ANACS 1984 vs. PCGS 2024

Floridafacelifter

My father, who started me collecting as a child, recently gave me some coins he purchased in 1984 graded by ANACS. I submitted them raw to PCGS and obtained the following results- most graded higher today than 40 years ago, with the Walkers doing particularly well.

coinbuf

Gradeflation continues.

Catbert

Wasn't PCGS's standard back then limiting many series a maximum of 65? Perhaps ANACs would also grade these higher today if they had been submitted.

Edit to add: PCGS was founded in 1986 so the early years.

SurfinxHI

Pretty darn strong results. If they were in gen 1 holders (or, I should say, the genie lamp ones), I likely would have left them there....toss-up!

messydesk

Any comments on the coins that changed a lot? Are they headed to Beanland next?

Creg

Thanks.

pcgscacgold

Thanks for sharing that information. Really cool.

Floridafacelifter

@SurfinxHI said:
Pretty darn strong results. If they were in gen 1 holders (or, I should say, the genie lamp ones), I likely would have left them there....toss-up!

They were a mix of genie lamp and another version- I couldn’t resist sending them in

Floridafacelifter

@messydesk said:
Any comments on the coins that changed a lot? Are they headed to Beanland next?

I’ll likely continue the experiment and send them all to CAC once I receive them back from PCGS.

cameonut2011

Correct me if I am wrong, but MS61-62, 64, and 66 didn’t exist on the scale and 68+ were basically unheard of in 1984, no? Based on that, it looks more consistent than what you might think although admittedly the data does suggest grade inflation for WLH.

Floridafacelifter

These were also in the collection


And upgraded to

And he had some GSA dollars I sent to NGC

jesbroken

Great, I only had one upgrade I sent in with photo certificate, also a walker. Were there any swh walkers(soapbox some called them)? I always did well selling swh walkers, not so much with buffaloes. Congrats, especially with the Barber, a beauty for sure.
Jim

Floridafacelifter

@jesbroken said:
Great, I only had one upgrade I sent in with photo certificate, also a walker. Were there any swh walkers(soapbox some called them)? I always did well selling swh walkers, not so much with buffaloes. Congrats, especially with the Barber, a beauty for sure.
Jim

Only the two proof Barber 25c were encapsulated- the remainder in flips- did ANACS use flips with PVC? 6 out of 36 got flagged Details for PVC

Bochiman

@coinbuf said:
Gradeflation continues.

Without seeing the coins, can you honestly say that?

skamieniecki

I would hazard a guess that the next third, fourth, or fifth party grading platform is probably just over the horizon. If so, some collectors will resubmit because it is the next new thing in coin grading. I have some very nice walkers that I purchased that have a green bean on them. No dealer at any show, has looked at them and offered me a premium because of the CAC sticker, it usually only works the other way around. I buy coins based upon my opinion of the coin as some have expressed in various insights on the message boards. After all, for many of us, I still believe this is a hobby, a great one at that.

johnny9434

Time goes on, nice upgrades all 👍

CaptHenway

@cameonut2011 said:
Correct me if I am wrong, but MS61-62, 64, and 66 didn’t exist on the scale and 68+ were basically unheard of in 1984, no? Based on that, it looks more consistent than what you might think although admittedly the data does suggest grade inflation for WLH.

The book they gave me to use had 60, 65 and 70. I determined that those were not enough grades so I added 63 and 67 when we opened for business in 1979. Somewhere along the line we added 64 and 66. I am pretty sure that 61, 62, 68 and 69 were added after I left in 1984, but I must admit that there was one really nice Barber Dime I graded as an MS-69 just because it was that nice. Afterwards I decided that we would not be using that number after all.

coinbuf

@Bochiman said:

@coinbuf said:
Gradeflation continues.

Without seeing the coins, can you honestly say that?

