Except he didn’t, because the system has evolved a lot since then. He came up with some original concepts, that’s all.
You think so, NOT. Coin grading evolution is not like computer sciences where its evolution over the last 10-20 years is enormous. information has improved (AT vs NT, counterfeiting, etc) but strike, luster and surface preservation still rule.
@erwindoc said:
Will you treat the PVC coins to an acetone bath and resubmit or are they too far gone? I would image not or you probably would have soaked them prior.
I just got them back today and I can barely see a hint of residue- if they had been the classic green I wouldn’t have submitted them in the first place- but it’s an interesting few coins (18 and 18-S Mercs seemingly pretty high grade, and 25,27,34 and 34-S Peace $) so I decided to see this through to the end and sent them in to NGC for conservation. I have never dipped coins and these were my Dad’s coins he gifted me so I decided to see it through to the end. It’s been a fun project so far!
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).
I'd put $50 on the Captain versus any TPG grader today.
Remember - he created their system.
Except he didn’t, because the system has evolved a lot since then. He came up with some original concepts, that’s all.
And what have you done in the numismatic realm that comes close to 1/1000 the Captain has done................I am listening
I think calling things graded 40 years ago, when the standards used for grading were different, and some grades we use today weren't used then...thus causing graders to move up, or down, to another grade to accommodate, "gradeflation" is too simple and not very smart.
It would be different having a comparison between 2 current companies and the same coins, in the same rough time period. Could easily call one "gradeflation" if there were constant and consistently higher grades on the same coins.
Even a few years apart, same service, with newer ones being graded consistently higher, I could see "gradeflation" being used.
But, 4 decades and when there were missing grades? LOL...no.
Particularly if a majority of people with some expertise in those coins could look at them and disagree with the old grades...just don't see it as "gradeflation"
I'm more on board with the 34-D being a 66 than the 39-D being a 65. I'd have GTG'ed 64 on that one.
You also probably wouldn't have taken yellow pictures of the coins😐
FFL-This is a cool project and a fun post (aside from some hijinks). Hopefully you and @FlyingAl or @messydesk can link up to get some quality pictures done.
Without seeing the coins, can you honestly say that?
Yes he can. I can also. Just about every coin I bought back in the 1980's has gone up a grade. The last dollar I sold was in a PCGS doily slab graded MS-62. The dealer I sold it to and I agree it is going to get a gold bean. Where have you been the last forty years?
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.
You are correct. I'll list a few...
There were not enough true MS coins to go around in some series.
Coin grades had to increase to keep pace with the rising values.
YPGS B had to raise the coin's grade to get the coin out of TPGS A's slab and into theirs.
Pure greed.
The need for resubmissions to fund the TPGS overhead.
Grading coins quickly with naked eyes.
@Cougar1978 said:
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.
Please elaborate on what advancement of technology and methodology you are referring to. It reads like a smokescreen to me.
PS You seem to be a very knowledgeable poster; however, stating that the advancement of grades for the same coin is a myth is well ... I'd be breaking the forum rules to educate you in the way it should be done.
Perhaps you should read the introduction to Grading Coins by Photographs or track the grades of some famous coins over the decades. What is that XF+ 1870-S Half Dime graded today?
In fact, let's call gradeflation a myth and just agree that the grading "standards" have become loose over the decades. I remember when a grade they called "AU" was invented between XF and MS. > @You said:
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).
Them's fighting words. We all know who the Captain is and he does honk his horn quite a bit. However, IMO an unknown poster such as yourself has know way of knowing how the captain would match up with a young "full of themselves" thirty-something ex-PCGS or NGC "experienced" professional.
_"Besides all the new graders at PCGS _[NGC,ICG, and ANACS (?)] only know market grading, it's what they have been taught. They don't have the experience to know anything else.
@Cougar1978 said:
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.
Please elaborate on what advancement of technology and methodology you are referring to. It reads like a smokescreen to me.
PS You seem to be a very knowledgeable poster; however, stating that the advancement of grades for the same coin is a myth is well ... I'd be breaking the forum rules to educate you in the way it should be done.
