@BryceM said:
Well, things that help the hobby often don’t help the bottom line of the TPGs. Inconsistency in grading results in more grading events in the future, for example.
If I could have a wish, it would be a technical grade (or no grade) and a separate eye appeal grade. The market could sort out the rest.
While I agree with you in theory, whose eye appeal sets the empirical standard? Not a ricko disciple I hope.
Isn’t that basically what a CAC standard is tied to JAs opinion? Being a judgement of precentiall of survivorship for the designated technical attributes as a corollary to appeal? Green is better than most and gold is about as good as it gets. NGC tackles it slightly different with the surfaces designation on ancients which envelopes eye appeal, originality and luster but it is inconsistently applied at times when clearly different graders value different triggers of the attributes disproportionately. This in my opinion shows the mechanical difficulties of arbitrary admiration.
I love baggy PL gold, others don’t. Should one of my holders get a scarlet letter designation?
@ProofCollection said:
1. Recognize AU PL coins
2. Stop charging GP on regrades that upgrade. If the TPG grades it wrong to begin with, why should they profit from this?
How do you know that the initial grade was wrong and not the subsequent one?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@ProofCollection said:
1. Recognize AU PL coins
2. Stop charging GP on regrades that upgrade. If the TPG grades it wrong to begin with, why should they profit from this?
How do you know that the initial grade was wrong and not the subsequent one?
We don't, although the initial grade is the result of 3 opinions, the second grade is the culmination of 6 opinions, so per this process the second grade should be more accurate, but I suppose there is no guarantee.
I would like to see them being willing to reholder a coin in a damaged holder for collectors that are not members. A reasonable higher price to reholder for non members than for members would be understandable. Even if I'm not a member, I'm still making their product marketable by purchasing coins in their holder. I mentioned this in a post 2 or 3 years ago and was told to find a member and have them send it in. I live in a relatively small community and don't know many collectors. Most of my socializing coin-wise is online.
@ProofCollection said:
1. Recognize AU PL coins
2. Stop charging GP on regrades that upgrade. If the TPG grades it wrong to begin with, why should they profit from this?
How do you know that the initial grade was wrong and not the subsequent one?
We don't, although the initial grade is the result of 3 opinions, the second grade is the culmination of 6 opinions, so per this process the second grade should be more accurate, but I suppose there is no guarantee.
Depending upon the coin, for all we know, the opinion could be from some or all of the same graders each time.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@WCC said:
"Details" grading most coins in practically all US series makes sense or at least more sense because the coins aren't actually scarce or hard to buy. But when there are almost no decent examples available, "details" grading it for some minor defect such as "surface hairlines" makes no sense. It's either that or dreck.
Details grading isn’t typically applied for “some minor defect such as "surface hairlines”.
I have several coins in NGC holders with this notation on the holder label. There are a few wording variations but this is the most common in the last 10 yearts or so.
You worked there, so maybe you can explain it for me.
I don’t recall having seen that on U.S. coin grading labels, so it must be extremely rare.
It's really common (well, I've handled dozens of examples) on foreign coins. I've seen both "Surface Hairlines" and a more strongly worded version that slips my mind (I'm not sure if it's "heavy hairlines" or "harshly cleaned" or something similar). Since these coins have always appeared as cleaned to me, I wonder if it's a different set of terminology for a different part of the market, where US coins would just be marked as cleaned. I've seen it frequently on coins from China/Asia and Europe, and can't recall ever seeing it on a US coin.
I'll also add that I've only seen it on "newer" holders. Not just the newest holders, but probably only the holders that at least had the grade in bold font. Mark was long gone from NGC by the time these came along, so I could imagine the designation never existed while he was there.
I've only seen it on the newest holders for world coinage. The other common term is "Excessive Surface Hairlines". Previously "improperly Cleaned" to my recollection. Still have a few of those but not with me. I've seen "Cleaned" on newer holders too but very seldom.
Brief comment on the grade. For instance "grade limited by luster" or "perfect example for XF45" or "strong 64 not quite 65". Edit: Not on the holder, but mailed back with the submission.
@WCC said:
"Details" grading most coins in practically all US series makes sense or at least more sense because the coins aren't actually scarce or hard to buy. But when there are almost no decent examples available, "details" grading it for some minor defect such as "surface hairlines" makes no sense. It's either that or dreck.
Details grading isn’t typically applied for “some minor defect such as "surface hairlines”.
I have several coins in NGC holders with this notation on the holder label. There are a few wording variations but this is the most common in the last 10 yearts or so.
You worked there, so maybe you can explain it for me.
I don’t recall having seen that on U.S. coin grading labels, so it must be extremely rare.
