Take an MS65 Morgan in an NGC slab, cross it to PCGS and it will likely sell for more money, even though it's the same coin. It's not strictly a question of grading tightness. There at other factors at play including demand for the slab (registry?) and market "perception".
The word "Liberty" is only one place to look when grading ANY coin. This was a "guide point" early on as it was a short-and-sweet statement that worked fairly well on most types of fully struck coins.
I am trying to pin you down but you are a hard weasel to trap.
The observable FACT is that (so far), a coin is worth more in a PCGS slab than in any other TPGS holder. So it appears the reason PCGS coins usually bring more money MAY be related to advertising, reputation, demand, and buyer preference; yet none of this is related to the coin inside the PCGS holder - unless PCGS grading can be proven to be more strict than that of other TPGS most of the time.
My boss and I cracked out 150 coins for regrading yesterday. It's not a conspiracy or anything, it's just taking advantage of the human factor in the grading equation. Inconsistency.
Professional Numismatist. "It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
That is certainly true with regards to U.S. coins -- but I do believe NGC trades at a premium for foreign/world coins.
Same thing with currency where NGC's PMG trades at a (slight) premium vs. whoever is #2.
Just curious....any reason to "crack-out" and resubmit RAW as opposed to sending in the holders with minimum grade guarantee ?
Yeah, it's reputation. I buy a lot of moderns, typically MS66/MS67-ish. I don't do it often, but I do know that if I buy an NGC MS67 sight unseen there's probably a 40% chance it'll cross to PCGS. As such, I only buy the NGC slabs when the risk/reward is there or I can see the coin in person and can make a judgement.
IMHO there is no debate that PCGS has been more strict in many series most of the time. However, currently I'm convinced that CACG is now the leader in both strict standards and consistency.
PCGS grading of Canadian and Newfoundland coins has opened up new horizons in questionable grading, IMO. It's become funny to me how out-of-kilter PCGS is with other TPGs at grading these coins. Given the strongly escalating prices with higher grades in Newfy halves, I may even have then grade my Newfies so I can get their standard, to the moon, two-level grade overestimation. It's wonderful to have $50 coins become $500 book-value coins simply by sending them to the highly reputable PCGS for grading. Unfortunately, it cuts both ways when It's time to sell, and PCGS is not the brand to have for circulated Canadian coins.
And y'all probably think I'm pulling your leg here.
You're far more likely to get the grades you want raw.
Professional Numismatist. "It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
All grading is market grading. The market establishes what is an acceptable standard that is recognized by buyers and sellers.
IDK, "the market" sounds pretty nebulous to me. Or do you mean the market economics, pretty much what drives all business models, revenue & profitability.
Now if you say the market is the millions of grading submissions and the resultant buys & sells, I think the TPGs set their own standards based on the old ANA guidelines and their business model, revenue-risk appetite.
Long ago, I think the major TPGS started closer to the ANA standards. They are not so close anymore as the ANA standards were published at least forty years ago. Gradeflation - the subject of this discussion.
The market that makes the decisions about acceptable third party grading standards is the market that buys the services of grading companies and the market that buys the coins that are graded by grading companies. If the consumers of grading services and the consumers of coins graded by those services didn’t believe that the services were valuable and that buying coins graded by those services were worthwhile, then the third party grading companies would go out of business. Those consumer decisions are a defacto approval of the grading standard utilized by the company.
The really interesting thing is that the same coin graded by Company A may sell at a discount relative to Company B because the market considers Company B’s grading standard to be more reputable. That is proof that the market establishes grading standards.
1980s and early 1990s grading companies both undergraded and overgraded coins. If you use CAC as a proxy, you can find plenty of “undergraded” rattlers that with gold beans and you can find plenty of “overgraded” rattlers that wouldn’t sticker or cross to CACG at the same grade. The question isn’t really whether 2024 PCGS is following the ANA or CAC standard. It’s really whether 2024 PCGS is following the same standards as 1986 PCGS. Thr answer is obviously “no”, but not for nefarious reasons. It’s simply that the market that they work to serve has changed.
