@PeakRarities said:
It's interesting to me how many collectors ive heard try to deny the existence of gradeflation, despite concrete evidence such as this.
It is a detriment to the collector when the TPG census for superb gem coins is erroneously diluted from submissions like this. Say what you will about CAC, but at least the CAC populations can give us some useful insight into how many coins actually exist at this grade level.
Obviously, there is a level of subjectivity because some coins that are graded MS67 might not be considered MS67 by all of us, but if you have 25 coins that are not considered MS-67 by ANY of us, how is one supposed to know the actual conditional rarity of a 1901 $10 in superb gem?
NGC alone has 858 1901's graded as 66 or 66+, and PCGS has 67.
CAC has approved just 16 coins in ms66. If I had to guess, they're probably all PCGS coins, or 14 or 15/16 are PCGS coins. There are 925 total coins at the 66 level, between both services.
16/925 = .017, so not even 2% of ms66s graded by the tpgs have gotten CAC approval. How is it possible that NGC's line for ms66 is that far removed from the CAC line? As we can see, not only is it possible, but it is factually demonstrated by this thread.
CAC has approved zero 1901 $10's in MS-67. NGC has graded 118 of them, and PCGS has graded just 5. 123 coins total, and not even one of them meets the standard for ms67 according to CAC. That tells us just how bad this problem has become, and it makes it difficult for dealers like me, who's business model revolves around quality.
Most collectors choose not to learn how to grade, they find it to be a better use of their time to utilize the opinions of TPGs, which makes a lot of sense in theory. Dealers who are trying to sell a nice 1903-s 66+ CAC lib for $10 for 5 figures are at a disadvantage, when collectors who haven't learned to grade see that they can buy an NGC 67 for 1/3 of the price. They think to themselves that PCGS and NGC can't possibly have standards that are that different, so the NGC 67 is likely an equivalent to the PCGS 66+CAC, when in reality they're just overpaying for a 64 in a 67 holder.
Dan, I agree with much of what you wrote. However, with respect to the MS67 1901 $10’s, I’m nowhere close to concluding that there are “25 coins that are not considered MS-67 by ANY of us.”
Also, you made reference to NGC's line for ms66 being far removed from the CAC line but neglected to acknowledge that it appears PCGS’s line is, too.
Mark, I know you try to resist making determinations from pictures, but of the 10 that I looked up I would not even say that one of them looks like a 66, let alone 67. I might be able to get to 65 on a couple of them but I buy many coins from photos and as a result am pretty confident in my grading skills using only pictures.
With respect to your last sentence, your point is well received, but theres a significant difference between 67 and 857. That is a 1,280% difference, so I stand by my comment that NGC's line is far removed from CAC's. Also as I mentioned, CAC has approved 16 coins at the ms66 level. We dont know for certain, but I am a betting man and I would bet that at least 12 of them are PCGS coins. 12/67 is roughly 18%, and even if that number was only 10, 10/67 is roughly 15%, which would be consistent with the CAC approval percentage for other issues that I have researched.
Now, for the sake of conversation lets say that 10 of the CAC 16 are PCGS coins (and as i've said, I wouldn't be surprised if it was more than that), then that would leave 6 as NGC coins. 6/857 comes out to a whopping seven tenths of a percent. Not even 1/100 coins, so does that explain my position better as to why I left PCGS out of the equation?
Dan, I’m not saying you’re wrong. I’m just more cautious in reaching conclusions.
Mark, I’ve only alluded to a conclusion but I haven’t made any affirmative statements, other than the fact that a 25 coin submission of 1901s resulted in 25 more ms67s. That much is a fact, and it’s also a fact that the population of MS67s has significantly increased since 2017.
I’ll still await an answer from your contact at NGC, but I tend to defer to Occam’s razor when there’s reasonable doubt. We will wait and see what comes of this, but the implications are terrible for the hobby, and don’t sit well with this guy.
.
.
From this Heritage auction description, it appears one can narrow the time frame some more from 2017 to April/June 2020 where it is stated as census 7 in 67.
See, now this is a nice looking coin. I can’t quite get to 67 on it, but I see it as a 66 and it’s at least conceivable that it would end up in a 67 holder.
Unlike this example where I can’t even get past MS64, and some poor soul wasted $12,600 on a coin worth 10% of that.
@PeakRarities said:
So is it ok for us to jump to conclusions now? That response tells me everything I need to know….
It's not up to me to tell you whether it's OK to jump to conclusions. And I wont tell you to go jump in a lake or take a hike, either.
I told my contact that I thought no matter what I posted, there'd be some criticism of NGC.
Considering that the coins were graded years ago and NGC doesn't have them there to examine, I don't know what more they could do or say. I am under the impression that the grading didn't appear to be a mechanical error, as if that had been the case, I think I would have been told.
Which in itself is the problem. It’s NOT POSSIBLE for 25 random coins to all grade 67 or higher, and I can’t be convinced otherwise. I had heard the rumors about Salzburg’s moonlight operation but never seen it with my own eyes. Shame on NGC.
I wonder if there is a profitable arbitrage by buying these on the cheap (for a 67) and returning for a grade guarantee.
The only problem would be if they grade it as MS-67 AGAIN..................
@PeakRarities said:
So is it ok for us to jump to conclusions now? That response tells me everything I need to know….
It's not up to me to tell you whether it's OK to jump to conclusions. And I wont tell you to go jump in a lake or take a hike, either.
I told my contact that I thought no matter what I posted, there'd be some criticism of NGC.
Considering that the coins were graded years ago and NGC doesn't have them there to examine, I don't know what more they could do or say. I am under the impression that the grading didn't appear to be a mechanical error, as if that had been the case, I think I would have been told.
Which in itself is the problem. It’s NOT POSSIBLE for 25 random coins to all grade 67 or higher, and I can’t be convinced otherwise. I had heard the rumors about Salzburg’s moonlight operation but never seen it with my own eyes. Shame on NGC.
My guess - and that's all it is - is that it wasn't a group of 25 random coins, but rather, a larger group that was submitted with a minimum grade of 67.
Certainly it wasn't a random group of coins, but can you honestly imagine anyone submitting the coin in the OP with a minimum grade of 67?
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
@PeakRarities said:
So is it ok for us to jump to conclusions now? That response tells me everything I need to know….
It's not up to me to tell you whether it's OK to jump to conclusions. And I wont tell you to go jump in a lake or take a hike, either.
I told my contact that I thought no matter what I posted, there'd be some criticism of NGC.
Considering that the coins were graded years ago and NGC doesn't have them there to examine, I don't know what more they could do or say. I am under the impression that the grading didn't appear to be a mechanical error, as if that had been the case, I think I would have been told.
Which in itself is the problem. It’s NOT POSSIBLE for 25 random coins to all grade 67 or higher, and I can’t be convinced otherwise. I had heard the rumors about Salzburg’s moonlight operation but never seen it with my own eyes. Shame on NGC.
My guess - and that's all it is - is that it wasn't a group of 25 random coins, but rather, a larger group that was submitted with a minimum grade of 67.
Certainly it wasn't a random group of coins, but can you honestly imagine anyone submitting the coin in the OP with a minimum grade of 67?
Andy, over the years, I’ve seen a lot of coins submitted with minimum grades I couldn’t imagine. And I’ve even seen plenty of grades given that I couldn’t imagine. Have your experiences been different?😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@PeakRarities said:
So is it ok for us to jump to conclusions now? That response tells me everything I need to know….
It's not up to me to tell you whether it's OK to jump to conclusions. And I wont tell you to go jump in a lake or take a hike, either.
I told my contact that I thought no matter what I posted, there'd be some criticism of NGC.
Considering that the coins were graded years ago and NGC doesn't have them there to examine, I don't know what more they could do or say. I am under the impression that the grading didn't appear to be a mechanical error, as if that had been the case, I think I would have been told.
Which in itself is the problem. It’s NOT POSSIBLE for 25 random coins to all grade 67 or higher, and I can’t be convinced otherwise. I had heard the rumors about Salzburg’s moonlight operation but never seen it with my own eyes. Shame on NGC.
My guess - and that's all it is - is that it wasn't a group of 25 random coins, but rather, a larger group that was submitted with a minimum grade of 67.
Certainly it wasn't a random group of coins, but can you honestly imagine anyone submitting the coin in the OP with a minimum grade of 67?
Andy, over the years, I’ve seen a lot of coins submitted with minimum grades I couldn’t imagine. And I’ve even seen plenty of grades given that I couldn’t imagine. Have your experiences been different?😉
Back when I graded at PCGS, graders had no idea if a minimum grade had been requested. When you were at NGC, was it the same way?
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
@PeakRarities said:
So is it ok for us to jump to conclusions now? That response tells me everything I need to know….
It's not up to me to tell you whether it's OK to jump to conclusions. And I wont tell you to go jump in a lake or take a hike, either.
I told my contact that I thought no matter what I posted, there'd be some criticism of NGC.
Considering that the coins were graded years ago and NGC doesn't have them there to examine, I don't know what more they could do or say. I am under the impression that the grading didn't appear to be a mechanical error, as if that had been the case, I think I would have been told.
Which in itself is the problem. It’s NOT POSSIBLE for 25 random coins to all grade 67 or higher, and I can’t be convinced otherwise. I had heard the rumors about Salzburg’s moonlight operation but never seen it with my own eyes. Shame on NGC.
My guess - and that's all it is - is that it wasn't a group of 25 random coins, but rather, a larger group that was submitted with a minimum grade of 67.
Certainly it wasn't a random group of coins, but can you honestly imagine anyone submitting the coin in the OP with a minimum grade of 67?
Andy, over the years, I’ve seen a lot of coins submitted with minimum grades I couldn’t imagine. And I’ve even seen plenty of grades given that I couldn’t imagine. Have your experiences been different?😉
Back when I graded at PCGS, graders had no idea if a minimum grade had been requested. When you were at NGC, was it the same way?
I really can’t remember for certain. But I wasn’t speaking from a grader’s point of view. I was talking about being around dealers and collectors and seeing what some of them were thinking of submitting and/or submitting.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@PeakRarities said:
So is it ok for us to jump to conclusions now? That response tells me everything I need to know….
It's not up to me to tell you whether it's OK to jump to conclusions. And I wont tell you to go jump in a lake or take a hike, either.
I told my contact that I thought no matter what I posted, there'd be some criticism of NGC.
Considering that the coins were graded years ago and NGC doesn't have them there to examine, I don't know what more they could do or say. I am under the impression that the grading didn't appear to be a mechanical error, as if that had been the case, I think I would have been told.
Which in itself is the problem. It’s NOT POSSIBLE for 25 random coins to all grade 67 or higher, and I can’t be convinced otherwise. I had heard the rumors about Salzburg’s moonlight operation but never seen it with my own eyes. Shame on NGC.
My guess - and that's all it is - is that it wasn't a group of 25 random coins, but rather, a larger group that was submitted with a minimum grade of 67.
Certainly it wasn't a random group of coins, but can you honestly imagine anyone submitting the coin in the OP with a minimum grade of 67?
Andy, over the years, I’ve seen a lot of coins submitted with minimum grades I couldn’t imagine. And I’ve even seen plenty of grades given that I couldn’t imagine. Have your experiences been different?😉
Back when I graded at PCGS, graders had no idea if a minimum grade had been requested. When you were at NGC, was it the same way?
I really can’t remember for certain. But I wasn’t speaking from a grader’s point of view. I was talking about being around dealers and collectors and seeing what some of them were thinking of submitting and/or submitting.
I hardly ever see other dealers' submissions, so I have no idea about that. I just can't imagine anyone not being thrilled with a 66 on the coin in the OP, so a minimum grade of 67 is unimaginable for me. But to answer your other question, yes, I've seen plenty of unimaginable grades on slabs.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
@MFeld said:
Here's the reply I received from NGC:
"This coin was graded a number of years ago, and any coin believed to be overgraded can be sent be sent for Appearance Review under the terms of NGC's written guarantee."
@MFeld said:
Here's the reply I received from NGC:
"This coin was graded a number of years ago, and any coin believed to be overgraded can be sent be sent for Appearance Review under the terms of NGC's written guarantee."
Mark - the certification number on the coin is in the current sequence of numbers being generated, which means that "it being graded a number of years ago" is an impossibility. If it was a reholder, it would retain the old cert number. The only way to get that current cert number in the 583 series is for it to have been graded within a couple months of today.
Alex, I have no reason, whatsoever, to doubt the person I contacted.
Mark - I was mistaken, apologies. If you could remove my quote from your post to prevent further confusion, I'd be much appreciative. NGC is in the 690 series currently, not the 583.