It's really common (well, I've handled dozens of examples) on foreign coins. I've seen both "Surface Hairlines" and a more strongly worded version that slips my mind (I'm not sure if it's "heavy hairlines" or "harshly cleaned" or something similar). Since these coins have always appeared as cleaned to me, I wonder if it's a different set of terminology for a different part of the market, where US coins would just be marked as cleaned. I've seen it frequently on coins from China/Asia and Europe, and can't recall ever seeing it on a US coin.
I'll also add that I've only seen it on "newer" holders. Not just the newest holders, but probably only the holders that at least had the grade in bold font. Mark was long gone from NGC by the time these came along, so I could imagine the designation never existed while he was there.
I've only seen it on the newest holders for world coinage. The other common term is "Excessive Surface Hairlines". Previously "improperly Cleaned" to my recollection. Still have a few of those but not with me. I've seen "Cleaned" on newer holders too but very seldom.
That’s not correct, “Excessive Surface Hairlines” and “Improperly Cleaned” are not used on current labels and have been out of date for a decade or so. The current designation is “Cleaned” (or sometimes “Harshly Cleaned” “Obv Cleaned “ “Rev Cleaned”) and can very commonly be found on World and US coins in current generation holders.
@MarkInDavis said:
Brief comment on the grade. For instance "grade limited by luster" or "perfect example for XF45" or "strong 64 not quite 65".
That would super helpful to people learning to grade. If not on the holder, tied to the Cert.
Juice might not be worth the squeeze for the shock to the assembly line and the impact to the bottom line. Even if it only slowed operations by 5% that would be huge. The Ave dealer would not be ok with 5% longer waits and increased costs to support this.
@MarkInDavis said:
Brief comment on the grade. For instance "grade limited by luster" or "perfect example for XF45" or "strong 64 not quite 65".
Great idea! PCGS could also indicate "coin has a good chance of being stickered by CAC".
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
@MarkInDavis said:
Brief comment on the grade. For instance "grade limited by luster" or "perfect example for XF45" or "strong 64 not quite 65".
That would super helpful to people learning to grade. If not on the holder, tied to the Cert.
Juice might not be worth the squeeze for the shock to the assembly line and the impact to the bottom line. Even if it only slowed operations by 5% that would be huge. The Ave dealer would not be ok with 5% longer waits and increased costs to support this.
5%? Maybe more like 200%. Writing a description takes far longer than writing a number.
The point of the current system is that a numerical grade allows for a simple summation of condition. Every coin is conditionally different, and thus every grade below 70 is a range of conditions. By calling a coin a 45, the grader is stating that the summation of the physical qualities of the coin is in the "45" range of conditions, and is worse than the "50" range of conditions and better than the "40" range of conditions. The grade is self-explanatory in that sense, and in my view a fine enough breakdown. On the other hand, it would be nice if there were more opportunities for graders to directly teach the fine details of grading to the collecting community, but the resources for that are lacking.
I would do away with plus grading. I have said it before: we have too many grades in uncirculated already, even without plus grades. It was introduced to goose submissions to the TPGs and many dealers immediately found it a great way to charge near-to-next--higher-grade prices. When plus grading was first introduced by PCGS and NGC, Katy Duncan told me to be wary of this pricing gambit and she turned out to be correct. Registry owners also loved it as a way to up their numbers.
I'm not in bad company. John Albanese has stated more than once that he doesn't like plus grading.
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
PCGS slabs that are scratch and damage resistant. Eliminate the fragile stacking edges, especially the little corner protrusions. These are usually the first thing to break.
Oh, I forgot:
4. Refund Gold shield fees (or discount) for items that do not cross or fail reconsideration.
5. Establish a volunteer customer advisory liaison or board to meet quarterly with TPG management to address concerns/voice of customer.
@ProofCollection said:
1. Recognize AU PL coins
2. Stop charging GP on regrades that upgrade. If the TPG grades it wrong to begin with, why should they profit from this?
How do you know that the initial grade was wrong and not the subsequent one?
We don't, although the initial grade is the result of 3 opinions, the second grade is the culmination of 6 opinions, so per this process the second grade should be more accurate, but I suppose there is no guarantee.
Depending upon the coin, for all we know, the opinion could be from some or all of the same graders each time.
It's also not the opinion from 6, it's two different opinions from two sets of 3. The second opinion is as likely to be inaccurate as the first. Or they are both correct within a half grade.
@MarkInDavis said:
Brief comment on the grade. For instance "grade limited by luster" or "perfect example for XF45" or "strong 64 not quite 65".
That would super helpful to people learning to grade. If not on the holder, tied to the Cert.
Juice might not be worth the squeeze for the shock to the assembly line and the impact to the bottom line. Even if it only slowed operations by 5% that would be huge. The Ave dealer would not be ok with 5% longer waits and increased costs to support this.