I think it is fair to say that for many (perhaps even most) of the coins that have gone up two, three, or more grades few have seen them in hand, that however doesn't disprove that many collectors feel gradeflation is real. I know that it has been said that grading today is an evolution and that higher grades are to be expected. I suppose that if the same graders were doing the grading today that graded these at ANACS that could be true. But I think that the lack of standards today is what has lead us to this result.

RobertScotLover

Fascinating journey

Walkerguy21D

@coinbuf said:

@Bochiman said:

@coinbuf said:
Gradeflation continues.

Without seeing the coins, can you honestly say that?

I think it is fair to say that for many (perhaps even most) of the coins that have gone up two, three, or more grades few have seen them in hand, that however doesn't disprove that many collectors feel gradeflation is real. I know that it has been said that grading today is an evolution and that higher grades are to be expected. I suppose that if the same graders were doing the grading today that graded these at ANACS that could be true. But I think that the lack of standards today is what has lead us to this result.

Over the past 40+ years, with a different and old school grading outfit, sure.
But I’d venture that someone would have gotten similar results 10, 20, or even more years ago.

coinbuf

@Walkerguy21D said:

@coinbuf said:

@Bochiman said:

@coinbuf said:
Gradeflation continues.

Without seeing the coins, can you honestly say that?

I think it is fair to say that for many (perhaps even most) of the coins that have gone up two, three, or more grades few have seen them in hand, that however doesn't disprove that many collectors feel gradeflation is real. I know that it has been said that grading today is an evolution and that higher grades are to be expected. I suppose that if the same graders were doing the grading today that graded these at ANACS that could be true. But I think that the lack of standards today is what has lead us to this result.

Over the past 40+ years, with a different and old school grading outfit, sure.
But I’d venture that someone would have gotten similar results 10, 20, or even more years ago.

Agreed, gradeflation has been happening for quite some time. We have been seeing the members here point out the upgrades that were easily identifiable on coin facts (prior to it being scrubbed) for well over ten years.

Floridafacelifter

@coinbuf said:

@Walkerguy21D said:

@coinbuf said:

@Bochiman said:

@coinbuf said:
Gradeflation continues.

Without seeing the coins, can you honestly say that?

I think it is fair to say that for many (perhaps even most) of the coins that have gone up two, three, or more grades few have seen them in hand, that however doesn't disprove that many collectors feel gradeflation is real. I know that it has been said that grading today is an evolution and that higher grades are to be expected. I suppose that if the same graders were doing the grading today that graded these at ANACS that could be true. But I think that the lack of standards today is what has lead us to this result.

Over the past 40+ years, with a different and old school grading outfit, sure.
But I’d venture that someone would have gotten similar results 10, 20, or even more years ago.

Agreed, gradeflation has been happening for quite some time. We have been seeing the members here point out the upgrades that were easily identifiable on coin facts (prior to it being scrubbed) for well over ten years.

For sure- makes me hesitate to pay a premium for a pop 1/0 coin- I’ve had (2) pop 1/0 coins become pop 2/0 in the last couple of years- my Fugio and my Zerbe

MapsOnFire

@Bochiman said:

@coinbuf said:
Gradeflation continues.

Without seeing the coins, can you honestly say that?

Didn't need to see the coins. He was talking about the numbers.

coinbuf

@Floridafacelifter said:

@coinbuf said:

@Walkerguy21D said:

@coinbuf said:

@Bochiman said:

@coinbuf said:
Gradeflation continues.

Without seeing the coins, can you honestly say that?

I think it is fair to say that for many (perhaps even most) of the coins that have gone up two, three, or more grades few have seen them in hand, that however doesn't disprove that many collectors feel gradeflation is real. I know that it has been said that grading today is an evolution and that higher grades are to be expected. I suppose that if the same graders were doing the grading today that graded these at ANACS that could be true. But I think that the lack of standards today is what has lead us to this result.

Over the past 40+ years, with a different and old school grading outfit, sure.
But I’d venture that someone would have gotten similar results 10, 20, or even more years ago.