Alex, I have no reason, whatsoever, to doubt the person I contacted.
Mark - I was mistaken, apologies. If you could remove my quote from your post to prevent further confusion, I'd be much appreciative. NGC is in the 690 series currently, not the 583.
Done.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@PeakRarities said:
It's interesting to me how many collectors ive heard try to deny the existence of gradeflation, despite concrete evidence such as this.
It is a detriment to the collector when the TPG census for superb gem coins is erroneously diluted from submissions like this. Say what you will about CAC, but at least the CAC populations can give us some useful insight into how many coins actually exist at this grade level.
Obviously, there is a level of subjectivity because some coins that are graded MS67 might not be considered MS67 by all of us, but if you have 25 coins that are not considered MS-67 by ANY of us, how is one supposed to know the actual conditional rarity of a 1901 $10 in superb gem?
NGC alone has 858 1901's graded as 66 or 66+, and PCGS has 67.
CAC has approved just 16 coins in ms66. If I had to guess, they're probably all PCGS coins, or 14 or 15/16 are PCGS coins. There are 925 total coins at the 66 level, between both services.
16/925 = .017, so not even 2% of ms66s graded by the tpgs have gotten CAC approval. How is it possible that NGC's line for ms66 is that far removed from the CAC line? As we can see, not only is it possible, but it is factually demonstrated by this thread.
CAC has approved zero 1901 $10's in MS-67. NGC has graded 118 of them, and PCGS has graded just 5. 123 coins total, and not even one of them meets the standard for ms67 according to CAC. That tells us just how bad this problem has become, and it makes it difficult for dealers like me, who's business model revolves around quality.
Most collectors choose not to learn how to grade, they find it to be a better use of their time to utilize the opinions of TPGs, which makes a lot of sense in theory. Dealers who are trying to sell a nice 1903-s 66+ CAC lib for $10 for 5 figures are at a disadvantage, when collectors who haven't learned to grade see that they can buy an NGC 67 for 1/3 of the price. They think to themselves that PCGS and NGC can't possibly have standards that are that different, so the NGC 67 is likely an equivalent to the PCGS 66+CAC, when in reality they're just overpaying for a 64 in a 67 holder.
Dan, I agree with much of what you wrote. However, with respect to the MS67 1901 $10’s, I’m nowhere close to concluding that there are “25 coins that are not considered MS-67 by ANY of us.”
Also, you made reference to NGC's line for ms66 being far removed from the CAC line but neglected to acknowledge that it appears PCGS’s line is, too.
Mark, I know you try to resist making determinations from pictures, but of the 10 that I looked up I would not even say that one of them looks like a 66, let alone 67. I might be able to get to 65 on a couple of them but I buy many coins from photos and as a result am pretty confident in my grading skills using only pictures.
With respect to your last sentence, your point is well received, but theres a significant difference between 67 and 857. That is a 1,280% difference, so I stand by my comment that NGC's line is far removed from CAC's. Also as I mentioned, CAC has approved 16 coins at the ms66 level. We dont know for certain, but I am a betting man and I would bet that at least 12 of them are PCGS coins. 12/67 is roughly 18%, and even if that number was only 10, 10/67 is roughly 15%, which would be consistent with the CAC approval percentage for other issues that I have researched.
Now, for the sake of conversation lets say that 10 of the CAC 16 are PCGS coins (and as i've said, I wouldn't be surprised if it was more than that), then that would leave 6 as NGC coins. 6/857 comes out to a whopping seven tenths of a percent. Not even 1/100 coins, so does that explain my position better as to why I left PCGS out of the equation?
I've got a box of 20 MS67 dimes PCGS dimes that are all proofs. Mechanical error. They all have consecutive serial numbers because for bulk submissions they grade sort them and then number them. So this might be the NGC version of that where someone simply hit the wrong button in printing the labels. I would not YET read anything more than that into this.
okay, hit the wrong button when the labels made. Shouldn't that kind of error be caught by a final grader? You know, the one who inspects the slab one last time to catch errors like this before the slab is sent to the customer?
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
And yet all the pieces got by final inspection. Isn't final inspection by a top grader where the buck stops at a TPG? MS 67+!? That's a $60K+ coin and I counted half a dozen different 67+'s shown here.
This is a great example of the number system for grading mint state coins failing spectacularly.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
@PeakRarities said:
It's interesting to me how many collectors ive heard try to deny the existence of gradeflation, despite concrete evidence such as this.
It is a detriment to the collector when the TPG census for superb gem coins is erroneously diluted from submissions like this. Say what you will about CAC, but at least the CAC populations can give us some useful insight into how many coins actually exist at this grade level.
Obviously, there is a level of subjectivity because some coins that are graded MS67 might not be considered MS67 by all of us, but if you have 25 coins that are not considered MS-67 by ANY of us, how is one supposed to know the actual conditional rarity of a 1901 $10 in superb gem?
NGC alone has 858 1901's graded as 66 or 66+, and PCGS has 67.
CAC has approved just 16 coins in ms66. If I had to guess, they're probably all PCGS coins, or 14 or 15/16 are PCGS coins. There are 925 total coins at the 66 level, between both services.
16/925 = .017, so not even 2% of ms66s graded by the tpgs have gotten CAC approval. How is it possible that NGC's line for ms66 is that far removed from the CAC line? As we can see, not only is it possible, but it is factually demonstrated by this thread.
CAC has approved zero 1901 $10's in MS-67. NGC has graded 118 of them, and PCGS has graded just 5. 123 coins total, and not even one of them meets the standard for ms67 according to CAC. That tells us just how bad this problem has become, and it makes it difficult for dealers like me, who's business model revolves around quality.
Most collectors choose not to learn how to grade, they find it to be a better use of their time to utilize the opinions of TPGs, which makes a lot of sense in theory. Dealers who are trying to sell a nice 1903-s 66+ CAC lib for $10 for 5 figures are at a disadvantage, when collectors who haven't learned to grade see that they can buy an NGC 67 for 1/3 of the price. They think to themselves that PCGS and NGC can't possibly have standards that are that different, so the NGC 67 is likely an equivalent to the PCGS 66+CAC, when in reality they're just overpaying for a 64 in a 67 holder.
And despite the rant above, these grades were the apparent result of one particular group of coins graded at one particular point in time. That does not indicate any broader trend of gradeflation or even of grading standards at all beyond this particular group of coins. I can say with near positivity this coin would not grade 67 if currently submitted raw. If you exclude the whole population of 1901 and 1901-S $10s, PCGS has graded 22 MS67/67+ Liberty $10s over the whole series. NGC has graded 29. Not a huge difference.
Quick reminder that initial years of the TPGs were the years of MS68 and MS69 large cents and overgraded 1804 Dollars. You can find loose coins and tight coins from any era and any grading service, and trends for particular series can be tighter or looser or about the same relative to the way they trended 30 years ago.
Also, you’re treating CAC as an objective source of the “true” grade, when that is very much not the truth. It is one person’s opinion. That one person’s opinion is not necessarily better than the opinion of other graders at the other TPGs. It may be tighter, but that doesn’t make it more valid.
@PeakRarities said:
It's interesting to me how many collectors ive heard try to deny the existence of gradeflation, despite concrete evidence such as this.
It is a detriment to the collector when the TPG census for superb gem coins is erroneously diluted from submissions like this. Say what you will about CAC, but at least the CAC populations can give us some useful insight into how many coins actually exist at this grade level.
Obviously, there is a level of subjectivity because some coins that are graded MS67 might not be considered MS67 by all of us, but if you have 25 coins that are not considered MS-67 by ANY of us, how is one supposed to know the actual conditional rarity of a 1901 $10 in superb gem?
NGC alone has 858 1901's graded as 66 or 66+, and PCGS has 67.
CAC has approved just 16 coins in ms66. If I had to guess, they're probably all PCGS coins, or 14 or 15/16 are PCGS coins. There are 925 total coins at the 66 level, between both services.
16/925 = .017, so not even 2% of ms66s graded by the tpgs have gotten CAC approval. How is it possible that NGC's line for ms66 is that far removed from the CAC line? As we can see, not only is it possible, but it is factually demonstrated by this thread.
CAC has approved zero 1901 $10's in MS-67. NGC has graded 118 of them, and PCGS has graded just 5. 123 coins total, and not even one of them meets the standard for ms67 according to CAC. That tells us just how bad this problem has become, and it makes it difficult for dealers like me, who's business model revolves around quality.
Most collectors choose not to learn how to grade, they find it to be a better use of their time to utilize the opinions of TPGs, which makes a lot of sense in theory. Dealers who are trying to sell a nice 1903-s 66+ CAC lib for $10 for 5 figures are at a disadvantage, when collectors who haven't learned to grade see that they can buy an NGC 67 for 1/3 of the price. They think to themselves that PCGS and NGC can't possibly have standards that are that different, so the NGC 67 is likely an equivalent to the PCGS 66+CAC, when in reality they're just overpaying for a 64 in a 67 holder.
And despite the rant above, these grades were the apparent result of one particular group of coins graded at one particular point in time. That does not indicate any broader trend of gradeflation or even of grading standards at all beyond this particular group of coins. I can say with near positivity this coin would not grade 67 if currently submitted raw. If you exclude the whole population of 1901 and 1901-S $10s, PCGS has graded 22 MS67/67+ Liberty $10s over the whole series. NGC has graded 29. Not a huge difference.
Quick reminder that initial years of the TPGs were the years of MS68 and MS69 large cents and overgraded 1804 Dollars. You can find loose coins and tight coins from any era and any grading service, and trends for particular series can be tighter or looser or about the same relative to the way they trended 30 years ago.
Also, you’re treating CAC as an objective source of the “true” grade, when that is very much not the truth. It is one person’s opinion. That one person’s opinion is not necessarily better than the opinion of other graders at the other TPGs. It may be tighter, but that doesn’t make it more valid.
While I agree with most of what you wrote, none of it negates the reality of gradeflation. And that was the main point of the post by @PeakRarities.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I'm experiencing gradedeflation! With everyone trying to out do one another and trueviews that look like 70s TV!
When sending in coins today @you gotta ask yourself one question...Do I feel Lucky?! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0-oinyjsk0
@PeakRarities said:
It's interesting to me how many collectors ive heard try to deny the existence of gradeflation, despite concrete evidence such as this.
It is a detriment to the collector when the TPG census for superb gem coins is erroneously diluted from submissions like this. Say what you will about CAC, but at least the CAC populations can give us some useful insight into how many coins actually exist at this grade level.
Obviously, there is a level of subjectivity because some coins that are graded MS67 might not be considered MS67 by all of us, but if you have 25 coins that are not considered MS-67 by ANY of us, how is one supposed to know the actual conditional rarity of a 1901 $10 in superb gem?
NGC alone has 858 1901's graded as 66 or 66+, and PCGS has 67.
CAC has approved just 16 coins in ms66. If I had to guess, they're probably all PCGS coins, or 14 or 15/16 are PCGS coins. There are 925 total coins at the 66 level, between both services.
16/925 = .017, so not even 2% of ms66s graded by the tpgs have gotten CAC approval. How is it possible that NGC's line for ms66 is that far removed from the CAC line? As we can see, not only is it possible, but it is factually demonstrated by this thread.
CAC has approved zero 1901 $10's in MS-67. NGC has graded 118 of them, and PCGS has graded just 5. 123 coins total, and not even one of them meets the standard for ms67 according to CAC. That tells us just how bad this problem has become, and it makes it difficult for dealers like me, who's business model revolves around quality.
Most collectors choose not to learn how to grade, they find it to be a better use of their time to utilize the opinions of TPGs, which makes a lot of sense in theory. Dealers who are trying to sell a nice 1903-s 66+ CAC lib for $10 for 5 figures are at a disadvantage, when collectors who haven't learned to grade see that they can buy an NGC 67 for 1/3 of the price. They think to themselves that PCGS and NGC can't possibly have standards that are that different, so the NGC 67 is likely an equivalent to the PCGS 66+CAC, when in reality they're just overpaying for a 64 in a 67 holder.
And despite the rant above, these grades were the apparent result of one particular group of coins graded at one particular point in time. That does not indicate any broader trend of gradeflation or even of grading standards at all beyond this particular group of coins. I can say with near positivity this coin would not grade 67 if currently submitted raw. If you exclude the whole population of 1901 and 1901-S $10s, PCGS has graded 22 MS67/67+ Liberty $10s over the whole series. NGC has graded 29. Not a huge difference.