Perhaps you should read the introduction to Grading Coins by Photographs or track the grades of some famous coins over the decades. What is that XF+ 1870-S Half Dime graded today?
In fact, let's call gradeflation a myth and just agree that the grading "standards" have become loose over the decades. I remember when a grade they called "AU" was invented between XF and MS. > @You said:
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).
Them's fighting words. We all know who the Captain is and he does honk his horn quite a bit. However, IMO an unknown poster such as yourself has know way of knowing how the captain would match up with a young "full of themselves" thirty-something ex-PCGS or NGC "experienced" professional.
Oh really lol what are you going to do assign me some homework? I don’t have to explain anything to you.
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).
I'd put $50 on the Captain versus any TPG grader today.
Remember - he created their system.
Actually, I think he claims to be the person who revised the "new" ANACS grading system. I wonder what his boss, Ed Fleishman (sp?), the Board of Governors, or the contributors to the ANA Grading Guide had to do with it.
@FlyingAl said:
I see "gradeflation" as more of a developing of standards. We understand them more, so they shift ever so slightly. With time, we'll see a slow to it.
I personally don't call it a "shift" when AU coins became MS just because surface abrasion is ignored. I was around when the dealers applied "cabinet friction" to coins that never saw a coin cabinet!
@Cougar1978 said:
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.
Please elaborate on what advancement of technology and methodology you are referring to. It reads like a smokescreen to me.
PS You seem to be a very knowledgeable poster; however, stating that the advancement of grades for the same coin is a myth is well ... I'd be breaking the forum rules to educate you in the way it should be done.
Perhaps you should read the introduction to Grading Coins by Photographs or track the grades of some famous coins over the decades. What is that XF+ 1870-S Half Dime graded today?
In fact, let's call gradeflation a myth and just agree that the grading "standards" have become loose over the decades. I remember when a grade they called "AU" was invented between XF and MS. > @You said:
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).
Them's fighting words. We all know who the Captain is and he does honk his horn quite a bit. However, IMO an unknown poster such as yourself has know way of knowing how the captain would match up with a young "full of themselves" thirty-something ex-PCGS or NGC "experienced" professional.
Oh really lol what are you going to do assign me some homework? I don’t have to explain anything to you.
Of course you don't. Any member here can post anything out of thin air to smoke up a discussion without having to defend it AS LONG AS THEY DON'T BREAK THE RULES. So, thanks for your contribution to the thread. However, I'm not sorry I asked what the heck you are talking about.
I'm more on board with the 34-D being a 66 than the 39-D being a 65. I'd have GTG'ed 64 on that one.
You also probably wouldn't have taken yellow pictures of the coins😐
FFL-This is a cool project and a fun post (aside from some hijinks). Hopefully you and @FlyingAl or @messydesk can link up to get some quality pictures done.
Send em my way FFL and I'll shoot em for free. It would be a cool project to do.
I'm more on board with the 34-D being a 66 than the 39-D being a 65. I'd have GTG'ed 64 on that one.
You also probably wouldn't have taken yellow pictures of the coins😐
FFL-This is a cool project and a fun post (aside from some hijinks). Hopefully you and @FlyingAl or @messydesk can link up to get some quality pictures done.
Send em my way FFL and I'll shoot em for free. It would be a cool project to do.
@Cougar1978 said:
The current grading an advancement vs 1984 especially for pricing parameters.
I agree. Grading is all about pricing now. That's why it must keep "evolving" - the term professionals use when they teach us about changing "standards."
Whoever graded those two walkers above as 60 must have been very new or very lazy. I was an avid collector back then and even I knew better. Certainly not examples of gradeflation.
@oldabeintx said:
Whoever graded those two walkers above as 60 must have been very new or very lazy. I was an avid collector back then and even I knew better. Certainly not examples of gradeflation.
Hence my original comment early in this thread that we have to give @Floridafacelifter 's dad credit for his good eye!!!!!
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
Do you have the 34-D handy? If so, could you please look at the right rim on both sides and tell me what you see?
Thank you.