5%? Maybe more like 200%. Writing a description takes far longer than writing a number.
The point of the current system is that a numerical grade allows for a simple summation of condition. Every coin is conditionally different, and thus every grade below 70 is a range of conditions. By calling a coin a 45, the grader is stating that the summation of the physical qualities of the coin is in the "45" range of conditions, and is worse than the "50" range of conditions and better than the "40" range of conditions. The grade is self-explanatory in that sense, and in my view a fine enough breakdown. On the other hand, it would be nice if there were more opportunities for graders to directly teach the fine details of grading to the collecting community, but the resources for that are lacking.
Or more than 200%. And it would be a moving target. If they started with just " 45 due to wear and lack of luster", the submitters would want elaboration of wear versus strike weakness or justification for ignoring the 5% luster remaining.
Then the submitters would want to know why friction was counted or ignored, whether it was the number of marks or the location, whether the tiny rim bump was included or excluded? Was the toning considered positive or negative? You'd end up needing a 1000 word essay for every coin.
@WCC said:
"Details" grading most coins in practically all US series makes sense or at least more sense because the coins aren't actually scarce or hard to buy. But when there are almost no decent examples available, "details" grading it for some minor defect such as "surface hairlines" makes no sense. It's either that or dreck.
Details grading isn’t typically applied for “some minor defect such as "surface hairlines”.
I have several coins in NGC holders with this notation on the holder label. There are a few wording variations but this is the most common in the last 10 yearts or so.
You worked there, so maybe you can explain it for me.
I don’t recall having seen that on U.S. coin grading labels, so it must be extremely rare.
It's really common (well, I've handled dozens of examples) on foreign coins. I've seen both "Surface Hairlines" and a more strongly worded version that slips my mind (I'm not sure if it's "heavy hairlines" or "harshly cleaned" or something similar). Since these coins have always appeared as cleaned to me, I wonder if it's a different set of terminology for a different part of the market, where US coins would just be marked as cleaned. I've seen it frequently on coins from China/Asia and Europe, and can't recall ever seeing it on a US coin.
I'll also add that I've only seen it on "newer" holders. Not just the newest holders, but probably only the holders that at least had the grade in bold font. Mark was long gone from NGC by the time these came along, so I could imagine the designation never existed while he was there.
I've only seen it on the newest holders for world coinage. The other common term is "Excessive Surface Hairlines". Previously "improperly Cleaned" to my recollection. Still have a few of those but not with me. I've seen "Cleaned" on newer holders too but very seldom.
That’s not correct, “Excessive Surface Hairlines” and “Improperly Cleaned” are not used on current labels and have been out of date for a decade or so. The current designation is “Cleaned” (or sometimes “Harshly Cleaned” “Obv Cleaned “ “Rev Cleaned”) and can very commonly be found on World and US coins in current generation holders.
Reporting these through the generic "Contact Customer Service" is a pain, and doesn't directly tie the issue to the erroneous Cert Verification or ValueView page. A user stumbling across an issue should be able to quickly report it.
With grading being so important, which could end up determining top registry sets, higher pop number and most importantly, a large sum of money, I would like to see my graded coins reflecting who graded them at the TPG company. A name and employee number reflected on the paperwork or attached to the coin info on the TPG’s site. I have not ever heard of a grader being mentioned whom graded the coin, except JA with CAC. I think something like this could bring credit to a grader’s profession as well as weed out some poor graders. Or maybe this is meant to be anonymous? Or protect the TPG’s integrity. Or hold TPG to a higher standard? Not sure what to think about this, but I like the idea.
@OAKSTAR said:
Yes, all good suggestions and ideas. My question: You think TPG'er management and marketing actually monitor and read these coin forums for ideas and suggestions? 🤣 😂 🤣
How many of you would like to have seen this thread generated by PCGS?
Given the lack of management response from the poor TrueView threads, I agree and doubt we will see any action taken based on the suggestions posted. I'm thinking that Mr. Feld's intent with the thread wasn't to magically change an unchangeable world, but at the minimum allow the issues we see and face to be brought up and shared... at least until people's frustration sets in and this thread goes out of control and is axed. So far it's still alive and cordial though.
I started this thread in order to get a better understanding regarding which grading company issues are most important to various members here. I also hoped it would be beneficial to have different answers and suggestions contained in the same thread. It’s meant to be constructive, not destructive and so far, so good.
I appreciate the replies.
I may have been a bit too glass half empty and will eat my crow based on how well the thread has held together so far. Very cool to see all the different ideas in one place and being discussed in a constructive way.
@OAKSTAR said:
Yes, all good suggestions and ideas. My question: You think TPG'er management and marketing actually monitor and read these coin forums for ideas and suggestions? 🤣 😂 🤣
How many of you would like to have seen this thread generated by PCGS?