Quick reminder that initial years of the TPGs were the years of MS68 and MS69 large cents and overgraded 1804 Dollars. You can find loose coins and tight coins from any era and any grading service, and trends for particular series can be tighter or looser or about the same relative to the way they trended 30 years ago.
Also, you’re treating CAC as an objective source of the “true” grade, when that is very much not the truth. It is one person’s opinion. That one person’s opinion is not necessarily better than the opinion of other graders at the other TPGs. It may be tighter, but that doesn’t make it more valid.
Actually, I'm not treating CAC as an objective source of the "true grade". Perhaps you didn't read my post thoroughly, but I stated -
"Obviously, there is a level of subjectivity because some coins that are graded MS67 might not be considered MS67 by all of us, but if you have 25 coins that are not considered MS-67 by ANY of us, how is one supposed to know the actual conditional rarity of a 1901 $10 in superb gem? "
In essence, I was saying that while CAC is not the objective arbiter of what's a 67 and what's not, the fact that there are only 16 coins that earned CAC approval, despite a TPG population of almost 1000, certainly gives us some insight into the reality of gradeflation. It shouldn't be a difficult point to get a across, but the CAC population reflects an approval rating sub 2% for 1901 in MS66, and sub 1% in MS67. Regardless of whether or not you rely on CAC more than the other services, those approval ratings are pitiful in comparison to most other issues, and clearly, there's a reason for that.
And as @MFeld said above, none of what you wrote negates the veritable reality of gradeflation.
"If you exclude the whole population of 1901 and 1901-S $10s, PCGS has graded 22 MS67/67+ Liberty $10s over the whole series. NGC has graded 29. Not a huge difference."
Well isn't that convenient for your argument, that we're going to exclude the most common issues that are the subject of this discussion? Cue @winesteven and his "Other than the assassination, how was the play?" joke...
One BIG thing NOT mentioned regarding the very low percentage of CAC acceptance, ESPECIALLY with pre-1933 gold coins, is that many of those CAC "failures" is not due to a difference of opinion in grade, but that CAC is very strict on the use of "surface treatments" which are unacceptable to CAC, but apparently are acceptable to the other TPG's!
Regarding my joke, for those not familiar with it, having to do with something made more important than it should be: Here's the full version: A reporter at Ford's theater asked Mrs. Lincoln, "So, other than the assassination, how was the play?"
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@PeakRarities said:
It's interesting to me how many collectors ive heard try to deny the existence of gradeflation, despite concrete evidence such as this.
It is a detriment to the collector when the TPG census for superb gem coins is erroneously diluted from submissions like this. Say what you will about CAC, but at least the CAC populations can give us some useful insight into how many coins actually exist at this grade level.
Obviously, there is a level of subjectivity because some coins that are graded MS67 might not be considered MS67 by all of us, but if you have 25 coins that are not considered MS-67 by ANY of us, how is one supposed to know the actual conditional rarity of a 1901 $10 in superb gem?
NGC alone has 858 1901's graded as 66 or 66+, and PCGS has 67.
CAC has approved just 16 coins in ms66. If I had to guess, they're probably all PCGS coins, or 14 or 15/16 are PCGS coins. There are 925 total coins at the 66 level, between both services.
16/925 = .017, so not even 2% of ms66s graded by the tpgs have gotten CAC approval. How is it possible that NGC's line for ms66 is that far removed from the CAC line? As we can see, not only is it possible, but it is factually demonstrated by this thread.
CAC has approved zero 1901 $10's in MS-67. NGC has graded 118 of them, and PCGS has graded just 5. 123 coins total, and not even one of them meets the standard for ms67 according to CAC. That tells us just how bad this problem has become, and it makes it difficult for dealers like me, who's business model revolves around quality.
Most collectors choose not to learn how to grade, they find it to be a better use of their time to utilize the opinions of TPGs, which makes a lot of sense in theory. Dealers who are trying to sell a nice 1903-s 66+ CAC lib for $10 for 5 figures are at a disadvantage, when collectors who haven't learned to grade see that they can buy an NGC 67 for 1/3 of the price. They think to themselves that PCGS and NGC can't possibly have standards that are that different, so the NGC 67 is likely an equivalent to the PCGS 66+CAC, when in reality they're just overpaying for a 64 in a 67 holder.
And despite the rant above, these grades were the apparent result of one particular group of coins graded at one particular point in time. That does not indicate any broader trend of gradeflation or even of grading standards at all beyond this particular group of coins. I can say with near positivity this coin would not grade 67 if currently submitted raw. If you exclude the whole population of 1901 and 1901-S $10s, PCGS has graded 22 MS67/67+ Liberty $10s over the whole series. NGC has graded 29. Not a huge difference.
Quick reminder that initial years of the TPGs were the years of MS68 and MS69 large cents and overgraded 1804 Dollars. You can find loose coins and tight coins from any era and any grading service, and trends for particular series can be tighter or looser or about the same relative to the way they trended 30 years ago.
Also, you’re treating CAC as an objective source of the “true” grade, when that is very much not the truth. It is one person’s opinion. That one person’s opinion is not necessarily better than the opinion of other graders at the other TPGs. It may be tighter, but that doesn’t make it more valid.
While I agree with most of what you wrote, none of it negates the reality of gradeflation. And that was the main point of the post by @PeakRarities.
@PeakRarities wrote that this coin was concrete evidence of gradeflation. It is not.
@PeakRarities said:
It's interesting to me how many collectors ive heard try to deny the existence of gradeflation, despite concrete evidence such as this.
It is a detriment to the collector when the TPG census for superb gem coins is erroneously diluted from submissions like this. Say what you will about CAC, but at least the CAC populations can give us some useful insight into how many coins actually exist at this grade level.
Obviously, there is a level of subjectivity because some coins that are graded MS67 might not be considered MS67 by all of us, but if you have 25 coins that are not considered MS-67 by ANY of us, how is one supposed to know the actual conditional rarity of a 1901 $10 in superb gem?
NGC alone has 858 1901's graded as 66 or 66+, and PCGS has 67.
CAC has approved just 16 coins in ms66. If I had to guess, they're probably all PCGS coins, or 14 or 15/16 are PCGS coins. There are 925 total coins at the 66 level, between both services.
16/925 = .017, so not even 2% of ms66s graded by the tpgs have gotten CAC approval. How is it possible that NGC's line for ms66 is that far removed from the CAC line? As we can see, not only is it possible, but it is factually demonstrated by this thread.
CAC has approved zero 1901 $10's in MS-67. NGC has graded 118 of them, and PCGS has graded just 5. 123 coins total, and not even one of them meets the standard for ms67 according to CAC. That tells us just how bad this problem has become, and it makes it difficult for dealers like me, who's business model revolves around quality.
Most collectors choose not to learn how to grade, they find it to be a better use of their time to utilize the opinions of TPGs, which makes a lot of sense in theory. Dealers who are trying to sell a nice 1903-s 66+ CAC lib for $10 for 5 figures are at a disadvantage, when collectors who haven't learned to grade see that they can buy an NGC 67 for 1/3 of the price. They think to themselves that PCGS and NGC can't possibly have standards that are that different, so the NGC 67 is likely an equivalent to the PCGS 66+CAC, when in reality they're just overpaying for a 64 in a 67 holder.
And despite the rant above, these grades were the apparent result of one particular group of coins graded at one particular point in time. That does not indicate any broader trend of gradeflation or even of grading standards at all beyond this particular group of coins. I can say with near positivity this coin would not grade 67 if currently submitted raw. If you exclude the whole population of 1901 and 1901-S $10s, PCGS has graded 22 MS67/67+ Liberty $10s over the whole series. NGC has graded 29. Not a huge difference.
Quick reminder that initial years of the TPGs were the years of MS68 and MS69 large cents and overgraded 1804 Dollars. You can find loose coins and tight coins from any era and any grading service, and trends for particular series can be tighter or looser or about the same relative to the way they trended 30 years ago.
Also, you’re treating CAC as an objective source of the “true” grade, when that is very much not the truth. It is one person’s opinion. That one person’s opinion is not necessarily better than the opinion of other graders at the other TPGs. It may be tighter, but that doesn’t make it more valid.
In essence, I was saying that while CAC is not the objective arbiter of what's a 67 and what's not, the fact that there are only 16 coins that earned CAC approval, despite a TPG population of almost 1000, certainly gives us some insight into the reality of gradeflation. It shouldn't be a difficult point to get a across, but the CAC population reflects an approval rating sub 2% for 1901 in MS66, and sub 1% in MS67. Regardless of whether or not you rely on CAC more than the other services, those approval ratings are pitiful in comparison to most other issues, and clearly, there's a reason for that.
Perhaps you didn’t read my post thoroughly, but this is precisely why your argument does not work. By stating that CAC approval of a small percentage of the population indicates gradeflation, you ARE saying that CAC is representative of the “original” or “older” standards. It is not. It is reflective of one grader’s standards, and that one grader is famously tight on gold.
Also, again, much of that population of TPG-graded 66s may be from this group of coins, so again, a lack of CAC approval is not necessarily evident of a trend. Not that it matters either way given what is stated above.
@PeakRarities said:
It's interesting to me how many collectors ive heard try to deny the existence of gradeflation, despite concrete evidence such as this.
It is a detriment to the collector when the TPG census for superb gem coins is erroneously diluted from submissions like this. Say what you will about CAC, but at least the CAC populations can give us some useful insight into how many coins actually exist at this grade level.
Obviously, there is a level of subjectivity because some coins that are graded MS67 might not be considered MS67 by all of us, but if you have 25 coins that are not considered MS-67 by ANY of us, how is one supposed to know the actual conditional rarity of a 1901 $10 in superb gem?
NGC alone has 858 1901's graded as 66 or 66+, and PCGS has 67.
CAC has approved just 16 coins in ms66. If I had to guess, they're probably all PCGS coins, or 14 or 15/16 are PCGS coins. There are 925 total coins at the 66 level, between both services.
16/925 = .017, so not even 2% of ms66s graded by the tpgs have gotten CAC approval. How is it possible that NGC's line for ms66 is that far removed from the CAC line? As we can see, not only is it possible, but it is factually demonstrated by this thread.
CAC has approved zero 1901 $10's in MS-67. NGC has graded 118 of them, and PCGS has graded just 5. 123 coins total, and not even one of them meets the standard for ms67 according to CAC. That tells us just how bad this problem has become, and it makes it difficult for dealers like me, who's business model revolves around quality.
Most collectors choose not to learn how to grade, they find it to be a better use of their time to utilize the opinions of TPGs, which makes a lot of sense in theory. Dealers who are trying to sell a nice 1903-s 66+ CAC lib for $10 for 5 figures are at a disadvantage, when collectors who haven't learned to grade see that they can buy an NGC 67 for 1/3 of the price. They think to themselves that PCGS and NGC can't possibly have standards that are that different, so the NGC 67 is likely an equivalent to the PCGS 66+CAC, when in reality they're just overpaying for a 64 in a 67 holder.
And despite the rant above, these grades were the apparent result of one particular group of coins graded at one particular point in time. That does not indicate any broader trend of gradeflation or even of grading standards at all beyond this particular group of coins. I can say with near positivity this coin would not grade 67 if currently submitted raw. If you exclude the whole population of 1901 and 1901-S $10s, PCGS has graded 22 MS67/67+ Liberty $10s over the whole series. NGC has graded 29. Not a huge difference.
Quick reminder that initial years of the TPGs were the years of MS68 and MS69 large cents and overgraded 1804 Dollars. You can find loose coins and tight coins from any era and any grading service, and trends for particular series can be tighter or looser or about the same relative to the way they trended 30 years ago.
Also, you’re treating CAC as an objective source of the “true” grade, when that is very much not the truth. It is one person’s opinion. That one person’s opinion is not necessarily better than the opinion of other graders at the other TPGs. It may be tighter, but that doesn’t make it more valid.
While I agree with most of what you wrote, none of it negates the reality of gradeflation. And that was the main point of the post by @PeakRarities.
@PeakRarities wrote that this coin was concrete evidence of gradeflation. It is not.
How do you figure that it's not? Based on my comment that I've quoted below, we see that there is a 2,775% increase in coins graded finer than MS-66 since 2017. We see that 25 of them in this thread are clearly overgraded, and they look like choice uncs in 67 holders. That's the definition of gradeflation, I don't understand why you're pushing back against something so black and white. Do you work for NGC?
Anyway, I'm not going to continue to go back and forth as I have to finish uploading inventory, so this is my last reply to you. I really don't understand your motives to try to deny what is so clearly an abuse of the grading system.