Agreed, gradeflation has been happening for quite some time. We have been seeing the members here point out the upgrades that were easily identifiable on coin facts (prior to it being scrubbed) for well over ten years.

For sure- makes me hesitate to pay a premium for a pop 1/0 coin- I’ve had (2) pop 1/0 coins become pop 2/0 in the last couple of years- my Fugio and my Zerbe

It's times like that when I'm glad I cannot play in your end of the pool. Honestly those are two that I would have thought would be somewhat insulated from that concern, I guess anything truly is possible.

winesteven

Unlike others attributing these results to gradeflation, I attribute it to your dad having a great eye!

How many of us today buy coins that we believe are undergraded, and lo and behold, they get upgraded?

I’ve had coins upgrade that had cert numbers that show they were initially graded well under a year before my upgrade. That’s not due to gradeflation, but just to resubmitting an undergraded coin!

My most recent success was having an 1874 Seated Dime (Arrows) graded MS66 with a CAC upgraded to MS66+. The CAC sticker will now automatically get reapplied. (That little plus more than doubles the PCGS Price Guide value). Let’s give some credit to the possibility that the coins he bought more than four decades ago were not selected by throwing darts!

Steve

You

@coinbuf said:
Gradeflation continues.

Orrrrr….. ANACS was not consistent and used untechnical standards. It’s very funny how some people worship the era in which the concept of grading as a whole was still in development and needed finetuning, as if that were an accurate or consistent era. It was not. There is a reason why things have changed.

OldeTowneCoinShoppe

This is not an apples-to-apples comparison. ANACS back then used split grades, and also avoided MS-61 and MS-62 (and more seldom used MS-64). So to say an ANACS-60 was overgraded as PCGS-62 isn't fair.

Maywood

@CaptHenway said: The book they gave me to use had 60, 65 and 70. I determined that those were not enough grades so I added 63 and 67 when we opened for business in 1979. Somewhere along the line we added 64 and 66. I am pretty sure that 61, 62, 68 and 69 were added after I left in 1984, but I must admit that there was one really nice Barber Dime I graded as an MS-69 just because it was that nice. Afterwards I decided that we would not be using that number after all.

Gradeflation is a word used to define a myth.

Put another way whose opinion should matter most, the grader/company with 5 years experience and still developing what "number" they assign to a grade --- or --- the company in business for 35+ years which has had perhaps 50 million attempts at grading coins. I think experience matters in all endeavors.

What might have been nice is to have had @CaptHenway assess these coins in some blind fashion. Considering that he might have actually graded them, it would have been nice to see what his opinion was today.

CaptHenway

@You said:

@coinbuf said:
Gradeflation continues.

Orrrrr….. ANACS was not consistent and used untechnical standards. It’s very funny how some people worship the era in which the concept of grading as a whole was still in development and needed finetuning, as if that were an accurate or consistent era. It was not. There is a reason why things have changed.

That is hilarious because at the time people were complaining that we were too technical and too consistent and would not play along with the great grade DEflation of the 1980’s.

Cougar1978

They are different points in time. In 1984 higher grades like MS67 - MS69 were almost unheard of. As far as the myth of grade inflation the present is simply a recalibration (advancement) of technology and methodology.

It’s like the silliness of the holder / sticker game - I have an ICG coin and a CACG coin same issue and grade. The ICG coin is a tad nicer.

fluffy155

Most of those seem reasonable, but how do you go from 60 to 66? That's not gradeflation, that's something else. It would be interesting to see the ANACS 60s in particular.

Cuprinkor

I like the idea that the 34-D WL 50c went from an ANACS MS60 to PCGS MS66!
Score!!!!

winesteven

@fluffy155 said:
Most of those seem reasonable, but how do you go from 60 to 66? That's not gradeflation, that's something else. It would be interesting to see the ANACS 60s in particular.