Given the lack of management response from the poor TrueView threads, I agree and doubt we will see any action taken based on the suggestions posted. I'm thinking that Mr. Feld's intent with the thread wasn't to magically change an unchangeable world, but at the minimum allow the issues we see and face to be brought up and shared... at least until people's frustration sets in and this thread goes out of control and is axed. So far it's still alive and cordial though.
I started this thread in order to get a better understanding regarding which grading company issues are most important to various members here. I also hoped it would be beneficial to have different answers and suggestions contained in the same thread. It’s meant to be constructive, not destructive and so far, so good.
I appreciate the replies.
I may have been a bit too glass half empty and will eat my crow based on how well the thread has held together so far. Very cool to see all the different ideas in one place and being discussed in a constructive way.
No need to eat any crow. Any concerns you had were understandable. This is an example of the forum at its best.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@breakdown said:
I would do away with plus grading. I have said it before: we have too many grades in uncirculated already, even without plus grades. It was introduced to goose submissions to the TPGs and many dealers immediately found it a great way to charge near-to-next--higher-grade prices. When plus grading was first introduced by PCGS and NGC, Katy Duncan told me to be wary of this pricing gambit and she turned out to be correct. Registry owners also loved it as a way to up their numbers.
I'm not in bad company. John Albanese has stated more than once that he doesn't like plus grading.
From what I have seen, CACG confirms and/or gives out very few plus grades. Many of the plus grades at CACG result from a coin being downgraded from a "solid" grade. When you think about it, if 25% of a solid grade coin are downgraded and 25% are upgraded, it works out that theoretically 50% of each date/mintmark would fall into a ....63, 63+,64, 64+,65... universe which would perhaps make the price guides more logical when it comes to valuing plus grades.
So I recommend grading services tighten up their grading stands to the above described model..
@PerryHall said:
I'd like to see PCGS set up some sort of amnesty program to bring back banned members. Several banned members have made very positive contributions here and a few are actual numismatic scholars and experts. This suggestion makes sense and is actually doable.
Certainly I think this is a good idea. I mean they banned MFeld and then let him come back after several years, and somehow Mr. Insider managed to return as well. I would vote for a system that allows members to return after say five years to their original name. I also would suggest that there should be a different system in place for those caught scamming or other nefarious practices. I also think that they should list how many times someone has been banned on their profile page so others can be aware.
@PerryHall said:
I'd like to see PCGS set up some sort of amnesty program to bring back banned members. Several banned members have made very positive contributions here and a few are actual numismatic scholars and experts. This suggestion makes sense and is actually doable.
Certainly I think this is a good idea. I mean they banned MFeld and then let him come back after several years, and somehow Mr. Insider managed to return as well. I would vote for a system that allows members to return after say five years to their original name. I also would suggest that there should be a different system in place for those caught scamming or other nefarious practices. I also think that they should list how many times someone has been banned on their profile page so others can be aware.
A banned badge
Martin
Don't forget that MFeld was banned at one time and was later elected as the unofficial King of the US Coin Forum.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
@PerryHall said:
I'd like to see PCGS set up some sort of amnesty program to bring back banned members. Several banned members have made very positive contributions here and a few are actual numismatic scholars and experts. This suggestion makes sense and is actually doable.
Certainly I think this is a good idea. I mean they banned MFeld and then let him come back after several years, and somehow Mr. Insider managed to return as well. I would vote for a system that allows members to return after say five years to their original name. I also would suggest that there should be a different system in place for those caught scamming or other nefarious practices. I also think that they should list how many times someone has been banned on their profile page so others can be aware.
A banned badge
Martin
Don't forget that MFeld was banned at one time and was later elected as the unofficial King of the US Coin Forum.
To be fair, he wasn't banned by the same people who elected him.
@PerryHall said:
I'd like to see PCGS set up some sort of amnesty program to bring back banned members. Several banned members have made very positive contributions here and a few are actual numismatic scholars and experts. This suggestion makes sense and is actually doable.
Certainly I think this is a good idea. I mean they banned MFeld and then let him come back after several years, and somehow Mr. Insider managed to return as well. I would vote for a system that allows members to return after say five years to their original name. I also would suggest that there should be a different system in place for those caught scamming or other nefarious practices. I also think that they should list how many times someone has been banned on their profile page so others can be aware.
A banned badge
Martin
Don't forget that MFeld was banned at one time and was later elected as the unofficial King of the US Coin Forum.
To be fair, he wasn't banned by the same people who elected him.
No kidding.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
In the vein of “should be so easy yet it’s still a problem”: Holder my coins with the obverse actually as the obverse.
And in the “should not be too hard because the other guy already does it”: combine grading submissions of different tiers back into one return submission.