@MrEureka said:
Looking back over old auction records, I found an NGC 66 at Heritage (Jan 2018) cataloged as: "1901 $10 MS66 NGC.... Census: 54 in 66 (1 in 66+, 1 in 66 ★ ), 7 finer (11/17)." Wow.
So as of 11/17, the NGC census for 1901 $10 is as follows:
54 in MS-66
1 in MS-66+
1 in MS-66*
7 in MS-67
As of 08/24, it is now:
766 in MS-66
91 in MS-66+
1 in MS-66*
102 in MS-67
16 in MS-67+
The description also states:
"A total of just eight coins are certified numerically finer than this impressive Premium Gem by both services combined. Census: 54 in 66 (1 in 66+, 1 in 66 ★ ), 7 finer (11/17)."
As of today, there are a whopping 222 coins certified numerically finer, by both services combined. A 2775% increase from the end of 2017, in just 7 years.
PCGS has 24,939 coins in the pop report, and just 5 in MS-67, which is a ratio .0002.
NGC has 32,287 coins in the pop report, and 118 in MS-67 or 67+, a ratio of .0036.
@PeakRarities said:
It's interesting to me how many collectors ive heard try to deny the existence of gradeflation, despite concrete evidence such as this.
It is a detriment to the collector when the TPG census for superb gem coins is erroneously diluted from submissions like this. Say what you will about CAC, but at least the CAC populations can give us some useful insight into how many coins actually exist at this grade level.
Obviously, there is a level of subjectivity because some coins that are graded MS67 might not be considered MS67 by all of us, but if you have 25 coins that are not considered MS-67 by ANY of us, how is one supposed to know the actual conditional rarity of a 1901 $10 in superb gem?
NGC alone has 858 1901's graded as 66 or 66+, and PCGS has 67.
CAC has approved just 16 coins in ms66. If I had to guess, they're probably all PCGS coins, or 14 or 15/16 are PCGS coins. There are 925 total coins at the 66 level, between both services.
16/925 = .017, so not even 2% of ms66s graded by the tpgs have gotten CAC approval. How is it possible that NGC's line for ms66 is that far removed from the CAC line? As we can see, not only is it possible, but it is factually demonstrated by this thread.
CAC has approved zero 1901 $10's in MS-67. NGC has graded 118 of them, and PCGS has graded just 5. 123 coins total, and not even one of them meets the standard for ms67 according to CAC. That tells us just how bad this problem has become, and it makes it difficult for dealers like me, who's business model revolves around quality.
Most collectors choose not to learn how to grade, they find it to be a better use of their time to utilize the opinions of TPGs, which makes a lot of sense in theory. Dealers who are trying to sell a nice 1903-s 66+ CAC lib for $10 for 5 figures are at a disadvantage, when collectors who haven't learned to grade see that they can buy an NGC 67 for 1/3 of the price. They think to themselves that PCGS and NGC can't possibly have standards that are that different, so the NGC 67 is likely an equivalent to the PCGS 66+CAC, when in reality they're just overpaying for a 64 in a 67 holder.
And despite the rant above, these grades were the apparent result of one particular group of coins graded at one particular point in time. That does not indicate any broader trend of gradeflation or even of grading standards at all beyond this particular group of coins. I can say with near positivity this coin would not grade 67 if currently submitted raw. If you exclude the whole population of 1901 and 1901-S $10s, PCGS has graded 22 MS67/67+ Liberty $10s over the whole series. NGC has graded 29. Not a huge difference.
Quick reminder that initial years of the TPGs were the years of MS68 and MS69 large cents and overgraded 1804 Dollars. You can find loose coins and tight coins from any era and any grading service, and trends for particular series can be tighter or looser or about the same relative to the way they trended 30 years ago.
Also, you’re treating CAC as an objective source of the “true” grade, when that is very much not the truth. It is one person’s opinion. That one person’s opinion is not necessarily better than the opinion of other graders at the other TPGs. It may be tighter, but that doesn’t make it more valid.
While I agree with most of what you wrote, none of it negates the reality of gradeflation. And that was the main point of the post by @PeakRarities.
@PeakRarities wrote that this coin was concrete evidence of gradeflation. It is not.
How do you figure that it's not? Based on my comment that I've quoted below, we see that there is a 2,775% increase in coins graded finer than MS-66. We see that 25 of them in this thread are clearly overgraded, and they look like choice uncs in 67 holders. That's the definition of gradeflation, I don't understand why you're pushing back against something so black and white. Do you work for NGC?
@MrEureka said:
Looking back over old auction records, I found an NGC 66 at Heritage (Jan 2018) cataloged as: "1901 $10 MS66 NGC.... Census: 54 in 66 (1 in 66+, 1 in 66 ★ ), 7 finer (11/17)." Wow.
So as of 11/17, the NGC census for 1901 $10 is as follows:
54 in MS-66
1 in MS-66+
1 in MS-66*
7 in MS-67
As of 08/24, it is now:
766 in MS-66
91 in MS-66+
1 in MS-66*
102 in MS-67
16 in MS-67+
The description also states:
"A total of just eight coins are certified numerically finer than this impressive Premium Gem by both services combined. Census: 54 in 66 (1 in 66+, 1 in 66 ★ ), 7 finer (11/17)."
As of today, there are a whopping 222 coins certified numerically finer, by both services combined. A 2775% increase from the end of 2017, in just 7 years.
PCGS has 24,939 coins in the pop report, and just 5 in MS-67, which is a ratio .0002.
NGC has 32,287 coins in the pop report, and 118 in MS-67 or 67+, a ratio of .0036.
Because one group of coins is not necessarily indicative of a trend, as I’ve stated multiple times already. The 25 coins you’ve noted are from the same group. The fact that none of the other dates in the NGC population show any greater tendency for 67s relative to PCGS is indicative that all of the 1901 and 1901-S 67s may he from one submission. This isn’t difficult to understand.
@PeakRarities said:
It's interesting to me how many collectors ive heard try to deny the existence of gradeflation, despite concrete evidence such as this.
It is a detriment to the collector when the TPG census for superb gem coins is erroneously diluted from submissions like this. Say what you will about CAC, but at least the CAC populations can give us some useful insight into how many coins actually exist at this grade level.
Obviously, there is a level of subjectivity because some coins that are graded MS67 might not be considered MS67 by all of us, but if you have 25 coins that are not considered MS-67 by ANY of us, how is one supposed to know the actual conditional rarity of a 1901 $10 in superb gem?
NGC alone has 858 1901's graded as 66 or 66+, and PCGS has 67.
CAC has approved just 16 coins in ms66. If I had to guess, they're probably all PCGS coins, or 14 or 15/16 are PCGS coins. There are 925 total coins at the 66 level, between both services.
16/925 = .017, so not even 2% of ms66s graded by the tpgs have gotten CAC approval. How is it possible that NGC's line for ms66 is that far removed from the CAC line? As we can see, not only is it possible, but it is factually demonstrated by this thread.
CAC has approved zero 1901 $10's in MS-67. NGC has graded 118 of them, and PCGS has graded just 5. 123 coins total, and not even one of them meets the standard for ms67 according to CAC. That tells us just how bad this problem has become, and it makes it difficult for dealers like me, who's business model revolves around quality.
Most collectors choose not to learn how to grade, they find it to be a better use of their time to utilize the opinions of TPGs, which makes a lot of sense in theory. Dealers who are trying to sell a nice 1903-s 66+ CAC lib for $10 for 5 figures are at a disadvantage, when collectors who haven't learned to grade see that they can buy an NGC 67 for 1/3 of the price. They think to themselves that PCGS and NGC can't possibly have standards that are that different, so the NGC 67 is likely an equivalent to the PCGS 66+CAC, when in reality they're just overpaying for a 64 in a 67 holder.
And despite the rant above, these grades were the apparent result of one particular group of coins graded at one particular point in time. That does not indicate any broader trend of gradeflation or even of grading standards at all beyond this particular group of coins. I can say with near positivity this coin would not grade 67 if currently submitted raw. If you exclude the whole population of 1901 and 1901-S $10s, PCGS has graded 22 MS67/67+ Liberty $10s over the whole series. NGC has graded 29. Not a huge difference.
Quick reminder that initial years of the TPGs were the years of MS68 and MS69 large cents and overgraded 1804 Dollars. You can find loose coins and tight coins from any era and any grading service, and trends for particular series can be tighter or looser or about the same relative to the way they trended 30 years ago.
Also, you’re treating CAC as an objective source of the “true” grade, when that is very much not the truth. It is one person’s opinion. That one person’s opinion is not necessarily better than the opinion of other graders at the other TPGs. It may be tighter, but that doesn’t make it more valid.
While I agree with most of what you wrote, none of it negates the reality of gradeflation. And that was the main point of the post by @PeakRarities.
@PeakRarities wrote that this coin was concrete evidence of gradeflation. It is not.
Do you work for NGC?
I do not. Classic that because you’re losing an argument or can’t fathom that someone would find holes in your statements, I have to be working with biases. Sounds like you’re the biased one here.
Have you been under a rock for the last 20 years? The 1901 $10's discussed in this thread are gradeflation at its finest. They're not even gem, let alone superb gem. Have you seen just how much less one TPG's coins sell for at auction compared to another's?
Collector of Capped Bust Halves, SLQ's, Commems, and random cool stuff! @davidv_numismatics on Instagram
@Davidk7 said:
Have you been under a rock for the last 20 years? The 1901 $10's discussed in this thread are gradeflation at its finest. They're not even gem, let alone superb gem. Have you seen just how much less one TPG's coins sell for at auction compared to another's?
Do you have difficulties with reading comprehension?
@Davidk7 said:
Have you been under a rock for the last 20 years? The 1901 $10's discussed in this thread are gradeflation at its finest. They're not even gem, let alone superb gem. Have you seen just how much less one TPG's coins sell for at auction compared to another's?
He’s not posting like he’s been under a rock. And with respect to the single group of MS67/67+ 1901 $10’s being discussed, I agree with him that it, alone, isn’t necessarily proof of gradeflation. It looks more like a one-off event. It would be different if other submissions had resulted in conspicuous quantities of additional MS67’s.
I say all of this as a firm believer that noticeable and disturbing gradeflation has occurred. I base that on having seen countless coins upgrade over time, many by more than a point. Yes, some of them were originally graded conservatively. However, many others were not.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@PeakRarities said:
It's interesting to me how many collectors ive heard try to deny the existence of gradeflation, despite concrete evidence such as this.
It is a detriment to the collector when the TPG census for superb gem coins is erroneously diluted from submissions like this. Say what you will about CAC, but at least the CAC populations can give us some useful insight into how many coins actually exist at this grade level.
Obviously, there is a level of subjectivity because some coins that are graded MS67 might not be considered MS67 by all of us, but if you have 25 coins that are not considered MS-67 by ANY of us, how is one supposed to know the actual conditional rarity of a 1901 $10 in superb gem?
NGC alone has 858 1901's graded as 66 or 66+, and PCGS has 67.
CAC has approved just 16 coins in ms66. If I had to guess, they're probably all PCGS coins, or 14 or 15/16 are PCGS coins. There are 925 total coins at the 66 level, between both services.
16/925 = .017, so not even 2% of ms66s graded by the tpgs have gotten CAC approval. How is it possible that NGC's line for ms66 is that far removed from the CAC line? As we can see, not only is it possible, but it is factually demonstrated by this thread.
CAC has approved zero 1901 $10's in MS-67. NGC has graded 118 of them, and PCGS has graded just 5. 123 coins total, and not even one of them meets the standard for ms67 according to CAC. That tells us just how bad this problem has become, and it makes it difficult for dealers like me, who's business model revolves around quality.
Most collectors choose not to learn how to grade, they find it to be a better use of their time to utilize the opinions of TPGs, which makes a lot of sense in theory. Dealers who are trying to sell a nice 1903-s 66+ CAC lib for $10 for 5 figures are at a disadvantage, when collectors who haven't learned to grade see that they can buy an NGC 67 for 1/3 of the price. They think to themselves that PCGS and NGC can't possibly have standards that are that different, so the NGC 67 is likely an equivalent to the PCGS 66+CAC, when in reality they're just overpaying for a 64 in a 67 holder.
Dan, I agree with much of what you wrote. However, with respect to the MS67 1901 $10’s, I’m nowhere close to concluding that there are “25 coins that are not considered MS-67 by ANY of us.”
Also, you made reference to NGC's line for ms66 being far removed from the CAC line but neglected to acknowledge that it appears PCGS’s line is, too.