TD
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
I think the biggest thing to consider when determining gradeflation or not is the difference in quality from one grade level to another. For example, if the MS60 ANACS graded walkers were accurately graded, that would make the steps up to 70 really tiny and hard to differentiate. At the same time, what grade would you assign to a coin with no wear but many blemishes? If you believe that the change in grading standards is driven by a desire to make each grade point carry equal weight, then I don't think it should be considered gradeflation.
Young Numismatist • My Toned Coins
Life is roadblocks. Don't let nothing stop you, 'cause we ain't stopping. - DJ Khaled
I love the data; very interesting. I love the story of you and your father collecting together; very touching.
Your collection is next level, and I could only dream of owning some of your coins (even one of them). It's excellent know that you do it for the love of numismatics. Hat's off to you and thanks for sharing.
I am a newer collector (started April 2020), and I primarily focus on U.S. Half Cents and Type Coins. Early copper is my favorite.
@NeophyteNumismatist said:
I love the data; very interesting. I love the story of you and your father collecting together; very touching.
Your collection is next level, and I could only dream of owning some of your coins (even one of them). It's excellent know that you do it for the love of numismatics. Hat's off to you and thanks for sharing.
Thank you- I do love it, from the Fugio right up through the proof Ike’s!
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).
...and you know this how, exactly?
I don't even know you but would still put my $100 against your $1 that he could do better than you, "You".
Look at them as a numismatist with a glass. Is there any indication of filing or any other evidence of a repair?
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
@CaptHenway said:
Look at them as a numismatist with a glass. Is there any indication of filing or any other evidence of a repair?
Perhaps you’re right- the right side is more rounded on the edge as though filed compared to the other side which is more squared off
I won’t say what that is without having it in hand. Might be damage, might be a repair, or maybe we goofed and it is a defective planchet of some sort. The rims along the left sides of both sides are much stronger.
It is possible that we thought that the rim was repaired, in which case we might have knocked it down to the lowest number within the word grade. No way is this a “straight grade” MS-60. That would be silly.
Download the True View and enlarge the rim by the Y of LIBERTY. See how the oddness seems to be centered on the rim nick by the Y. We used to see coins with rim nicks smoothed out by an expert coin doctor in Kentucky. Again, I am not saying that this is the case here since I have not seen the piece in hand for at least 40 years, but that might have been why we graded the coin this way.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
That coin doctor in Kentucky was very good. We once got in a High Relief that had been mounted as a brooch with the reverse forward. The pin was gone but it still had the soldered bases of the hinge and catch. We certified it as “Genuine, Mounted “
Six months later it came back with a letter stating that he had sent it to (the coin doctor in Kentucky) to get the mounts removed, and could he please get a new certificate that didn’t mention the mounts?
Even with the old certificate in hand to show where the mounts had been I could not find any trace of repair. Since we had photographic proof that the piece had been mounted we changed the certificate to read “Mount Removed,” but there is no doubt in my mind that that coin eventually was certified somewhere with no mention of the mounting.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
Do you have the 34-D handy? If so, could you please look at the right rim on both sides and tell me what you see?
Thank you.
TD
Not sure what I’m looking for but here they are
That's a completely normal and unaltered rim. The roundness where it meets the edge is how it should look and not a sign of manipulation. Filing would result in a jagged bevel. Repair work would have the wrong texture and shine. Undoubtedly, there is nothing wrong with the coin and ANACS was simply being silly or inaccurate (as they often enough were) - but of course, the aforementioned ANACS grader in this thread will claim that's impossible and try to invent alternate scenarios, because he's the best grader on the planet and invented grading and therefore they MUST have been correct. There is no reasonable scenario in which these two coins get an MS60. They are either gem or UNC Details, and they certainly don't look UNC Details.
Do you have the 34-D handy? If so, could you please look at the right rim on both sides and tell me what you see?
Thank you.