The first submission daunted me. I am not sure about the best option to choose for a coin. Perhaps a guided step-by step on-line submission form.
Contact me if I missed something, I would pay for communication to receive graders’ suggestions until I improve.
Someone to hold my hand for a while. I do not want to wear down the experts who are here with my questions, before I can understand the answers they provide.
I still continue to believe a diagram of the coin (such is done for certified diamond) with ‘problem areas’ or the area which determined a grade of say a DCAM 69 instead of DCAM 70 circled so we know what caused the downgrade. I look at coins in DCAM69 and DCAM68 holders and have no clue what the graders saw to make that determination as they look perfect to me, so it would be nice to see what area on the coin caused the coin to not earn a perfect 70. Since most coins are only viewed for a few seconds, adding another few seconds to make marks on a diagram shouldn’t cost that much time. I think the marked up diagram of the coin would also squelch comments concerning rim nicks, scratches, etc., that we later see and THINK might have been the reason for a grade.
I read through all of the suggestions, the one I like the most is photographing all coins submitted for anti counterfeit purposes. That would really help the hobby and would give new collectors more confidence in buying coins. I think if new collectors get burned by accidentally buying counterfeits that they stop collecting.
As for my suggestion, I’d like to see more info if you look up the cert number, everything from educational info about that date/type of coin to a history of when the coin was slabbed as well as the anti counterfeit pictures already mentioned.
@ProofCollection said:
3. Make grades available even sooner in the process. The coins don't need to be photo'd and encapsulated for them to report the grade it's going to get.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the coin doesn't go through the finalizer until it's in a holder, so while the grade is "set" before encapsulation, if the finalizer has a problem with the grade, it can be changed/reconsidered after encapsulation. They won't report the grade until it's gone through the finalizer.
@ProofCollection said:
3. Make grades available even sooner in the process. The coins don't need to be photo'd and encapsulated for them to report the grade it's going to get.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the coin doesn't go through the finalizer until it's in a holder, so while the grade is "set" before encapsulation, if the finalizer has a problem with the grade, it can be changed/reconsidered after encapsulation. They won't report the grade until it's gone through the finalizer.
Jeremy, I don’t know the answer to your question. But when I graded at NGC, the coins were inspected after they’d been sealed. And it wasn’t particularly unusual for some grades to be changed. I hope something similar is done these days, as well.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@1946Hamm said:
Take strike more seriously in grading.
Not feasible at all! Submissions would come to a screeching halt. The average in quality for example, with Jefferson nickels, my series, what gets sent in, your average strike, luster and condition is what helps collectors fill their collections in a timely manner. The condition and luster and perhaps some toning is the average coin cgc's stay afloat on.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
I have seen my suggestions referenced already, but I thought I might rephrase them.
A lot of disappointment and contention arises from a few draconian elements of the current grading approach.
1) Eliminate AU/BU. Shocking, yes, but why should we still treat a tiny trace of wear so drastically? In many cases this is really a difficult call. Say we have a less than perfect strike and the original planchet surface comes out of the die untouched. There is no reason to expect it to have continuous luster since the die never impacted this area. If one person looks at the coin and sees a luster break it becomes AU. Another may see a weak strike and an untouched surface and go BU. Lets get rid of this artificial AU/BU boundary entirely and stick with numeric grades. (If you want a 63/AU designation, go ahead. But I see this area too ripe for contention to bother with that designation.)
2) Give strike more prominence. A worn die will produce a coin with worse detailed surfaces. Yet, the die wear may produce a rougher surface that produces more luster, paradoxically giving a late die state coin a higher grade that one struck earlier from the same dies with more fidelity. Frankly, this just befuddles me.
3) Details grading. I have a couple of coins that (IMHO) might be MS67, but have been marked Details. I look at them and still don’t see why. However, the real point is that an astonishingly nice example of a coin has been rendered equivalent to the same coin run over in a parking lot. Especially telling are categories such as Wheel Mark, or Coin Counting Machine marks that may have occurred in the mint as part of production. A Details grade throws away all knowledge the grader has about the coin and destroys its value. (Would you buy them???)
And this made more sense at the dawn of third party grading, when a big part of the rationale was sight-unseen trading. Today, expected digital imaging pretty much makes that, as subjective as it is anyway, not worth much at all and would be an argumentation source.
I know that NGC does the strike and surfaces designations (x/5 for each), which is similar. But ancients involve a collecting base that is highly variable in understanding typical from superb over so many issues. The NGC PQ star is another, which certainly PCGS seriously considered when NGC started that. We already have a lot of grades, pluses, CAC stickers, and digital imaging. It could generate more regrade/reconsideration submissions, but not worth the reputational headache, as most owners are naturally biased that their coins are terrific in presentation more often than not.