Mark, I know you try to resist making determinations from pictures, but of the 10 that I looked up I would not even say that one of them looks like a 66, let alone 67. I might be able to get to 65 on a couple of them but I buy many coins from photos and as a result am pretty confident in my grading skills using only pictures.
With respect to your last sentence, your point is well received, but theres a significant difference between 67 and 857. That is a 1,280% difference, so I stand by my comment that NGC's line is far removed from CAC's. Also as I mentioned, CAC has approved 16 coins at the ms66 level. We dont know for certain, but I am a betting man and I would bet that at least 12 of them are PCGS coins. 12/67 is roughly 18%, and even if that number was only 10, 10/67 is roughly 15%, which would be consistent with the CAC approval percentage for other issues that I have researched.
Now, for the sake of conversation lets say that 10 of the CAC 16 are PCGS coins (and as i've said, I wouldn't be surprised if it was more than that), then that would leave 6 as NGC coins. 6/857 comes out to a whopping seven tenths of a percent. Not even 1/100 coins, so does that explain my position better as to why I left PCGS out of the equation?
I've got a box of 20 MS67 dimes PCGS dimes that are all proofs. Mechanical error. They all have consecutive serial numbers because for bulk submissions they grade sort them and then number them. So this might be the NGC version of that where someone simply hit the wrong button in printing the labels. I would not YET read anything more than that into this.
okay, hit the wrong button when the labels made. Shouldn't that kind of error be caught by a final grader? You know, the one who inspects the slab one last time to catch errors like this before the slab is sent to the customer?
Did they catch my MS67 dimes? Mistakes happen. You've made a few that are legend in these parts of I don't make a mistake every week, then I'm really not even trying.
@Davidk7 said:
Have you been under a rock for the last 20 years? The 1901 $10's discussed in this thread are gradeflation at its finest. They're not even gem, let alone superb gem. Have you seen just how much less one TPG's coins sell for at auction compared to another's?
He’s not posting like he’s been under a rock. And with respect to the single group of MS67/67+ 1901 $10’s being discussed, I agree with him that it, alone, isn’t necessarily proof of gradeflation. It looks more like a one-off event.l It would be different if other submissions had resulted in conspicuous quantities of additional MS67’s.
I say all of this as a firm believer that noticeable and disturbing gradeflation has occurred. I base that on having seen countless coins upgrade over time, many by more than a point. Yes, some of them were originally graded conservatively. However, many others were not.
It wasn't just about the group of 25 being discussed, Mark. I already explained that its my comment that shows how the populations have exploded since 2017. There were 54 coins graded ms66 by NGC as of 11/17. As of today, there are around 850 coins graded at the 66 level. There were 7 coins graded at the 67 level in 2017, and now theres 118.
Though the OP group of coins is a blatant example if you ask me, my point was that the overall increase in population of coins in superb gem levels is between 15-20x what it was 7-8 years ago.
To you, is that, or is that not, an indication of severe gradeflation?
@Davidk7 said:
Have you been under a rock for the last 20 years? The 1901 $10's discussed in this thread are gradeflation at its finest. They're not even gem, let alone superb gem. Have you seen just how much less one TPG's coins sell for at auction compared to another's?
He’s not posting like he’s been under a rock. And with respect to the single group of MS67/67+ 1901 $10’s being discussed, I agree with him that it, alone, isn’t necessarily proof of gradeflation. It looks more like a one-off event. It would be different if other submissions had resulted in conspicuous quantities of additional MS67’s.
I say all of this as a firm believer that noticeable and disturbing gradeflation has occurred. I base that on having seen countless coins upgrade over time, many by more than a point. Yes, some of them were originally graded conservatively. However, many others were not.
Thank you. And to clarify, I am not arguing for or against the existence of gradeflation as a whole, only that this circumstance is not necessarily the evidence it seems to be. If anything, it is evidence of the potential for extreme variability within grading that extends down to specific submissions - which is its own problem and likely more harmful than “gradeflation”.
The grading service is only as good as their worst coin graded for a particular issue.
A long, long time ago, I spent years “cleaning up the streets” returning many, many coins to PCGS (including many 70’s) to fix and asking them for nothing in return. I walked from literally hundreds of thousands of dollars doing the “right thing” and not just sending the over graded crap coins to auction. In just one case alone, I passed on making an easy roughly $20,000 (I had the coin pre sold sight-unseen) by returning an overgraded coin I had just bought at Teletrade for a steal. It was downgraded instantly by the grading company with a “thanks” for (likely) saving them a ton of money on a future repurchase. If you doubt me, just ask Ian - he was the Teletrade President at the time. He still remembers “my mission” at the time (and probably the coin in question as well).
It soon became clear to me (across all grading services) that I was literally tossing buckets of water off the Titanic as it was sinking. I had to abandon “my mission”. I have no regrets about the easy tons of money I walked away from, but, wish this wasn’t such an obvious problem in the hobby.
Just my 2 cents.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
@Davidk7 said:
Have you been under a rock for the last 20 years? The 1901 $10's discussed in this thread are gradeflation at its finest. They're not even gem, let alone superb gem. Have you seen just how much less one TPG's coins sell for at auction compared to another's?
He’s not posting like he’s been under a rock. And with respect to the single group of MS67/67+ 1901 $10’s being discussed, I agree with him that it, alone, isn’t necessarily proof of gradeflation. It looks more like a one-off event. It would be different if other submissions had resulted in conspicuous quantities of additional MS67’s.
I say all of this as a firm believer that noticeable and disturbing gradeflation has occurred. I base that on having seen countless coins upgrade over time, many by more than a point. Yes, some of them were originally graded conservatively. However, many others were not.
Thank you. And to clarify, I am not arguing for or against the existence of gradeflation as a whole, only that this circumstance is not necessarily the evidence it seems to be. If anything, it is evidence of the potential for extreme variability within grading that extends down to specific submissions - which is its own problem and likely more harmful than “gradeflation”.
I’m sorry, but the issue of the 25 coins being discussed is far from “variability”. There weren’t 25 67s and 67+s added to the pop report by accident, and as we can see from the response of @MFeld’s contract, it’s not a “mechanical error” either.
I specialize in gold, and I’m now making a living by buying coins online from pictures. Not one of the coins in the group of 25 is an ms66 to me, let alone ms67 or 67+. Hell, I don’t even think more than 2-3 of them looked like they could pass for 65, so I conclude that the whole group is over graded by 2-3 points. The implication is much more sinister than the issue of gradeflation, to which I thought the explosion of the population in the past 7 years was a pretty damn concrete example.
Let’s say we abandon that argument and focus on the topic at hand. Do you truly believe that the group of 25 coins were awarded those grades honestly, without any type of influence or conspiracy between NGC and the submitter?
@PeakRarities said:
It's interesting to me how many collectors ive heard try to deny the existence of gradeflation, despite concrete evidence such as this.
It is a detriment to the collector when the TPG census for superb gem coins is erroneously diluted from submissions like this. Say what you will about CAC, but at least the CAC populations can give us some useful insight into how many coins actually exist at this grade level.
Obviously, there is a level of subjectivity because some coins that are graded MS67 might not be considered MS67 by all of us, but if you have 25 coins that are not considered MS-67 by ANY of us, how is one supposed to know the actual conditional rarity of a 1901 $10 in superb gem?
NGC alone has 858 1901's graded as 66 or 66+, and PCGS has 67.
CAC has approved just 16 coins in ms66. If I had to guess, they're probably all PCGS coins, or 14 or 15/16 are PCGS coins. There are 925 total coins at the 66 level, between both services.
16/925 = .017, so not even 2% of ms66s graded by the tpgs have gotten CAC approval. How is it possible that NGC's line for ms66 is that far removed from the CAC line? As we can see, not only is it possible, but it is factually demonstrated by this thread.
CAC has approved zero 1901 $10's in MS-67. NGC has graded 118 of them, and PCGS has graded just 5. 123 coins total, and not even one of them meets the standard for ms67 according to CAC. That tells us just how bad this problem has become, and it makes it difficult for dealers like me, who's business model revolves around quality.
Most collectors choose not to learn how to grade, they find it to be a better use of their time to utilize the opinions of TPGs, which makes a lot of sense in theory. Dealers who are trying to sell a nice 1903-s 66+ CAC lib for $10 for 5 figures are at a disadvantage, when collectors who haven't learned to grade see that they can buy an NGC 67 for 1/3 of the price. They think to themselves that PCGS and NGC can't possibly have standards that are that different, so the NGC 67 is likely an equivalent to the PCGS 66+CAC, when in reality they're just overpaying for a 64 in a 67 holder.
Dan, I agree with much of what you wrote. However, with respect to the MS67 1901 $10’s, I’m nowhere close to concluding that there are “25 coins that are not considered MS-67 by ANY of us.”
Also, you made reference to NGC's line for ms66 being far removed from the CAC line but neglected to acknowledge that it appears PCGS’s line is, too.
Mark, I know you try to resist making determinations from pictures, but of the 10 that I looked up I would not even say that one of them looks like a 66, let alone 67. I might be able to get to 65 on a couple of them but I buy many coins from photos and as a result am pretty confident in my grading skills using only pictures.
With respect to your last sentence, your point is well received, but theres a significant difference between 67 and 857. That is a 1,280% difference, so I stand by my comment that NGC's line is far removed from CAC's. Also as I mentioned, CAC has approved 16 coins at the ms66 level. We dont know for certain, but I am a betting man and I would bet that at least 12 of them are PCGS coins. 12/67 is roughly 18%, and even if that number was only 10, 10/67 is roughly 15%, which would be consistent with the CAC approval percentage for other issues that I have researched.
Now, for the sake of conversation lets say that 10 of the CAC 16 are PCGS coins (and as i've said, I wouldn't be surprised if it was more than that), then that would leave 6 as NGC coins. 6/857 comes out to a whopping seven tenths of a percent. Not even 1/100 coins, so does that explain my position better as to why I left PCGS out of the equation?
I've got a box of 20 MS67 dimes PCGS dimes that are all proofs. Mechanical error. They all have consecutive serial numbers because for bulk submissions they grade sort them and then number them. So this might be the NGC version of that where someone simply hit the wrong button in printing the labels. I would not YET read anything more than that into this.
okay, hit the wrong button when the labels made. Shouldn't that kind of error be caught by a final grader? You know, the one who inspects the slab one last time to catch errors like this before the slab is sent to the customer?
Did they catch my MS67 dimes? Mistakes happen. You've made a few that are legend in these parts
Having sat in the grading chair at NGC for 7 years and in buying chairs at shows for decades, here’s my personal explanation (or, if you prefer, excuse) regarding how such mistakes can happen…
When I’m examining coins I’m fixated on assessing their technical qualities and eye appeal. So much so, that once in a while, I don’t think to look at the date or mint mark, etc.
As an example, I remember one time when I was looking at a superb brilliant Proof Buffalo nickel and made what I thought to be a solid offer on it. There was one little problem, however - I was valuing it as a 1937 and it was a more valuable 1936, whose date I hadn’t noticed.😌 Fortunately, the seller knew me well, so he understood that I wasn’t trying to low-ball him and that I was just an idiot.😉
My point is, that sometimes even extremely important details can be missed if someone is on auto-pilot, especially if it’s been a long flight and/or if they’re in somewhat of a hurry. I don’t excuse it, though I understand it.
When I graded at NGC one of my responsibilities was quality control, for which I examined submissions after they’d been slabbed, before clearing them to be shipped. I checked each coin and grading label for grade, date, mint mark, designation, etc. and to be sure each holder was properly sealed. It was a time consuming, but extremely important job, in which I took great pride.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@Davidk7 said:
Have you been under a rock for the last 20 years? The 1901 $10's discussed in this thread are gradeflation at its finest. They're not even gem, let alone superb gem. Have you seen just how much less one TPG's coins sell for at auction compared to another's?
He’s not posting like he’s been under a rock. And with respect to the single group of MS67/67+ 1901 $10’s being discussed, I agree with him that it, alone, isn’t necessarily proof of gradeflation. It looks more like a one-off event. It would be different if other submissions had resulted in conspicuous quantities of additional MS67’s.
I say all of this as a firm believer that noticeable and disturbing gradeflation has occurred. I base that on having seen countless coins upgrade over time, many by more than a point. Yes, some of them were originally graded conservatively. However, many others were not.
Thank you. And to clarify, I am not arguing for or against the existence of gradeflation as a whole, only that this circumstance is not necessarily the evidence it seems to be. If anything, it is evidence of the potential for extreme variability within grading that extends down to specific submissions - which is its own problem and likely more harmful than “gradeflation”.