TD
Not sure what I’m looking for but here they are
That's a completely normal and unaltered rim. The roundness where it meets the edge is how it should look and not a sign of manipulation. Filing would result in a jagged bevel. Repair work would have the wrong texture and shine. Undoubtedly, there is nothing wrong with the coin and ANACS was simply being silly or inaccurate (as they often enough were) - but of course, the aforementioned ANACS grader in this thread will claim that's impossible and try to invent alternate scenarios, because he's the best grader on the planet and invented grading and therefore they MUST have been correct. There is no reasonable scenario in which these two coins get an MS60. They are either gem or UNC Details, and they certainly don't look UNC Details.
Without having seen it in hand, you are definitively saying this rim hasn't been touched?
You're entitled to your opinion about Capt whether anyone agrees or not but you have zero credibility. What a joke.
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).
...and you know this how, exactly?
I don't even know you but would still put my $100 against your $1 that he could do better than you, "You".
Simple observation. His comments are not accurate.
Do you have the 34-D handy? If so, could you please look at the right rim on both sides and tell me what you see?
Thank you.
TD
Not sure what I’m looking for but here they are
That's a completely normal and unaltered rim. The roundness where it meets the edge is how it should look and not a sign of manipulation. Filing would result in a jagged bevel. Repair work would have the wrong texture and shine. Undoubtedly, there is nothing wrong with the coin and ANACS was simply being silly or inaccurate (as they often enough were) - but of course, the aforementioned ANACS grader in this thread will claim that's impossible and try to invent alternate scenarios, because he's the best grader on the planet and invented grading and therefore they MUST have been correct. There is no reasonable scenario in which these two coins get an MS60. They are either gem or UNC Details, and they certainly don't look UNC Details.
Without having seen it in hand, you are definitively saying this rim hasn't been touched?
You're entitled to your opinion about Capt whether anyone agrees or not but you have zero credibility. What a joke.
Yes, it absolutely has not been altered from any of the pics that have been posted. This should be obvious to anyone with any legitimate ability. The fact that the Captain has in this very thread stated that there are rim repairs that he could not visually detect should indicate . . . something. Keep on attacking my "credibility" though, that'll get you real far in this conversation.
@oldabeintx said:
I haven’t a clue regarding the originality of the coins. However, I would ask whether it would have been worthwhile to alter these coins 40 years ago.
There was a lot of coin doctoring 40-50 years ago. Whizzing was quite common. Touching up of damage was not rare. Tooling to add details such as bands on a Merc nor detail to an ear on a Morgan was not uncommon. The increase in final dollar value was not as great as it would be today, but a dollar was worth a lot more that a modern dollar.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
@oldabeintx said:
I haven’t a clue regarding the originality of the coins. However, I would ask whether it would have been worthwhile to alter these coins 40 years ago.
There was a lot of coin doctoring 40-50 years ago. Whizzing was quite common. Touching up of damage was not rare. Tooling to add details such as bands on a Merc nor detail to an ear on a Morgan was not uncommon. The increase in final dollar value was not as great as it would be today, but a dollar was worth a lot more that a modern dollar.
Yes, I was a collector at the time. A real minefield. Professional authenticating and grading saved the day for me. Thank you.
I also recall gem-appearing raw Walker as being commonplace. Although these are a bit better dates I’m still somewhat dubious that a highly expert coin doctor would take the time to fool with these, perhaps even today, if it weren’t for the current high multiples for acknowledged gems. Will be interested to see how this plays out.
'If' the ANACs grader with coin in hand noticed the rim peculiarity and thought possibly repaired, although a very professional job, and had to decide between a gem grade and UNC Details, and to be conservative landed on MS60, I'd be happy with that grade and say 'good job' doing what I would expect them to do to protect the coin community and buyers. WLHs have some of the squarish rims that I've seen, almost proof like, and something happened to that coin. Was it pre/post mintage, not sure.
@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".
Perhaps. The opposite could also be true. Your comments about small sample size and possible sample bias (cherry picked coins by an astute collector) were spot on. Also, as I pointed out and confirmed with CapH, the scale has indeed changed. With grade intervals missing, the grades can effectively be equivalent. For instant, in the earliest days all MS60-MS62 coins were covered by MS60, MS63/64=63, 65-66=65, etc.
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).
That's blunt and rude.