And this made more sense at the dawn of third party grading, when a big part of the rationale was sight-unseen trading. Today, expected digital imaging pretty much makes that, as subjective as it is anyway, not worth much at all and would be an argumentation source.
I know that NGC does the strike and surfaces designations (x/5 for each), which is similar. But ancients involve a collecting base that is highly variable in understanding typical from superb over so many issues. The NGC PQ star is another, which certainly PCGS seriously considered when NGC started that. We already have a lot of grades, pluses, CAC stickers, and digital imaging. It could generate more regrade/reconsideration submissions, but not worth the reputational headache, as most owners are naturally biased that their coins are terrific in presentation more often than not.
The NGC Star is for exceptional eye-appeal and not based on a coin being PQ.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@1946Hamm said:
Take strike more seriously in grading.
It's currently 15% of the grade. What percent do you think it should be?
Indeed.
Surfaces are a horrible way to grade moderns since they all have virtually perfect surfaces. What makes moderns different is that many of the coins are ugly because of poor strikes and/ or worn dies. Who wants high grade ugly coins?
The grading companies should just give me my grades within seconds of me filling out the form with an essay on its uniqueness and how it arrived at that grade. For free, if possible.
Additionally, they should bestow upon me their abilities to grade as I haven’t the trouble to try and learn myself after collecting for years.
They should just keep the coin and sell it for me (with considerable profit) and then just buy any future coins for my collection.
Comments
While I agree with you in theory, whose eye appeal sets the empirical standard? Not a ricko disciple I hope.
Isn’t that basically what a CAC standard is tied to JAs opinion? Being a judgement of precentiall of survivorship for the designated technical attributes as a corollary to appeal? Green is better than most and gold is about as good as it gets. NGC tackles it slightly different with the surfaces designation on ancients which envelopes eye appeal, originality and luster but it is inconsistently applied at times when clearly different graders value different triggers of the attributes disproportionately. This in my opinion shows the mechanical difficulties of arbitrary admiration.
I love baggy PL gold, others don’t. Should one of my holders get a scarlet letter designation?
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
PCGS: Fix your online submission system. It's essentially unusable, which is ridiculous and inexcusable.
NGC: Create a (working) online submission system.
How do you know that the initial grade was wrong and not the subsequent one?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
We don't, although the initial grade is the result of 3 opinions, the second grade is the culmination of 6 opinions, so per this process the second grade should be more accurate, but I suppose there is no guarantee.
I would like to see them being willing to reholder a coin in a damaged holder for collectors that are not members. A reasonable higher price to reholder for non members than for members would be understandable. Even if I'm not a member, I'm still making their product marketable by purchasing coins in their holder. I mentioned this in a post 2 or 3 years ago and was told to find a member and have them send it in. I live in a relatively small community and don't know many collectors. Most of my socializing coin-wise is online.
Depending upon the coin, for all we know, the opinion could be from some or all of the same graders each time.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
able to upload own photos of coins plus books, and link to outside variety expert pages and coin facts pages pre-submission
I've only seen it on the newest holders for world coinage. The other common term is "Excessive Surface Hairlines". Previously "improperly Cleaned" to my recollection. Still have a few of those but not with me. I've seen "Cleaned" on newer holders too but very seldom.
Brief comment on the grade. For instance "grade limited by luster" or "perfect example for XF45" or "strong 64 not quite 65". Edit: Not on the holder, but mailed back with the submission.
That’s not correct, “Excessive Surface Hairlines” and “Improperly Cleaned” are not used on current labels and have been out of date for a decade or so. The current designation is “Cleaned” (or sometimes “Harshly Cleaned” “Obv Cleaned “ “Rev Cleaned”) and can very commonly be found on World and US coins in current generation holders.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
That would super helpful to people learning to grade. If not on the holder, tied to the Cert.
Juice might not be worth the squeeze for the shock to the assembly line and the impact to the bottom line. Even if it only slowed operations by 5% that would be huge. The Ave dealer would not be ok with 5% longer waits and increased costs to support this.
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
Great idea! PCGS could also indicate "coin has a good chance of being stickered by CAC".
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
I hope this was sarcasm> @Crypto said:
5%? Maybe more like 200%. Writing a description takes far longer than writing a number.
The point of the current system is that a numerical grade allows for a simple summation of condition. Every coin is conditionally different, and thus every grade below 70 is a range of conditions. By calling a coin a 45, the grader is stating that the summation of the physical qualities of the coin is in the "45" range of conditions, and is worse than the "50" range of conditions and better than the "40" range of conditions. The grade is self-explanatory in that sense, and in my view a fine enough breakdown. On the other hand, it would be nice if there were more opportunities for graders to directly teach the fine details of grading to the collecting community, but the resources for that are lacking.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
When a coin bodybags or does not cross, give at least some indication of why.