I’m sorry, but the issue of the 25 coins being discussed is far from “variability”. There weren’t 25 67s and 66+s added to the pop report by accident, and as we can see from the response of @MFeld’s contract, it’s not a “mechanical error” either.
I specialize in gold, and I’m now making a living by buying coins online from pictures. Not one of the coins in the group of 25 is an ms66 to me, let alone ms67 or 67+.
The graduation is a separate issue in itself, and if we abandon that argument and focus on the topic at hand. Do you truly believe that the group of 25 coins were awarded those grades honestly, without any type of influence or conspiracy between NGC and the submitter?
I have no idea, and it’s not my place to conjecture. I would not go so far as to make that claim without evidence.
@Davidk7 said:
Have you been under a rock for the last 20 years? The 1901 $10's discussed in this thread are gradeflation at its finest. They're not even gem, let alone superb gem. Have you seen just how much less one TPG's coins sell for at auction compared to another's?
He’s not posting like he’s been under a rock. And with respect to the single group of MS67/67+ 1901 $10’s being discussed, I agree with him that it, alone, isn’t necessarily proof of gradeflation. It looks more like a one-off event. It would be different if other submissions had resulted in conspicuous quantities of additional MS67’s.
I say all of this as a firm believer that noticeable and disturbing gradeflation has occurred. I base that on having seen countless coins upgrade over time, many by more than a point. Yes, some of them were originally graded conservatively. However, many others were not.
Thank you. And to clarify, I am not arguing for or against the existence of gradeflation as a whole, only that this circumstance is not necessarily the evidence it seems to be. If anything, it is evidence of the potential for extreme variability within grading that extends down to specific submissions - which is its own problem and likely more harmful than “gradeflation”.
At the end of the day, both of you would agree with the other's statements (of which, @You correctly delineates that there are two general points being discussed: 1. was the group of MS67 $10 Libs correctly graded [and if not, how could such a group come to be], and 2. is there any inflation of grades over the years), but due to limitations in this medium of communication, the messages have become a convoluted web of quotes and counter-quotes.
I believe we can all agree that the following is factually true: a singular group of 25 MS67 Libs being graded what we as the populace would deem "too loosely" would not in and of itself be evidence of grade inflation, but rather be evidence of [fill in your favorite theory: fat finger, nefarious practices, aliens, etc.] that ultimately resulted in a group of over-graded coins that is surprising, shocking, and disappointing as consumers of a product.
I believe we can also all agree that the next statement is also factually true: over the years, standards have changed and that has, in some enumerable cases, resulted in coins being lumped into categories (which is really all grades are at the end of the day) that some may argue would otherwise not have been lumped together X years ago, resulting in the devaluation of specific categories.
Then there can be secondary debates to be had over how to exactly assess the existence/pervasiveness of this phenomenon, which I will leave as an exercise for the reader.
@Davidk7 said:
Have you been under a rock for the last 20 years? The 1901 $10's discussed in this thread are gradeflation at its finest. They're not even gem, let alone superb gem. Have you seen just how much less one TPG's coins sell for at auction compared to another's?
He’s not posting like he’s been under a rock. And with respect to the single group of MS67/67+ 1901 $10’s being discussed, I agree with him that it, alone, isn’t necessarily proof of gradeflation. It looks more like a one-off event. It would be different if other submissions had resulted in conspicuous quantities of additional MS67’s.
I say all of this as a firm believer that noticeable and disturbing gradeflation has occurred. I base that on having seen countless coins upgrade over time, many by more than a point. Yes, some of them were originally graded conservatively. However, many others were not.
Thank you. And to clarify, I am not arguing for or against the existence of gradeflation as a whole, only that this circumstance is not necessarily the evidence it seems to be. If anything, it is evidence of the potential for extreme variability within grading that extends down to specific submissions - which is its own problem and likely more harmful than “gradeflation”.
I’m sorry, but the issue of the 25 coins being discussed is far from “variability”. There weren’t 25 67s and 66+s added to the pop report by accident, and as we can see from the response of @MFeld’s contract, it’s not a “mechanical error” either.
I specialize in gold, and I’m now making a living by buying coins online from pictures. Not one of the coins in the group of 25 is an ms66 to me, let alone ms67 or 67+.
The graduation is a separate issue in itself, and if we abandon that argument and focus on the topic at hand. Do you truly believe that the group of 25 coins were awarded those grades honestly, without any type of influence or conspiracy between NGC and the submitter?
I have no idea, and it’s not my place to conjecture. I would not go so far as to make that claim without evidence.
How much evidence would you need? We have records of 25 coins with consecutive cert numbers, and we have photos of the obverse and reverse of each coin.
We have a response from someone at NGC who made it abundantly clear that it wasn’t a mechanical error. I’m not sure how much more evidence is necessary, unless you want a written statement from an NGC employee that they were instructed to award 67s to 25 coins that were 2-3 points worse- which we will never obtain.
@Davidk7 said:
Have you been under a rock for the last 20 years? The 1901 $10's discussed in this thread are gradeflation at its finest. They're not even gem, let alone superb gem. Have you seen just how much less one TPG's coins sell for at auction compared to another's?
He’s not posting like he’s been under a rock. And with respect to the single group of MS67/67+ 1901 $10’s being discussed, I agree with him that it, alone, isn’t necessarily proof of gradeflation. It looks more like a one-off event. It would be different if other submissions had resulted in conspicuous quantities of additional MS67’s.
I say all of this as a firm believer that noticeable and disturbing gradeflation has occurred. I base that on having seen countless coins upgrade over time, many by more than a point. Yes, some of them were originally graded conservatively. However, many others were not.
Thank you. And to clarify, I am not arguing for or against the existence of gradeflation as a whole, only that this circumstance is not necessarily the evidence it seems to be. If anything, it is evidence of the potential for extreme variability within grading that extends down to specific submissions - which is its own problem and likely more harmful than “gradeflation”.
I’m sorry, but the issue of the 25 coins being discussed is far from “variability”. There weren’t 25 67s and 66+s added to the pop report by accident, and as we can see from the response of @MFeld’s contract, it’s not a “mechanical error” either.
I specialize in gold, and I’m now making a living by buying coins online from pictures. Not one of the coins in the group of 25 is an ms66 to me, let alone ms67 or 67+.
The graduation is a separate issue in itself, and if we abandon that argument and focus on the topic at hand. Do you truly believe that the group of 25 coins were awarded those grades honestly, without any type of influence or conspiracy between NGC and the submitter?
I have no idea, and it’s not my place to conjecture. I would not go so far as to make that claim without evidence.
How much evidence would you need? We have records of 25 coins with consecutive cert numbers, and we have photos of the obverse and reverse of each coin.
We have a response from someone at NGC who made it abundantly clear that it wasn’t a mechanical error. I’m not sure how much more evidence is necessary, unless you want a written statement from an NGC employee that they were instructed to award 67s to 25 coins that were 2-3 points worse- which we will never obtain.
That’s not evidence for a conspiracy. We know the coins appear to have been graded higher than they should have been. We do not know the circumstances - the who and the why. It’s not super relevant to conjecture about that since we cannot really know. Of course, you are free to draw your own conclusions, but I will not short of additional information.
@PeakRarities said:
So is it ok for us to jump to conclusions now? That response tells me everything I need to know….
It's not up to me to tell you whether it's OK to jump to conclusions. And I wont tell you to go jump in a lake or take a hike, either.
I told my contact that I thought no matter what I posted, there'd be some criticism of NGC.
Considering that the coins were graded years ago and NGC doesn't have them there to examine, I don't know what more they could do or say. I am under the impression that the grading didn't appear to be a mechanical error, as if that had been the case, I think I would have been told.
Which in itself is the problem. It’s NOT POSSIBLE for 25 random coins to all grade 67 or higher, and I can’t be convinced otherwise. I had heard the rumors about Salzburg’s moonlight operation but never seen it with my own eyes. Shame on NGC.
I wonder if there is a profitable arbitrage by buying these on the cheap (for a 67) and returning for a grade guarantee.
Even if sent in for review as Mark's contact suggests, there would still be a risk that NGC could at any point decide to call them 'mechanical errors' and avoid the grade guarantee. If they did agree to the guarantee, NGC would be in charge of determining the fair market value and payout amount. Not saying it wouldn't work out in one's favor, but there are also lots of ways it could go wrong.
@PeakRarities Dan....I would not have thought you were a conspiracy theorist. I have another thought.....perhaps this is a quality control test at NGC gone bad. The coins were purposely overgraded to test a QA inspector who was performing poorly on bulk submissions. These $10 Libs were treated like bulk ASE submissions.....do you really think anyone checks if a coin is 69 or 70 at any TPG when submitted in bulk.
Problem here was the bulk QA inspector failed....as expected, but the coins were sent back to the submitter before being pulled from the line. Just an alternate theory on how this could have happened.
As I have stated before...in my niche of Late Date Large Cents NGC is 1 to 2 points looser IMO.
@Davidk7 said:
Have you been under a rock for the last 20 years? The 1901 $10's discussed in this thread are gradeflation at its finest. They're not even gem, let alone superb gem. Have you seen just how much less one TPG's coins sell for at auction compared to another's?
He’s not posting like he’s been under a rock. And with respect to the single group of MS67/67+ 1901 $10’s being discussed, I agree with him that it, alone, isn’t necessarily proof of gradeflation. It looks more like a one-off event.l It would be different if other submissions had resulted in conspicuous quantities of additional MS67’s.
I say all of this as a firm believer that noticeable and disturbing gradeflation has occurred. I base that on having seen countless coins upgrade over time, many by more than a point. Yes, some of them were originally graded conservatively. However, many others were not.
It wasn't just about the group of 25 being discussed, Mark. I already explained that its my comment that shows how the populations have exploded since 2017. There were 54 coins graded ms66 by NGC as of 11/17. As of today, there are around 850 coins graded at the 66 level. There were 7 coins graded at the 67 level in 2017, and now theres 118.
Though the OP group of coins is a blatant example if you ask me, my point was that the overall increase in population of coins in superb gem levels is between 15-20x what it was 7-8 years ago.
To you, is that, or is that not, an indication of severe gradeflation?
Dan, I understood that. And my hunch is that you and @You might not be too far apart in your thinking, but have different focuses.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@PeakRarities said:
It's interesting to me how many collectors ive heard try to deny the existence of gradeflation, despite concrete evidence such as this.
It is a detriment to the collector when the TPG census for superb gem coins is erroneously diluted from submissions like this. Say what you will about CAC, but at least the CAC populations can give us some useful insight into how many coins actually exist at this grade level.
Obviously, there is a level of subjectivity because some coins that are graded MS67 might not be considered MS67 by all of us, but if you have 25 coins that are not considered MS-67 by ANY of us, how is one supposed to know the actual conditional rarity of a 1901 $10 in superb gem?
NGC alone has 858 1901's graded as 66 or 66+, and PCGS has 67.
CAC has approved just 16 coins in ms66. If I had to guess, they're probably all PCGS coins, or 14 or 15/16 are PCGS coins. There are 925 total coins at the 66 level, between both services.
16/925 = .017, so not even 2% of ms66s graded by the tpgs have gotten CAC approval. How is it possible that NGC's line for ms66 is that far removed from the CAC line? As we can see, not only is it possible, but it is factually demonstrated by this thread.
CAC has approved zero 1901 $10's in MS-67. NGC has graded 118 of them, and PCGS has graded just 5. 123 coins total, and not even one of them meets the standard for ms67 according to CAC. That tells us just how bad this problem has become, and it makes it difficult for dealers like me, who's business model revolves around quality.
Most collectors choose not to learn how to grade, they find it to be a better use of their time to utilize the opinions of TPGs, which makes a lot of sense in theory. Dealers who are trying to sell a nice 1903-s 66+ CAC lib for $10 for 5 figures are at a disadvantage, when collectors who haven't learned to grade see that they can buy an NGC 67 for 1/3 of the price. They think to themselves that PCGS and NGC can't possibly have standards that are that different, so the NGC 67 is likely an equivalent to the PCGS 66+CAC, when in reality they're just overpaying for a 64 in a 67 holder.
Dan, I agree with much of what you wrote. However, with respect to the MS67 1901 $10’s, I’m nowhere close to concluding that there are “25 coins that are not considered MS-67 by ANY of us.”
Also, you made reference to NGC's line for ms66 being far removed from the CAC line but neglected to acknowledge that it appears PCGS’s line is, too.
Mark, I know you try to resist making determinations from pictures, but of the 10 that I looked up I would not even say that one of them looks like a 66, let alone 67. I might be able to get to 65 on a couple of them but I buy many coins from photos and as a result am pretty confident in my grading skills using only pictures.