It’s also inaccurate. Tom is a true expert, and one who doesn’t deserve the nonsense in the post you quoted.
@CaptHenway said:
That coin doctor in Kentucky was very good. We once got in a High Relief that had been mounted as a brooch with the reverse forward. The pin was gone but it still had the soldered bases of the hinge and catch. We certified it as “Genuine, Mounted “
Six months later it came back with a letter stating that he had sent it to (the coin doctor in Kentucky) to get the mounts removed, and could he please get a new certificate that didn’t mention the mounts?
Even with the old certificate in hand to show where the mounts had been I could not find any trace of repair. Since we had photographic proof that the piece had been mounted we changed the certificate to read “Mount Removed,” but there is no doubt in my mind that that coin eventually was certified somewhere with no mention of the mounting.
I always enjoy reading CaptHenway's posts!
Spring National Battlefield Coin Show is April 3-5, 2025 at the Eisenhower Hotel Ballroom, Gettysburg, PA. WWW.AmericasCoinShows.com
Comments
You think so, NOT. Coin grading evolution is not like computer sciences where its evolution over the last 10-20 years is enormous. information has improved (AT vs NT, counterfeiting, etc) but strike, luster and surface preservation still rule.
Will you treat the PVC coins to an acetone bath and resubmit or are they too far gone? I would image not or you probably would have soaked them prior.
I just got them back today and I can barely see a hint of residue- if they had been the classic green I wouldn’t have submitted them in the first place- but it’s an interesting few coins (18 and 18-S Mercs seemingly pretty high grade, and 25,27,34 and 34-S Peace $) so I decided to see this through to the end and sent them in to NGC for conservation. I have never dipped coins and these were my Dad’s coins he gifted me so I decided to see it through to the end. It’s been a fun project so far!
And what have you done in the numismatic realm that comes close to 1/1000 the Captain has done................I am listening
Here’s the 34-D that went from MS-60 to MS-66
And the 39-D that went from MS-60 to MS-65+
Thank you for the newer pics and posts.
I think calling things graded 40 years ago, when the standards used for grading were different, and some grades we use today weren't used then...thus causing graders to move up, or down, to another grade to accommodate, "gradeflation" is too simple and not very smart.
It would be different having a comparison between 2 current companies and the same coins, in the same rough time period. Could easily call one "gradeflation" if there were constant and consistently higher grades on the same coins.
Even a few years apart, same service, with newer ones being graded consistently higher, I could see "gradeflation" being used.
But, 4 decades and when there were missing grades? LOL...no.
Particularly if a majority of people with some expertise in those coins could look at them and disagree with the old grades...just don't see it as "gradeflation"
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
I see "gradeflation" as more of a developing of standards. We understand them more, so they shift ever so slightly. With time, we'll see a slow to it.
Coin Photographer.
>
I'm more on board with the 34-D being a 66 than the 39-D being a 65. I'd have GTG'ed 64 on that one.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
You also probably wouldn't have taken yellow pictures of the coins😐
FFL-This is a cool project and a fun post (aside from some hijinks). Hopefully you and @FlyingAl or @messydesk can link up to get some quality pictures done.
Yes he can. I can also. Just about every coin I bought back in the 1980's has gone up a grade. The last dollar I sold was in a PCGS doily slab graded MS-62. The dealer I sold it to and I agree it is going to get a gold bean. Where have you been the last forty years?
You are correct. I'll list a few...
There were not enough true MS coins to go around in some series.
Coin grades had to increase to keep pace with the rising values.
YPGS B had to raise the coin's grade to get the coin out of TPGS A's slab and into theirs.
Pure greed.
The need for resubmissions to fund the TPGS overhead.
Grading coins quickly with naked eyes.
Please elaborate on what advancement of technology and methodology you are referring to. It reads like a smokescreen to me.
PS You seem to be a very knowledgeable poster; however, stating that the advancement of grades for the same coin is a myth is well ... I'd be breaking the forum rules to educate you in the way it should be done.
Perhaps you should read the introduction to Grading Coins by Photographs or track the grades of some famous coins over the decades. What is that XF+ 1870-S Half Dime graded today?