It's called an undergraded coin going to a "more appropriate grade".

You

@CaptHenway said:

@You said:

@coinbuf said:
Gradeflation continues.

Orrrrr….. ANACS was not consistent and used untechnical standards. It’s very funny how some people worship the era in which the concept of grading as a whole was still in development and needed finetuning, as if that were an accurate or consistent era. It was not. There is a reason why things have changed.

That is hilarious because at the time people were complaining that we were too technical and too consistent and would not play along with the great grade DEflation of the 1980’s.

Ok. Those peoples' standards weren't technical or consistent either.

coinbuf

@You said:

@coinbuf said:
Gradeflation continues.

Orrrrr….. ANACS was not consistent and used untechnical standards. It’s very funny how some people worship the era in which the concept of grading as a whole was still in development and needed finetuning, as if that were an accurate or consistent era. It was not. There is a reason why things have changed.

Clearly you don't know what your talking about as the Capt's reply shows.

@Maywood said:
@CaptHenway said: The book they gave me to use had 60, 65 and 70. I determined that those were not enough grades so I added 63 and 67 when we opened for business in 1979. Somewhere along the line we added 64 and 66. I am pretty sure that 61, 62, 68 and 69 were added after I left in 1984, but I must admit that there was one really nice Barber Dime I graded as an MS-69 just because it was that nice. Afterwards I decided that we would not be using that number after all.

Gradeflation is a word used to define a myth.

Put another way whose opinion should matter most, the grader/company with 5 years experience and still developing what "number" they assign to a grade --- or --- the company in business for 35+ years which has had perhaps 50 million attempts at grading coins. I think experience matters in all endeavors.

What might have been nice is to have had @CaptHenway assess these coins in some blind fashion. Considering that he might have actually graded them, it would have been nice to see what his opinion was today.

Poppycock, all of the graders (and in all likely hood anyone that was there) that were at PCGS in the past are now gone. In fact PCGS has one of the most jr grading staffs of any TPG, most haven't been grading for even five years. So all that 35 yrs of grading experience is gone and means nothing now; PCGS is basically in rebuilding mode.

CaptHenway

@winesteven said:

@fluffy155 said:
Most of those seem reasonable, but how do you go from 60 to 66? That's not gradeflation, that's something else. It would be interesting to see the ANACS 60s in particular.

It's called an undergraded coin going to a "more appropriate grade".

Or, just idly speculating, it is hypothetically possible that we saw something, such as perhaps a wheel rub, that they missed. There have been threads here about such things happening. I don't know. I'm only human.

coinbuf

@CaptHenway said:

@winesteven said:

@fluffy155 said:
Most of those seem reasonable, but how do you go from 60 to 66? That's not gradeflation, that's something else. It would be interesting to see the ANACS 60s in particular.

It's called an undergraded coin going to a "more appropriate grade".

Or, just idly speculating, it is hypothetically possible that we saw something, such as perhaps a wheel rub, that they missed. There have been threads here about such things happening. I don't know. I'm only human.

Not possible, apparently those of you grading back then knew nothing.

Maywood

@coinbuf said: all that 35 yrs of grading experience is gone

If you inferred that I was saying there were graders still at PCGS with 35 years grading experience there than you clearly misunderstood what I was saying. The "industry" of coin grading has matured by way of seeing and grading some 100 million coins. By virtue of that, I think it is safe to say that today there is a clearer idea of what coins grade than there was some 30-40 years ago, at a time when Professional third party grading was in its infancy.

Looked at from an individual perspective, I started to collect more than 60 years ago. I have a much clearer idea of how to grade today than I did 30-40 years ago.

psuman08

Very interesting, thanks for sharing.

relicsncoins

Awesome. Does the 1907 half have a photo certificate?

gumby1234

Many of the old ANACS were graded very strictly and often under graded. I like how not one downgraded except for the few that got tagged PVC. @Floridafacelifter I don't think ANACS used any flips containing PVC, but the coins could have been stored improperly. They weren't sealed in those photo certification flips so contaminants could get in. Just a staple and a sticker with a serial number for the coin. Very nice on submission for you

EDIT to add that I just looked at the pictures again and noticed something I have never seen before. The 1934 S Peace dollar has a piece of paper or cardboard inside the flip. I have never seen one before on ANACS photo certs. Maybe the PVC came from this addition?