With respect to your last sentence, your point is well received, but theres a significant difference between 67 and 857. That is a 1,280% difference, so I stand by my comment that NGC's line is far removed from CAC's. Also as I mentioned, CAC has approved 16 coins at the ms66 level. We dont know for certain, but I am a betting man and I would bet that at least 12 of them are PCGS coins. 12/67 is roughly 18%, and even if that number was only 10, 10/67 is roughly 15%, which would be consistent with the CAC approval percentage for other issues that I have researched.
Now, for the sake of conversation lets say that 10 of the CAC 16 are PCGS coins (and as i've said, I wouldn't be surprised if it was more than that), then that would leave 6 as NGC coins. 6/857 comes out to a whopping seven tenths of a percent. Not even 1/100 coins, so does that explain my position better as to why I left PCGS out of the equation?
I've got a box of 20 MS67 dimes PCGS dimes that are all proofs. Mechanical error. They all have consecutive serial numbers because for bulk submissions they grade sort them and then number them. So this might be the NGC version of that where someone simply hit the wrong button in printing the labels. I would not YET read anything more than that into this.
okay, hit the wrong button when the labels made. Shouldn't that kind of error be caught by a final grader? You know, the one who inspects the slab one last time to catch errors like this before the slab is sent to the customer?
Did they catch my MS67 dimes? Mistakes happen. You've made a few that are legend in these parts
Having sat in the grading chair at NGC for 7 years and in buying chairs at shows for decades, here’s my personal explanation (or, if you prefer, excuse) regarding how such mistakes can happen…
When I’m examining coins I’m fixated on assessing their technical qualities and eye appeal. So much so, that once in a while, I don’t think to look at the date or mint mark, etc.
As an example, I remember one time when I was looking at a superb brilliant Proof Buffalo nickel and made what I thought to be a solid offer on it. There was one little problem, however - I was valuing it as a 1937 and it was a more valuable 1936, whose date I hadn’t noticed.😌 Fortunately, the seller knew me well, so he understood that I wasn’t trying to low-ball him and that I was just an idiot.😉
My point is, that sometimes even extremely important details can be missed if someone is on auto-pilot, especially if it’s been a long flight and/or if they’re in somewhat of a hurry. I don’t excuse it, though I understand it.
When I graded at NGC one of my responsibilities was quality control, for which I examined submissions after they’d been slabbed, before clearing them to be shipped. I checked each coin and grading label for grade, date, mint mark, designation, etc. and to be sure each holder was properly sealed. It was a time consuming, but extremely important job, in which I took great pride.
No excuse required. Human beings make mistakes. And even if there is a check, there is a non-zero probability that the check is also an error. If you want to do the math, if I'm right 99.9% of the time and you're checking me and you're right 99.9% of the time, that still, 0.0001% of the time the error goes through to the customer.
@Davidk7 said:
Have you been under a rock for the last 20 years? The 1901 $10's discussed in this thread are gradeflation at its finest. They're not even gem, let alone superb gem. Have you seen just how much less one TPG's coins sell for at auction compared to another's?
Do you have difficulties with reading comprehension?
Great rebuttal man, you sure got me there! I am so proud of you for standing up for what you believe in, even if you're completely wrong! It's okay, I want you to know I'm here for you no matter what
Collector of Capped Bust Halves, SLQ's, Commems, and random cool stuff! @davidv_numismatics on Instagram
@Davidk7 said:
Have you been under a rock for the last 20 years? The 1901 $10's discussed in this thread are gradeflation at its finest. They're not even gem, let alone superb gem. Have you seen just how much less one TPG's coins sell for at auction compared to another's?
Do you have difficulties with reading comprehension?
Great rebuttal man, you sure got me there! I am so proud of you for standing up for what you believe in, even if you're completely wrong! It's okay, I want you to know I'm here for you no matter what
Do you believe that only NGC graded coins have undergone gradeflation? If not, how would the relationship of PCGS prices to NGC prices prove anything about gradeflation?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@Davidk7 said:
Have you been under a rock for the last 20 years? The 1901 $10's discussed in this thread are gradeflation at its finest. They're not even gem, let alone superb gem. Have you seen just how much less one TPG's coins sell for at auction compared to another's?
Do you have difficulties with reading comprehension?
Great rebuttal man, you sure got me there! I am so proud of you for standing up for what you believe in, even if you're completely wrong! It's okay, I want you to know I'm here for you no matter what
Do you believe that only NGC graded coins have undergone gradeflation? If not, how would the relationship of PCGS prices to NGC prices prove anything about gradeflation?
Gonna be honest Mark, I don't actually care about the topic of gradeflation that much, so I'm not gonna elaborate on my opinions and thoughts. Both sides have gradeflation and I'll leave it at that
Collector of Capped Bust Halves, SLQ's, Commems, and random cool stuff! @davidv_numismatics on Instagram
@Davidk7 said:
Have you been under a rock for the last 20 years? The 1901 $10's discussed in this thread are gradeflation at its finest. They're not even gem, let alone superb gem. Have you seen just how much less one TPG's coins sell for at auction compared to another's?
Do you have difficulties with reading comprehension?
Great rebuttal man, you sure got me there! I am so proud of you for standing up for what you believe in, even if you're completely wrong! It's okay, I want you to know I'm here for you no matter what
Do you believe that only NGC graded coins have undergone gradeflation? If not, how would the relationship of PCGS prices to NGC prices prove anything about gradeflation?
Gonna be honest Mark, I don't actually care about the topic of gradeflation that much, so I'm not gonna elaborate on my opinions and thoughts. Both sides have gradeflation and I'll leave it at that
David, I appreciate your honesty.
But after asking if @You had been under a rock for the past 20:years you made a point of saying “The 1901 $10's discussed in this thread are gradeflation at its finest. They're not even gem, let alone superb gem. Have you seen just how much less one TPG's coins sell for at auction compared to another's?”.
Yet after doing so, you either can’t or don’t care to explain the relevance of the price differences between NGC and PCGS coins with regard to gradeflation. That’s disappointing.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@MFeld Mark, I could explain my thoughts but I don't really have the desire to. This discussion devolved into criticisms and discourse that are just not relevant to the subject at hand. I don't really think that my non-response is disappointing considering the discourse of others in this thread that agree with my general statement. I think my position was clear, however I did not go in-depth explaining my points, which is probably where I went wrong. While typing this and reflecting, it is clear that certain people are not far off in their ideas, so you are right on that point.
Long story short, I don't think it's that deep anyway, since we've moved past productive discourse. Coins are just coins. I would certainly be delighted to talk more about this with you, if that works for you. If you'd like, send me a message and we can certainly talk more about the subject, I don't mind sharing my number or email.
Collector of Capped Bust Halves, SLQ's, Commems, and random cool stuff! @davidv_numismatics on Instagram
@Davidk7 said: @MFeld Mark, I could explain my thoughts but I don't really have the desire to. This discussion devolved into criticisms and discourse that are just not relevant to the subject at hand. I don't really think that my non-response is disappointing considering the discourse of others in this thread that agree with my general statement. I think my position was clear, however I did not go in-depth explaining my points, which is probably where I went wrong. While typing this and reflecting, it is clear that certain people are not far off in their ideas, so you are right on that point.
Long story short, I don't think it's that deep anyway, since we've moved past productive discourse. Coins are just coins. I would certainly be delighted to talk more about this with you, if that works for you. If you'd like, send me a message and we can certainly talk more about the subject, I don't mind sharing my number or email.
Thank you. Sometimes, I, too, get to the point where I don’t feel like explaining or continuing. So I think I can understand how you feel.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@Davidk7 said: @MFeld Mark, I could explain my thoughts but I don't really have the desire to. This discussion devolved into criticisms and discourse that are just not relevant to the subject at hand.
Just to be clear, you came out swinging with an attack so I'm not sure you can speak about how the discussion "devolved into criticisms and discourse that are just not relevant to the subject at hand" as if you were not party to it, or somehow above it.
Comments
See, now this is a nice looking coin. I can’t quite get to 67 on it, but I see it as a 66 and it’s at least conceivable that it would end up in a 67 holder.
Unlike this example where I can’t even get past MS64, and some poor soul wasted $12,600 on a coin worth 10% of that.
https://coins.ha.com/itm/liberty-eagles/1901-10-ms67-ngc/a/1374-4589.s
When I have time I’ll check out some of the surrounding cert numbers and see if it’s the same type of deal as the OP group of coins.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
The only problem would be if they grade it as MS-67 AGAIN..................
Mike
My Indians
Danco Set
Certainly it wasn't a random group of coins, but can you honestly imagine anyone submitting the coin in the OP with a minimum grade of 67?
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Andy, over the years, I’ve seen a lot of coins submitted with minimum grades I couldn’t imagine. And I’ve even seen plenty of grades given that I couldn’t imagine. Have your experiences been different?😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Back when I graded at PCGS, graders had no idea if a minimum grade had been requested. When you were at NGC, was it the same way?
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
I really can’t remember for certain. But I wasn’t speaking from a grader’s point of view. I was talking about being around dealers and collectors and seeing what some of them were thinking of submitting and/or submitting.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I hardly ever see other dealers' submissions, so I have no idea about that. I just can't imagine anyone not being thrilled with a 66 on the coin in the OP, so a minimum grade of 67 is unimaginable for me. But to answer your other question, yes, I've seen plenty of unimaginable grades on slabs.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Edit - I was mistaken.
Coin Photographer.
Thanks for pursuing this, Mark. I think that pretty much clears it up for me.
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
Edited.
Alex, I have no reason, whatsoever, to doubt the person I contacted.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Mark - I was mistaken, apologies. If you could remove my quote from your post to prevent further confusion, I'd be much appreciative. NGC is in the 690 series currently, not the 583.
Coin Photographer.
Done.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Trust but verify.
okay, hit the wrong button when the labels made. Shouldn't that kind of error be caught by a final grader? You know, the one who inspects the slab one last time to catch errors like this before the slab is sent to the customer?
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Here's another PCGS MS-67 for your enjoyment - no noticeable flaws to see here....
On the web: http://www.earlyus.com
And yet all the pieces got by final inspection. Isn't final inspection by a top grader where the buck stops at a TPG? MS 67+!? That's a $60K+ coin and I counted half a dozen different 67+'s shown here.
This is a great example of the number system for grading mint state coins failing spectacularly.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
And despite the rant above, these grades were the apparent result of one particular group of coins graded at one particular point in time. That does not indicate any broader trend of gradeflation or even of grading standards at all beyond this particular group of coins. I can say with near positivity this coin would not grade 67 if currently submitted raw. If you exclude the whole population of 1901 and 1901-S $10s, PCGS has graded 22 MS67/67+ Liberty $10s over the whole series. NGC has graded 29. Not a huge difference.
Quick reminder that initial years of the TPGs were the years of MS68 and MS69 large cents and overgraded 1804 Dollars. You can find loose coins and tight coins from any era and any grading service, and trends for particular series can be tighter or looser or about the same relative to the way they trended 30 years ago.
Also, you’re treating CAC as an objective source of the “true” grade, when that is very much not the truth. It is one person’s opinion. That one person’s opinion is not necessarily better than the opinion of other graders at the other TPGs. It may be tighter, but that doesn’t make it more valid.
While I agree with most of what you wrote, none of it negates the reality of gradeflation. And that was the main point of the post by @PeakRarities.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I'm experiencing gradedeflation! With everyone trying to out do one another and trueviews that look like 70s TV!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0-oinyjsk0
When sending in coins today @you gotta ask yourself one question...Do I feel Lucky?!
Actually, I'm not treating CAC as an objective source of the "true grade". Perhaps you didn't read my post thoroughly, but I stated -
"Obviously, there is a level of subjectivity because some coins that are graded MS67 might not be considered MS67 by all of us, but if you have 25 coins that are not considered MS-67 by ANY of us, how is one supposed to know the actual conditional rarity of a 1901 $10 in superb gem? "
In essence, I was saying that while CAC is not the objective arbiter of what's a 67 and what's not, the fact that there are only 16 coins that earned CAC approval, despite a TPG population of almost 1000, certainly gives us some insight into the reality of gradeflation. It shouldn't be a difficult point to get a across, but the CAC population reflects an approval rating sub 2% for 1901 in MS66, and sub 1% in MS67. Regardless of whether or not you rely on CAC more than the other services, those approval ratings are pitiful in comparison to most other issues, and clearly, there's a reason for that.
And as @MFeld said above, none of what you wrote negates the veritable reality of gradeflation.