In fact, let's call gradeflation a myth and just agree that the grading "standards" have become loose over the decades. I remember when a grade they called "AU" was invented between XF and MS. > @You said:
Them's fighting words. We all know who the Captain is and he does honk his horn quite a bit. However, IMO an unknown poster such as yourself has know way of knowing how the captain would match up with a young "full of themselves" thirty-something ex-PCGS or NGC "experienced" professional.
BEST ANSWER OF THE DAY!!!
_"Besides all the new graders at PCGS _[NGC,ICG, and ANACS (?)] only know market grading, it's what they have been taught. They don't have the experience to know anything else.
Oh really lol what are you going to do assign me some homework? I don’t have to explain anything to you.
Actually, I think he claims to be the person who revised the "new" ANACS grading system. I wonder what his boss, Ed Fleishman (sp?), the Board of Governors, or the contributors to the ANA Grading Guide had to do with it.
I personally don't call it a "shift" when AU coins became MS just because surface abrasion is ignored. I was around when the dealers applied "cabinet friction" to coins that never saw a coin cabinet!
The current grading an advancement vs 1984 especially for pricing parameters.
Of course you don't. Any member here can post anything out of thin air to smoke up a discussion without having to defend it AS LONG AS THEY DON'T BREAK THE RULES. So, thanks for your contribution to the thread. However, I'm not sorry I asked what the heck you are talking about.
Send em my way FFL and I'll shoot em for free. It would be a cool project to do.
Coin Photographer.
Sounds like a plan!
I agree. Grading is all about pricing now. That's why it must keep "evolving" - the term professionals use when they teach us about changing "standards."
Whoever graded those two walkers above as 60 must have been very new or very lazy. I was an avid collector back then and even I knew better. Certainly not examples of gradeflation.
Hence my original comment early in this thread that we have to give @Floridafacelifter 's dad credit for his good eye!!!!!
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
Let’s face it: even the Sheldon scale has morphed.
Edited to remove copyrighted photo of the other “Sheldon”
Do you have the 34-D handy? If so, could you please look at the right rim on both sides and tell me what you see?
Thank you.
TD
I’m in surgery all day but will check it this evening- now you’ve piqued my curiosity, but I’m not sure what I’m looking for…will report back!
I think the biggest thing to consider when determining gradeflation or not is the difference in quality from one grade level to another. For example, if the MS60 ANACS graded walkers were accurately graded, that would make the steps up to 70 really tiny and hard to differentiate. At the same time, what grade would you assign to a coin with no wear but many blemishes? If you believe that the change in grading standards is driven by a desire to make each grade point carry equal weight, then I don't think it should be considered gradeflation.
Young Numismatist • My Toned Coins
Life is roadblocks. Don't let nothing stop you, 'cause we ain't stopping. - DJ Khaled
Thanks for sharing that information. Valuable information.
I love the data; very interesting. I love the story of you and your father collecting together; very touching.
Your collection is next level, and I could only dream of owning some of your coins (even one of them). It's excellent know that you do it for the love of numismatics. Hat's off to you and thanks for sharing.
I am a newer collector (started April 2020), and I primarily focus on U.S. Half Cents and Type Coins. Early copper is my favorite.
Thank you- I do love it, from the Fugio right up through the proof Ike’s!
Not sure what I’m looking for but here they are
Oh yeah forgot to share these already encapsulated coins that were in the group
...and you know this how, exactly?
I don't even know you but would still put my $100 against your $1 that he could do better than you, "You".
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
Look at them as a numismatist with a glass. Is there any indication of filing or any other evidence of a repair?
Perhaps you’re right- the right side is more rounded on the edge as though filed compared to the other side which is more squared off
I won’t say what that is without having it in hand. Might be damage, might be a repair, or maybe we goofed and it is a defective planchet of some sort. The rims along the left sides of both sides are much stronger.
It is possible that we thought that the rim was repaired, in which case we might have knocked it down to the lowest number within the word grade. No way is this a “straight grade” MS-60. That would be silly.