Floridafacelifter

@gumby1234 said:
Many of the old ANACS were graded very strictly and often under graded. I like how not one downgraded except for the few that got tagged PVC. @Floridafacelifter I don't think ANACS used any flips containing PVC, but the coins could have been stored improperly. They weren't sealed in those photo certification flips so contaminants could get in. Just a staple and a sticker with a serial number for the coin. Very nice on submission for you

EDIT to add that I just looked at the pictures again and noticed something I have never seen before. The 1934 S Peace dollar has a piece of paper or cardboard inside the flip. I have never seen one before on ANACS photo certs. Maybe the PVC came from this addition?

Perhaps- that’s interesting thanks for pointing it out!

Floridafacelifter

@relicsncoins said:
Awesome. Does the 1907 half have a photo certificate?

Yes it does

SanctionII

Gradeflation, Deflation, Undergraded, Overgraded, Grading Standard and the evolution/devolution of same.

All terms which are themselves (when applied to determining the state of preservation of a coin) not capable of a precise definition,............................................ because coin grading has been and likely will always be a matter of subjective opinion.

Objectivity is present in math (1 + 2 = 3).

Subjectivity is present in coins (this coin is a Good 4; that coin is an MS63 in the opinion of a grader given today at 3:00 p.m.; and the same coins evaluated next year are not assure of being opined as a Good 4 and an MS63). This subjectivity will likely always be present. Even if objective technical grading was perfected and implemented, humans would likely argue that the technical grade given to a particular coin is not correct (because humans are,.......................... well,..................... human).

Keeping all of the above in mind, one can successfully (however you define success) play/work in the hobby by learning, living, playing, buying, selling, trading, etc. in the hobby. Those who approach the hobby with a mindset that works for them will inevitably:

                       Have fun with their coins.

So which of you forum members view your hobby participation as something that provides you with fun and enjoyment in your lives?

And which of you do not view your hobby participation as something that provides you with fun and enjoyment?

You

@coinbuf said:

@You said:

@coinbuf said:
Gradeflation continues.

Orrrrr….. ANACS was not consistent and used untechnical standards. It’s very funny how some people worship the era in which the concept of grading as a whole was still in development and needed finetuning, as if that were an accurate or consistent era. It was not. There is a reason why things have changed.

Clearly you don't know what your talking about as the Capt's reply shows.

Except that I do. I don’t really care for the Capt’s self-aggrandizement in every comment he makes - he clearly feels the need to insist on his own importance. He’s not a trustworthy source since he is clearly very biased about his own merit and capabilities. Great, he was involved in the inception of grading 50 years ago. That doesn’t mean he had a good system in place 50 years ago or that he can go head to head with the best graders today (he can’t).

winesteven

@SanctionII said:
Keeping all of the above in mind, one can successfully (however you define success) play/work in the hobby by learning, living, playing, buying, selling, trading, etc. in the hobby. Those who approach the hobby with a mindset that works for them will inevitably:

                       Have fun with their coins.

So which of you forum members view your hobby participation as something that provides you with fun and enjoyment in your lives?

And which of you do not view your hobby participation as something that provides you with fun and enjoyment?

I derive TREMENDOUS fun from this wonderful hobby!

Between “the hunt” of searching every evening for a small list of coins on my “Want List”, perusing two coin forums, utilizing certain strategies in partaking in auctions, reading Coin World and Numismatic News, and socializing with friends at dealers at the semi-annual FUN shows are the things that give me thrills!

Steve