You are late to the party, Everyone knows this. BTW, TPGS STILL over grade and under grade coins in2024.
I'm not sure about that. I'm not sure the market wants a TPG to put "C" coins in the next lower grade, but yet that's what CACG is doing.
I wish we could get a bunch of graders in a room, in a seminar, from the tightest who are apparently with cac, to others from the other services and get them to discuss particular coins and why they would grade them as they would with their most rigorous rationales on each coin. Years ago I had a $4000 better date $20 Liberty and I approached the head of NGC on why they would not cross it at MS60, in his opinion it was not Unc.. Then I walked it over to the Anacs table to have them render an opinion on it and they said that they even liked it as an MS61. It was very original looking but had significant bag marks. I should have probed both on why they rendered the verdict as they did.
And I’m not sure that the “market” wants so many coins in straight-grade holders, when they’ve been so noticeably cleaned. Or that it wants so many AU coins graded 60 or higher.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I agree, to a point. Different TPGS's get different> @MFeld said:
Agree. The market is the buyers. What buyer wants to pay 64 money for a 58? Or, worse, what buyer wants to pay 64 money for a details coin?
If anything, the problem is the buyer who paid 64 money for a raw details coin and feels cheated when he finds out. But assuaging his feelings risks destroying the entire slab market by muddying the waters.
The market is not only the buyers of graded coins. It also includes the buyers of coin grading services. One could argue that the primary market for coin grading services is, in fact, not the purchasers of coins, but the purchasers of grading services . Of course, the purchasers of grading services are often reselling those coins to consumers who are buying coins and, as a whole, they are going to act as rational beings who give the most money to the grading service that will maximize their profitability.
I agree completely. That’s why CAC will eventually either have to match the demands of the market or come to terms with getting a lower niche market share.
Agree completely. There is no objective standard because multiple fallible humans are doing the work AND there is no regulatory authority that has established an objective, industry-wide standard backed with legal liability for violating it.
I for one think the guides for grading these coins can be improved. Is it possible that people grading these nickels learned more about "strike weakness and therefore have lessened the importance of a full horn?"
Mint state "C" coins will eventually end up in their correct grade at all the other services. That's because a 65 i"C" is a 65 and to drop it to the next level is plain wrong (a nicer word than stupid) IMO and a disservice to collectors. Meanwhile CACG graded coins (A &
will rise to the top - just as CAC stickered coins do. There should be plenty of business for everyone.
I've learned that bag marks, scratches, rim files, PMD, etc. cannot change a Mint state coin to an AU. They do lower its value and ranking in the MS grades. A MS-60 can be beat up. Anyone wish to disagree?
I agree, to a point. > @Married2Coins said:
PMD can lower the grade, depending on the type. PMD, after all, includes circulation damage.
Hope they stay the course. Don't think Porsche cares Toyota, Honda & everyone else sell more cars.
Perhaps it is more involved than the grade of the coin. It has been posted that advertising, emotion, etc. in addion to reputation of the TPGS controls the price. That makes a lot more sense to me as it seems all the TPGS have enough people using them to keep them profitible! It cannot be just the grades assigned to coins.
I
would have used "stupid." We'll need to wait and see how they are grading in a few more months.
@jmlanzaf replied to @Married2Coins who said: "I've learned that bag marks, scratches, rim files, PMD, etc. cannot change a Mint state coin to an AU. They do lower its value and ranking in the MS grades. A MS-60 can be beat up."
I AGREE 100% with this. I have taught this for several decades.
IMO, this statement as it stands may cause confusion.
@jmlanzaf said: "PMD can lower the grade...PMD, after all, includes circulation damage.
Post Mint damage lowers the grade of MS coins. It has little affect on the circulated grades which are judged by the amount of wear they have. However, PMD lowers the value of a coin and is a significant factor used when Net grading. Net grading will actually knock the grade of a MS copper down to AU!!!!! How stupid id that?
Actual circulation wear is not PMD. I'm sure the poster did not intend for anyone to take his post that way; but I did at first and was compelled to post this.