Download the True View and enlarge the rim by the Y of LIBERTY. See how the oddness seems to be centered on the rim nick by the Y. We used to see coins with rim nicks smoothed out by an expert coin doctor in Kentucky. Again, I am not saying that this is the case here since I have not seen the piece in hand for at least 40 years, but that might have been why we graded the coin this way.
That coin doctor in Kentucky was very good. We once got in a High Relief that had been mounted as a brooch with the reverse forward. The pin was gone but it still had the soldered bases of the hinge and catch. We certified it as “Genuine, Mounted “
Six months later it came back with a letter stating that he had sent it to (the coin doctor in Kentucky) to get the mounts removed, and could he please get a new certificate that didn’t mention the mounts?
Even with the old certificate in hand to show where the mounts had been I could not find any trace of repair. Since we had photographic proof that the piece had been mounted we changed the certificate to read “Mount Removed,” but there is no doubt in my mind that that coin eventually was certified somewhere with no mention of the mounting.
That's a completely normal and unaltered rim. The roundness where it meets the edge is how it should look and not a sign of manipulation. Filing would result in a jagged bevel. Repair work would have the wrong texture and shine. Undoubtedly, there is nothing wrong with the coin and ANACS was simply being silly or inaccurate (as they often enough were) - but of course, the aforementioned ANACS grader in this thread will claim that's impossible and try to invent alternate scenarios, because he's the best grader on the planet and invented grading and therefore they MUST have been correct. There is no reasonable scenario in which these two coins get an MS60. They are either gem or UNC Details, and they certainly don't look UNC Details.
Without having seen it in hand, you are definitively saying this rim hasn't been touched?
You're entitled to your opinion about Capt whether anyone agrees or not but you have zero credibility. What a joke.
Simple observation. His comments are not accurate.
My> @lermish said:
Yes, it absolutely has not been altered from any of the pics that have been posted. This should be obvious to anyone with any legitimate ability. The fact that the Captain has in this very thread stated that there are rim repairs that he could not visually detect should indicate . . . something. Keep on attacking my "credibility" though, that'll get you real far in this conversation.
I haven’t a clue regarding the originality of the coins. However, I would ask whether it would have been worthwhile to alter these coins 40 years ago.
There was a lot of coin doctoring 40-50 years ago. Whizzing was quite common. Touching up of damage was not rare. Tooling to add details such as bands on a Merc nor detail to an ear on a Morgan was not uncommon. The increase in final dollar value was not as great as it would be today, but a dollar was worth a lot more that a modern dollar.
Yes, I was a collector at the time. A real minefield. Professional authenticating and grading saved the day for me. Thank you.
I also recall gem-appearing raw Walker as being commonplace. Although these are a bit better dates I’m still somewhat dubious that a highly expert coin doctor would take the time to fool with these, perhaps even today, if it weren’t for the current high multiples for acknowledged gems. Will be interested to see how this plays out.
'If' the ANACs grader with coin in hand noticed the rim peculiarity and thought possibly repaired, although a very professional job, and had to decide between a gem grade and UNC Details, and to be conservative landed on MS60, I'd be happy with that grade and say 'good job' doing what I would expect them to do to protect the coin community and buyers. WLHs have some of the squarish rims that I've seen, almost proof like, and something happened to that coin. Was it pre/post mintage, not sure.
Perhaps. The opposite could also be true. Your comments about small sample size and possible sample bias (cherry picked coins by an astute collector) were spot on. Also, as I pointed out and confirmed with CapH, the scale has indeed changed. With grade intervals missing, the grades can effectively be equivalent. For instant, in the earliest days all MS60-MS62 coins were covered by MS60, MS63/64=63, 65-66=65, etc.
It’s also inaccurate. Tom is a true expert, and one who doesn’t deserve the nonsense in the post you quoted.
Send them to CAC. 😊
After I get them all back- the PCGS, NGC-GSAs and conserved coins will all go to CAC.
And now a TV as well
I always enjoy reading CaptHenway's posts!
Nice, if you ever decide to part with it, please keep me in mind.