"If you exclude the whole population of 1901 and 1901-S $10s, PCGS has graded 22 MS67/67+ Liberty $10s over the whole series. NGC has graded 29. Not a huge difference."
Well isn't that convenient for your argument, that we're going to exclude the most common issues that are the subject of this discussion? Cue @winesteven and his "Other than the assassination, how was the play?" joke...
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
One BIG thing NOT mentioned regarding the very low percentage of CAC acceptance, ESPECIALLY with pre-1933 gold coins, is that many of those CAC "failures" is not due to a difference of opinion in grade, but that CAC is very strict on the use of "surface treatments" which are unacceptable to CAC, but apparently are acceptable to the other TPG's!
Regarding my joke, for those not familiar with it, having to do with something made more important than it should be: Here's the full version: A reporter at Ford's theater asked Mrs. Lincoln, "So, other than the assassination, how was the play?"
Steve
My collecting “Pride & Joy” is my PCGS Registry Dansco 7070 Set:
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/type-sets/design-type-sets/complete-dansco-7070-modified-type-set-1796-date/publishedset/213996
@PeakRarities wrote that this coin was concrete evidence of gradeflation. It is not.
Perhaps you didn’t read my post thoroughly, but this is precisely why your argument does not work. By stating that CAC approval of a small percentage of the population indicates gradeflation, you ARE saying that CAC is representative of the “original” or “older” standards. It is not. It is reflective of one grader’s standards, and that one grader is famously tight on gold.
Also, again, much of that population of TPG-graded 66s may be from this group of coins, so again, a lack of CAC approval is not necessarily evident of a trend. Not that it matters either way given what is stated above.
How do you figure that it's not? Based on my comment that I've quoted below, we see that there is a 2,775% increase in coins graded finer than MS-66 since 2017. We see that 25 of them in this thread are clearly overgraded, and they look like choice uncs in 67 holders. That's the definition of gradeflation, I don't understand why you're pushing back against something so black and white. Do you work for NGC?
Anyway, I'm not going to continue to go back and forth as I have to finish uploading inventory, so this is my last reply to you. I really don't understand your motives to try to deny what is so clearly an abuse of the grading system.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Because one group of coins is not necessarily indicative of a trend, as I’ve stated multiple times already. The 25 coins you’ve noted are from the same group. The fact that none of the other dates in the NGC population show any greater tendency for 67s relative to PCGS is indicative that all of the 1901 and 1901-S 67s may he from one submission. This isn’t difficult to understand.
I do not. Classic that because you’re losing an argument or can’t fathom that someone would find holes in your statements, I have to be working with biases. Sounds like you’re the biased one here.
Have you been under a rock for the last 20 years? The 1901 $10's discussed in this thread are gradeflation at its finest. They're not even gem, let alone superb gem. Have you seen just how much less one TPG's coins sell for at auction compared to another's?
Collector of Capped Bust Halves, SLQ's, Commems, and random cool stuff! @davidv_numismatics on Instagram
Do you have difficulties with reading comprehension?
He’s not posting like he’s been under a rock. And with respect to the single group of MS67/67+ 1901 $10’s being discussed, I agree with him that it, alone, isn’t necessarily proof of gradeflation. It looks more like a one-off event. It would be different if other submissions had resulted in conspicuous quantities of additional MS67’s.
I say all of this as a firm believer that noticeable and disturbing gradeflation has occurred. I base that on having seen countless coins upgrade over time, many by more than a point. Yes, some of them were originally graded conservatively. However, many others were not.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Did they catch my MS67 dimes? Mistakes happen. You've made a few that are legend in these parts of I don't make a mistake every week, then I'm really not even trying.
It wasn't just about the group of 25 being discussed, Mark. I already explained that its my comment that shows how the populations have exploded since 2017. There were 54 coins graded ms66 by NGC as of 11/17. As of today, there are around 850 coins graded at the 66 level. There were 7 coins graded at the 67 level in 2017, and now theres 118.
Though the OP group of coins is a blatant example if you ask me, my point was that the overall increase in population of coins in superb gem levels is between 15-20x what it was 7-8 years ago.
To you, is that, or is that not, an indication of severe gradeflation?
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Thank you. And to clarify, I am not arguing for or against the existence of gradeflation as a whole, only that this circumstance is not necessarily the evidence it seems to be. If anything, it is evidence of the potential for extreme variability within grading that extends down to specific submissions - which is its own problem and likely more harmful than “gradeflation”.
The grading service is only as good as their worst coin graded for a particular issue.
A long, long time ago, I spent years “cleaning up the streets” returning many, many coins to PCGS (including many 70’s) to fix and asking them for nothing in return. I walked from literally hundreds of thousands of dollars doing the “right thing” and not just sending the over graded crap coins to auction. In just one case alone, I passed on making an easy roughly $20,000 (I had the coin pre sold sight-unseen) by returning an overgraded coin I had just bought at Teletrade for a steal. It was downgraded instantly by the grading company with a “thanks” for (likely) saving them a ton of money on a future repurchase. If you doubt me, just ask Ian - he was the Teletrade President at the time. He still remembers “my mission” at the time (and probably the coin in question as well).
It soon became clear to me (across all grading services) that I was literally tossing buckets of water off the Titanic as it was sinking. I had to abandon “my mission”. I have no regrets about the easy tons of money I walked away from, but, wish this wasn’t such an obvious problem in the hobby.
Just my 2 cents.
Wondercoin
I’m sorry, but the issue of the 25 coins being discussed is far from “variability”. There weren’t 25 67s and 67+s added to the pop report by accident, and as we can see from the response of @MFeld’s contract, it’s not a “mechanical error” either.
I specialize in gold, and I’m now making a living by buying coins online from pictures. Not one of the coins in the group of 25 is an ms66 to me, let alone ms67 or 67+. Hell, I don’t even think more than 2-3 of them looked like they could pass for 65, so I conclude that the whole group is over graded by 2-3 points. The implication is much more sinister than the issue of gradeflation, to which I thought the explosion of the population in the past 7 years was a pretty damn concrete example.
Let’s say we abandon that argument and focus on the topic at hand. Do you truly believe that the group of 25 coins were awarded those grades honestly, without any type of influence or conspiracy between NGC and the submitter?
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Having sat in the grading chair at NGC for 7 years and in buying chairs at shows for decades, here’s my personal explanation (or, if you prefer, excuse) regarding how such mistakes can happen…
When I’m examining coins I’m fixated on assessing their technical qualities and eye appeal. So much so, that once in a while, I don’t think to look at the date or mint mark, etc.
As an example, I remember one time when I was looking at a superb brilliant Proof Buffalo nickel and made what I thought to be a solid offer on it. There was one little problem, however - I was valuing it as a 1937 and it was a more valuable 1936, whose date I hadn’t noticed.😌 Fortunately, the seller knew me well, so he understood that I wasn’t trying to low-ball him and that I was just an idiot.😉
My point is, that sometimes even extremely important details can be missed if someone is on auto-pilot, especially if it’s been a long flight and/or if they’re in somewhat of a hurry. I don’t excuse it, though I understand it.
When I graded at NGC one of my responsibilities was quality control, for which I examined submissions after they’d been slabbed, before clearing them to be shipped. I checked each coin and grading label for grade, date, mint mark, designation, etc. and to be sure each holder was properly sealed. It was a time consuming, but extremely important job, in which I took great pride.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I have no idea, and it’s not my place to conjecture. I would not go so far as to make that claim without evidence.
At the end of the day, both of you would agree with the other's statements (of which, @You correctly delineates that there are two general points being discussed: 1. was the group of MS67 $10 Libs correctly graded [and if not, how could such a group come to be], and 2. is there any inflation of grades over the years), but due to limitations in this medium of communication, the messages have become a convoluted web of quotes and counter-quotes.
I believe we can all agree that the following is factually true: a singular group of 25 MS67 Libs being graded what we as the populace would deem "too loosely" would not in and of itself be evidence of grade inflation, but rather be evidence of [fill in your favorite theory: fat finger, nefarious practices, aliens, etc.] that ultimately resulted in a group of over-graded coins that is surprising, shocking, and disappointing as consumers of a product.
I believe we can also all agree that the next statement is also factually true: over the years, standards have changed and that has, in some enumerable cases, resulted in coins being lumped into categories (which is really all grades are at the end of the day) that some may argue would otherwise not have been lumped together X years ago, resulting in the devaluation of specific categories.
Then there can be secondary debates to be had over how to exactly assess the existence/pervasiveness of this phenomenon, which I will leave as an exercise for the reader.
How much evidence would you need? We have records of 25 coins with consecutive cert numbers, and we have photos of the obverse and reverse of each coin.
We have a response from someone at NGC who made it abundantly clear that it wasn’t a mechanical error. I’m not sure how much more evidence is necessary, unless you want a written statement from an NGC employee that they were instructed to award 67s to 25 coins that were 2-3 points worse- which we will never obtain.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
That’s not evidence for a conspiracy. We know the coins appear to have been graded higher than they should have been. We do not know the circumstances - the who and the why. It’s not super relevant to conjecture about that since we cannot really know. Of course, you are free to draw your own conclusions, but I will not short of additional information.
Even if sent in for review as Mark's contact suggests, there would still be a risk that NGC could at any point decide to call them 'mechanical errors' and avoid the grade guarantee. If they did agree to the guarantee, NGC would be in charge of determining the fair market value and payout amount. Not saying it wouldn't work out in one's favor, but there are also lots of ways it could go wrong.
@PeakRarities Dan....I would not have thought you were a conspiracy theorist. I have another thought.....perhaps this is a quality control test at NGC gone bad. The coins were purposely overgraded to test a QA inspector who was performing poorly on bulk submissions. These $10 Libs were treated like bulk ASE submissions.....do you really think anyone checks if a coin is 69 or 70 at any TPG when submitted in bulk.
Problem here was the bulk QA inspector failed....as expected, but the coins were sent back to the submitter before being pulled from the line. Just an alternate theory on how this could have happened.
As I have stated before...in my niche of Late Date Large Cents NGC is 1 to 2 points looser IMO.
Dan, I understood that. And my hunch is that you and @You might not be too far apart in your thinking, but have different focuses.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
No excuse required. Human beings make mistakes. And even if there is a check, there is a non-zero probability that the check is also an error. If you want to do the math, if I'm right 99.9% of the time and you're checking me and you're right 99.9% of the time, that still, 0.0001% of the time the error goes through to the customer.
Great rebuttal man, you sure got me there! I am so proud of you for standing up for what you believe in, even if you're completely wrong! It's okay, I want you to know I'm here for you no matter what
Collector of Capped Bust Halves, SLQ's, Commems, and random cool stuff! @davidv_numismatics on Instagram
Do you believe that only NGC graded coins have undergone gradeflation? If not, how would the relationship of PCGS prices to NGC prices prove anything about gradeflation?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Gonna be honest Mark, I don't actually care about the topic of gradeflation that much, so I'm not gonna elaborate on my opinions and thoughts. Both sides have gradeflation and I'll leave it at that
Collector of Capped Bust Halves, SLQ's, Commems, and random cool stuff! @davidv_numismatics on Instagram
David, I appreciate your honesty.
But after asking if @You had been under a rock for the past 20:years you made a point of saying “The 1901 $10's discussed in this thread are gradeflation at its finest. They're not even gem, let alone superb gem. Have you seen just how much less one TPG's coins sell for at auction compared to another's?”.
Yet after doing so, you either can’t or don’t care to explain the relevance of the price differences between NGC and PCGS coins with regard to gradeflation. That’s disappointing.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@MFeld Mark, I could explain my thoughts but I don't really have the desire to. This discussion devolved into criticisms and discourse that are just not relevant to the subject at hand. I don't really think that my non-response is disappointing considering the discourse of others in this thread that agree with my general statement. I think my position was clear, however I did not go in-depth explaining my points, which is probably where I went wrong. While typing this and reflecting, it is clear that certain people are not far off in their ideas, so you are right on that point.
Long story short, I don't think it's that deep anyway, since we've moved past productive discourse. Coins are just coins. I would certainly be delighted to talk more about this with you, if that works for you. If you'd like, send me a message and we can certainly talk more about the subject, I don't mind sharing my number or email.
Collector of Capped Bust Halves, SLQ's, Commems, and random cool stuff! @davidv_numismatics on Instagram
Thank you. Sometimes, I, too, get to the point where I don’t feel like explaining or continuing. So I think I can understand how you feel.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Just to be clear, you came out swinging with an attack so I'm not sure you can speak about how the discussion "devolved into criticisms and discourse that are just not relevant to the subject at hand" as if you were not party to it, or somehow above it.