I would do away with plus grading. I have said it before: we have too many grades in uncirculated already, even without plus grades. It was introduced to goose submissions to the TPGs and many dealers immediately found it a great way to charge near-to-next--higher-grade prices. When plus grading was first introduced by PCGS and NGC, Katy Duncan told me to be wary of this pricing gambit and she turned out to be correct. Registry owners also loved it as a way to up their numbers.
I'm not in bad company. John Albanese has stated more than once that he doesn't like plus grading.
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
PCGS slabs that are scratch and damage resistant. Eliminate the fragile stacking edges, especially the little corner protrusions. These are usually the first thing to break.
Not sure I'm following this. I do on line submissions and then print them out. No issues.
Oh, I forgot:
4. Refund Gold shield fees (or discount) for items that do not cross or fail reconsideration.
5. Establish a volunteer customer advisory liaison or board to meet quarterly with TPG management to address concerns/voice of customer.
It's also not the opinion from 6, it's two different opinions from two sets of 3. The second opinion is as likely to be inaccurate as the first. Or they are both correct within a half grade.
Or more than 200%. And it would be a moving target. If they started with just " 45 due to wear and lack of luster", the submitters would want elaboration of wear versus strike weakness or justification for ignoring the 5% luster remaining.
Then the submitters would want to know why friction was counted or ignored, whether it was the number of marks or the location, whether the tiny rim bump was included or excluded? Was the toning considered positive or negative? You'd end up needing a 1000 word essay for every coin.
You're right. I had it in reverse.
In reading the complete thread I did not realize there was so much lacking in the grading field.
My suggestion: Have some standard method to report errors to PCGS (like a "Report an error" link) on the Cert Verification and the ValueView pages.
Here are a few examples:
https://pcgs.com/cert/30181549
Image has an obvious issue.
https://pcgs.com/cert/27251248
Image and the "Latest Major Auction Appearances of This Coin:" match, but the coin details are wrong.
https://pcgs.com/valueview/frankfurt-am-main/1856-kreuzer/1175?sn=497988&h=pop
Click on the Auction Record ($114.5 • NGC NGC GENUINE • 1-16-2023 • EBAY) and it shows an 1856 6 Kreuzer, not a (one) Kreuzer.
Reporting these through the generic "Contact Customer Service" is a pain, and doesn't directly tie the issue to the erroneous Cert Verification or ValueView page. A user stumbling across an issue should be able to quickly report it.
My World Coin Type Set
With grading being so important, which could end up determining top registry sets, higher pop number and most importantly, a large sum of money, I would like to see my graded coins reflecting who graded them at the TPG company. A name and employee number reflected on the paperwork or attached to the coin info on the TPG’s site. I have not ever heard of a grader being mentioned whom graded the coin, except JA with CAC. I think something like this could bring credit to a grader’s profession as well as weed out some poor graders. Or maybe this is meant to be anonymous? Or protect the TPG’s integrity. Or hold TPG to a higher standard? Not sure what to think about this, but I like the idea.
And there is my question
My Saint Set
I may have been a bit too glass half empty and will eat my crow based on how well the thread has held together so far. Very cool to see all the different ideas in one place and being discussed in a constructive way.
Clockwork like grading times, reliable, fast and affordable.
No need to eat any crow. Any concerns you had were understandable. This is an example of the forum at its best.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
From what I have seen, CACG confirms and/or gives out very few plus grades. Many of the plus grades at CACG result from a coin being downgraded from a "solid" grade. When you think about it, if 25% of a solid grade coin are downgraded and 25% are upgraded, it works out that theoretically 50% of each date/mintmark would fall into a ....63, 63+,64, 64+,65... universe which would perhaps make the price guides more logical when it comes to valuing plus grades.
So I recommend grading services tighten up their grading stands to the above described model..
A banned badge
Martin
Don't forget that MFeld was banned at one time and was later elected as the unofficial King of the US Coin Forum.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
To be fair, he wasn't banned by the same people who elected him.
No kidding.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
In the vein of “should be so easy yet it’s still a problem”: Holder my coins with the obverse actually as the obverse.
And in the “should not be too hard because the other guy already does it”: combine grading submissions of different tiers back into one return submission.
And in the hopes and dreams camp: consistency
Latin American Collection
The first submission daunted me. I am not sure about the best option to choose for a coin. Perhaps a guided step-by step on-line submission form.
Contact me if I missed something, I would pay for communication to receive graders’ suggestions until I improve.
Someone to hold my hand for a while. I do not want to wear down the experts who are here with my questions, before I can understand the answers they provide.
WHOSE EYE??
The buyers know what they like.
Or will tolerate.
I still continue to believe a diagram of the coin (such is done for certified diamond) with ‘problem areas’ or the area which determined a grade of say a DCAM 69 instead of DCAM 70 circled so we know what caused the downgrade. I look at coins in DCAM69 and DCAM68 holders and have no clue what the graders saw to make that determination as they look perfect to me, so it would be nice to see what area on the coin caused the coin to not earn a perfect 70. Since most coins are only viewed for a few seconds, adding another few seconds to make marks on a diagram shouldn’t cost that much time. I think the marked up diagram of the coin would also squelch comments concerning rim nicks, scratches, etc., that we later see and THINK might have been the reason for a grade.
I read through all of the suggestions, the one I like the most is photographing all coins submitted for anti counterfeit purposes. That would really help the hobby and would give new collectors more confidence in buying coins. I think if new collectors get burned by accidentally buying counterfeits that they stop collecting.
As for my suggestion, I’d like to see more info if you look up the cert number, everything from educational info about that date/type of coin to a history of when the coin was slabbed as well as the anti counterfeit pictures already mentioned.
Mr_Spud
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the coin doesn't go through the finalizer until it's in a holder, so while the grade is "set" before encapsulation, if the finalizer has a problem with the grade, it can be changed/reconsidered after encapsulation. They won't report the grade until it's gone through the finalizer.
Jeremy, I don’t know the answer to your question. But when I graded at NGC, the coins were inspected after they’d been sealed. And it wasn’t particularly unusual for some grades to be changed. I hope something similar is done these days, as well.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Not feasible at all! Submissions would come to a screeching halt. The average in quality for example, with Jefferson nickels, my series, what gets sent in, your average strike, luster and condition is what helps collectors fill their collections in a timely manner. The condition and luster and perhaps some toning is the average coin cgc's stay afloat on.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
I have seen my suggestions referenced already, but I thought I might rephrase them.
A lot of disappointment and contention arises from a few draconian elements of the current grading approach.
1) Eliminate AU/BU. Shocking, yes, but why should we still treat a tiny trace of wear so drastically? In many cases this is really a difficult call. Say we have a less than perfect strike and the original planchet surface comes out of the die untouched. There is no reason to expect it to have continuous luster since the die never impacted this area. If one person looks at the coin and sees a luster break it becomes AU. Another may see a weak strike and an untouched surface and go BU. Lets get rid of this artificial AU/BU boundary entirely and stick with numeric grades. (If you want a 63/AU designation, go ahead. But I see this area too ripe for contention to bother with that designation.)
2) Give strike more prominence. A worn die will produce a coin with worse detailed surfaces. Yet, the die wear may produce a rougher surface that produces more luster, paradoxically giving a late die state coin a higher grade that one struck earlier from the same dies with more fidelity. Frankly, this just befuddles me.
3) Details grading. I have a couple of coins that (IMHO) might be MS67, but have been marked Details. I look at them and still don’t see why. However, the real point is that an astonishingly nice example of a coin has been rendered equivalent to the same coin run over in a parking lot. Especially telling are categories such as Wheel Mark, or Coin Counting Machine marks that may have occurred in the mint as part of production. A Details grade throws away all knowledge the grader has about the coin and destroys its value. (Would you buy them???)
Merge their businesses and overall get stricter.
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
Make a residue retardant holder that prevents organic residues (including glue/stickers) from adhering to the holder.
It's currently 15% of the grade. What percent do you think it should be?
And this made more sense at the dawn of third party grading, when a big part of the rationale was sight-unseen trading. Today, expected digital imaging pretty much makes that, as subjective as it is anyway, not worth much at all and would be an argumentation source.
I know that NGC does the strike and surfaces designations (x/5 for each), which is similar. But ancients involve a collecting base that is highly variable in understanding typical from superb over so many issues. The NGC PQ star is another, which certainly PCGS seriously considered when NGC started that. We already have a lot of grades, pluses, CAC stickers, and digital imaging. It could generate more regrade/reconsideration submissions, but not worth the reputational headache, as most owners are naturally biased that their coins are terrific in presentation more often than not.
The NGC Star is for exceptional eye-appeal and not based on a coin being PQ.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Indeed.
Surfaces are a horrible way to grade moderns since they all have virtually perfect surfaces. What makes moderns different is that many of the coins are ugly because of poor strikes and/ or worn dies. Who wants high grade ugly coins?
The grading companies should just give me my grades within seconds of me filling out the form with an essay on its uniqueness and how it arrived at that grade. For free, if possible.
Additionally, they should bestow upon me their abilities to grade as I haven’t the trouble to try and learn myself after collecting for years.
They should just keep the coin and sell it for me (with considerable profit) and then just buy any future coins for my collection.